NYT: "Selling A Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes"

[pnwmom]

Most nicotine poisoning cases involve small children. People who buy these products should make sure they're kept in childproof containers; and they should be aware that toxic doses of nicotine can even be absorbed through the skin.

Also, since there is no federal regulation or oversight, purchasing these products is a matter of "buyer beware."



http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Toddler-who-ingested-liquid-nicotine-passes-away-314683

A two-year-old girl who ingested liquid nicotine from an electronic cigarette passed away on Tuesday evening in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Karem, Army Radio reported.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the girl’s parents were questioned to determine whether the cigarette came from them or a different source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html?hp

These “e-liquids,” the key ingredients in e-cigarettes, are powerful neurotoxins. Tiny amounts, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal. A teaspoon of even highly diluted e-liquid can kill a small child.

SNIP

“It’s not a matter of if a child will be seriously poisoned or killed,” said Lee Cantrell, director of the San Diego division of the California Poison Control System and a professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s a matter of when.”

Reports of accidental poisonings, notably among children, are soaring. Since 2011, there appears to have been one death in the United States, a suicide by an adult who injected nicotine. But less serious cases have led to a surge in calls to poison control centers. Nationwide, the number of cases linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351 in 2013, a 300 percent increase from 2012, and the number is on pace to double this year, according to information from the National Poison Data System. Of the cases in 2013, 365 were referred to hospitals, triple the previous year’s number.

SNIP

Mr. Paul said he was worried that some manufacturers outside the United States — China is a major center of e-cigarette production — were not always delivering the concentrations and purity of nicotine they promise. Some retailers, Mr. Paul said, “are selling liquid and they don’t have a clue what is in it.”

[fredamae]

1. Cannabis is Prohibited

"For The Kids!" and "What kind of message does this send to our Youth?

But Liquid Nicotine? Perfectly Fine! It WILL Kill Children---Cannabis Doesn't--but Liquid Nicotine is Okay!

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Regulating liquids containing nicotine seems more reasonable then regulating steam making devices

that may or may not contain nicotine.

E-liquids shouldn't be sold to children, there is a HUGE adult market for these products and no need to market to children.

There are children poisoned every year from household items. There are plenty of established laws to hold adults responsible for not keeping their children from any toxic substances.

It's almost like your arguing to ban bleach or the sweet tasting car anti freeze which also kill children.

The purported unique threat to children is some of the worst "for the children" scare mongering.

I bought a quarter pound of pure caffeine from amazon. A table spoon of it could kill an adult. One should be careful with it.

Should amazon stop selling it, because it could kill someone.



Vaping is not smoking. There is a huge adult market for these cigarette alternatives.

[SirRevolutionary]

4. The whole "think of the children" argument is an appeal to fear

They can ban cigs and nicotine outright. Are kids still going to ingest other household poisons we all have in our homes at this very moment? Yup, pretty much. But...won't someone please think of the children!!

Just make sure whatever happens, don't let them read a heap of scientific studies that crap all over the anti-vaping nannies arguments.

http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/

If they do, they'll be calling for a ban on science next.

[Jesus Malverde]

6. It's actually a PANIC

I see how these devices are taking off in California with people using them with NO SHAME.

Losing the social bully pulpit that has been traditionally associated with tobacco is threatening to some.

[SirRevolutionary]

9. Couldn't have said it better myself

I keep posting the links to scientific studies on vapes but I don't see any of them responding or trying to debunk them. The studies are apparently too "sciencey" and it's easier to shake a fist in rage and make appeals to emotion rather than face the actual facts undermining their arguments.

[Jesus Malverde]

16. They are too busy trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The shapes are similar, but in the end they are dissimilar.

[pnwmom]

79. They're not "too sciency." They haven't been submitted for FDA approval. n/t

[SirRevolutionary]

89. Not having been submitted to the FDA specifically

means they're null and void then? I at least expected someone to try and debunk a good 20 studies or so.

I'm sure as the scientific studies come out, like this gigantic list is proving, the FDA will have their research and realize the technology causes no harm. What they'll do with the technology afterwards? That's another question. My bet would be allow Big Pharma and/or Big Tobacco to get their $$$ regardless of the research, science, and logic simply because they can likely get away with it and make sure some big industry is making a fortune vs concerning themselves with the potential reality of eradicating analog smoking of cigarettes.

Hopefully, more logical minds will prevail regardless of all the fear mongering and we'll save hundreds of thousands of lives each year.

[pnwmom]

90. The length of the list means nothing. The individual studies need to be evaluated

by the FDA.

But from having quickly scanned them, most of them purport to show that e-cigs are safer than tobacco -- not that they have no risks at all, or exactly what the risks might be.

I think everyone will concede that they're safer than smoking tobacco. That isn't the issue.

[SirRevolutionary]

98. The length of the list means there are more studies

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

vs a link to a single study. They don't "purport" to show ecigs are safer, these are links to actual scientific studies by organizations, universities, researchers, etc that show the technology is orders of magnitude less harmful. The results of most of these studies show that the "dangers" the technology poses is a non issue entirely.

In fact, one of them clearly states the 'type and quantity of chemicals released are by far less harmful to human health compared to regular tobacco cigarettes. In fact, it “could be more unhealthy to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping."'

For the people proclaiming "where's the science", there's a big list of scientific studies, actual research into ecig technology in many different contexts, by many different organizations, universities, and government agencies of different countries.

The common arguments against ecig technology is "they might have xyz and kill us all" (but they don't), and "they're a gateway to smoking cigarettes" which is just intellectually dishonest, they're a gateway away from smoking. And my personal favorite, "what about the kids" which is a logical fallacy any way you cut it. And of course we always have the ancient and debunked "trace amount of anti-freeze toxins found in a few of the cartridges in some ecigs that came from a factory in China that also makes...wait for it...antifreeze".

So far, the actual science shows that the big ecig scare is baseless.

[BlueCaliDem]

107. "So far, the actual science shows that the big ecig scare is baseless. "

Baseless but well-funded. Big Tobacco is none too happy that e-cigs are gaining immense popularity. Profits before people. They don't give two sh**s about our children or us. Our children are the buttons they push in order to continue to monopolize and profit off that monopolization. They know the American psyche and they've marketed long enough to the American people to know how to scare them back into submission.

I don't have any respect for the FDA. They've been well paid to "fail" on just about every new product they put their stamp on (think Phenphen - most likely killed by Big Pharma whose only mission is to protect their $1 billion dollar profit a year business (one of the major reason our bribed Congresscritters continuously vote against legalizing euthanasia).

As with many other Federal departments that are infested with bought and paid for Cons and DemoCon congresscritters, and as with any position of power in this corporate owned-and-operated country, it's all about the $$ and how much they can rake in. When it comes to e-cigs, Big Tobacco has collectively billions to lose. So of course there are going to be "news" (propaganda) articles cherry-picking scientific data to be able to proclaim that e-cigs are horrible! Dangerous! Untested! Will KILL! Think of the CHILDREN! AAAAAHHHHHH...!

[SirRevolutionary]

119. Won't someone please think of the children?!

The inevitable problem will be (currently is) the FDA deciding if ecig tech should be handed over to Big Pharma or Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco is buying up the technology in droves. No doubt, they'll do the same thing they did to cigarettes, make them many times more addictive, just like they're currently doing to the great bulk of food they own in the USA. They don't care what's in them as long as they make endless profits. Same with the frankenfood they own.

So the fact that Big Tobacco thinks "hey great, we're back and going to be making a ton of money on ecigs" doesn't invalidate the fact that ecigs are not harmful as of yet. They're three steps behind the bus on this one. Ecigs were big in Asia and Europe long before hitting US markets. But once they did start taking off and helping people quit analog cigarettes here, Big Tobacco caught on and started gobbling up some of the more established ecig companies.

No doubt the bought and paid-for CongressCritters are already drooling over the money they'll make passing nonsensical laws based on meaningless fears because it'll profit their Vampire Capitalist masters. They don't care about the actual science either, or public health, or the kids, they care about the Benjamins.

The commercial with Jenny McCarthy vaping was actually created by Big Tobacco companies who grabbed some of the most popular ecig companies. So there will no doubt be an uptick in ecig commercials on TV and since Big Tobacco wants in on the market, I'm sure the CongressCritters with kick backs on the mind will be happy to legislate anything at all if it benefits some corp's bottom line.

The cherry picking scientific articles vs sea of actual scientific evidence showing ecigs are harmless comes from many different parties, but here on DU I think it's mostly the people who to go back in time and make sure ecigs weren't invented ha!

[BlueCaliDem]

125. Excellent analysis, and I wholeheartedly concur!

You articulated exactly how I've been thinking ever since this trumped-up propaganda war against vaping. It's a-okay to show movies with people puffing away on cigarettes (think Constantine with Keanu Reeves - I was pretty much breathless for most of the movie the way he puffed as if he needed cigarettes to breathe, and I was a heavy smoker!), and although it's an R-Rated movie, Constantine is most popular with teenagers rather than middle-aged people. But not a single peep from the tobacco traffickers.

So they can cry me a river already. I like vaping and it's cut my smoking down to one pack every two weeks. I foresee a future with zero cigarettes as I turn to e-cigs that don't make me smell, doesn't keep me bad breath, and I can vape in the house while not getting "cravings" that could make me gain weight in a nanosecond as I kick the habit.

[SirRevolutionary]

127. Right on!

If you're anything like me and countless thousands of other vapers, you'll likely find you prefer vaping over smoking any day and soon you'll actively hate smoking. If you move from nicotine vapes to zero nicotine one day, I think you'll find it's astoundingly painless. Matter of fact, you probably wouldn't notice a zero nic vape if someone passed you one.

Don't let the disinformation, pseudo science, and "what about the kids" rhetoric sway you. I honestly, personally do not believe nicotine is any more addictive than caffeine and there are studies that back that up. If I wake up in the morning and have no coffee, I'm not going to flip out. My day goes by without really even noticing.

It's the freebasing of nicotine and plethora of other chemicals the Big Tobacco companies purposely threw into analog cigarettes that keep smokers hooked. There are studies in that list I posted that show scientifically a lot of the the addiction to smoking is purely the act of doing so. Vaping lets you feel like you're smoking, but you're not. You're making a healthy choice by quitting and moving to vapes.

Yes, people will say "just quit", but that's not a logical thing to say to people who are addicted to chemicals or the actual ritual of smoking. Nor do they care. And yes, the big corps will do anything they can to hook people on any product they can for their bottom line. They don't care about our health or our kids, they care about profits.

I think the whole anti-vaping war amounts to politicians saying "oh no, people are quitting cigs in droves and we'll lose all that revenue from over taxing sins", and the big corps trying to decide who's going to profit off the new technology and getting laws passed to bastardize the technology for their bottom lines. And then, as always, you have the Luddites and hall monitors who just won't be happy if you're doing things they don't like especially if they can explain it away with fear mongering and pseudo science.

[deek]

64. "Losing the social bully pulpit ... is threatening to some. "

this is KEY

[Autumn]

93. There is a huge cost difference between a bottle of juice and a carton of cigarettes

Huge difference .The tobacco companies can't be happy with that.

[Hekate]

100. Isn't the "juice" derived from tobacco plants in the first place? Where is it sourced?

Virginia, South Carolina? The American South? I'm just asking, because I don't know. Nicorette and so forth ultimately derive from Big Tobacco companies, afaik. With them it's all about their profits for an addictive substance, and doesn't matter what form it's in.

The "juice" contains is/ the pure addictive substance. Who's producing it? And what makes any informed consumer believe that if it is less expensive than cigarettes now, it will remain so in the future? Other suppliers of addictive substances start off cheap, too.

[Sissyk]

112. Yes, it comes from tobacco leaves.

Where the source is usually depends on the vendor you buy from. Some from China, some for UK, some from the US. The site I use states the majority comes from Virginia. It depends what website, or shop, you use.

The thing about this addictive substance is you are able to decrease, at your own speed, the amount of nicotine in your vape or ecig. You get to control it. Eventually, the goal is zero nicotine. To smokers, that's a win in more ways than one.

As far as expense. You knows? Everything tends to go up and up. Not just this. But compared to cigarettes, it's tons cheaper. Tons healthier. You smell tons better. And, the people I know? Their attitude is even better. lol!

As far as the "but the kids!!". It's up to me to keep it away from my kids, small nieces a and nephews, and kiddos of our friends. It's up to you, pmom, etc. to keep it away from your kids. I think as caring adults, we can manage that!

[Hekate]

124. Well...

I'm a non-smoker raised in a family of smokers. My worst animus is not toward smokers but toward Big Tobacco and their advertisers -- they can all fry in the pits of Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

My kids both started smoking when Joe Camel was introduced as an advertising gimmick -- they were the absolutely right age (12) and frame of mind (rebellious) for this to work. They snuck about and they lied like troopers. You think I had anything to say about this? My son was able to turn it on and off at will, especially after we sent him to a boarding school where it was forbidden, and he wanted to stay there. In his 20s he went on a health kick and gave up cigarettes and alcohol both, and now in his mid-30s is a vegan to boot. My daughter was and remains hooked. She is a caring and conscientious mother (as mine was), feeds her kids healthy food (as mine did), and doesn't smoke in the house or car (mine did both, but that was the 1950s until she quit for good in the 1970s). My daughter, when it comes to smoking, has apparently given up trying to quit and talks pretty much like some of the people here -- lots of rationalizations, just like any other addict. I'm not impressed, but after living with my own mom's struggles I also don't blame her for the addiction, just the rationalizations. Like I said, it's the Big Tobacco companies and their advertisers that I wish in the pits of Hell for the cancer of my mom, grandpa, and grandma, the emphysema of my brother, and all the other suffering they've caused for the sake of their profits.

[Sissyk]

126. I hear you, Hekate!

Everyone has different life storying on smoking, don't they? When I grew up, everybody did it.

In my young teens, I didn't know who the hell Joe Camel was. It was rebellion and peer pressure. All the kids were doing it. They were easy to get. I've wished 1/2 my life I never picked one up. Yes, they are addicting as hell and in those days, we smoked them no matter the brand.

I don't blame Big Tobacco for my addiction, for the family members I've had die from cancer, or for the ones that suffer today. I blame myself that it's took this long to shed my addiction.

That's one reason I'm such a supporter of ecigs right now. I've (and many many friends and family) have tried patches, gum, chantix and wasn't able to over come it. I'm currently well on my way. I'm also currently smoke free.

Best of luck to your daughter and your family!

[Hekate]

160. Best of luck to you

Thank you -- that's very kind of you to understand.

[Jesus Malverde]

118. Nor most importantly states and organizations that get money from the multi-state

Tobacco settlements.

There are many living off the backs of tobacco addicts. Losing those cash cows spending 3-4 dollars a day in sin taxes is scary to those who manage budgets.

The tobacco settlements promised millions to organizations that must be getting the sadz.

[Oilwellian]

49. Great Link

Thanks for sharing. From one of the links you posted:

Scientific Errors in the Tobacco Products Directive

A letter sent by scientists to the European Union



The scientific community is dedicated to support the need for appropriate interpretation of research on e-cigarettes and continues its efforts to provide proper and reliable information concerning e-cigarette regulation. Key scientists in the field of tobacco and e-cigarettes have sent today a letter to Health Commissioner Mr Tonio Borg and MEPs concerning the issue of e-cigarette regulation, explaining in detail and with references to medical studies the problems of the currently proposed regulation.

This is the letter sent to the EU.



Scientific Errors in the Tobacco Products Directive


January 16, 2014

Madam, Sir,

We are among the key scientists in the field of tobacco and e-cigarettes whose research is cited by the EU Commission and other public bodies interested in tobacco control. We understand that the Commission and MEPs want to ensure that safe e-cigarettes are easily available for smokers who wish to switch from smoking tobacco. With e-cigarettes proving popular among smokers, there is an ethical and intellectual imperative to build policy on robust science. The stakes are high, as smoking kills 700’000 citizens in the EU each year. Several of the recitals and provisions of Article 18 of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) which concerns e-cigarettes lack or misrepresent the scientific understanding of the relevant issues. This letter is to help you understand research findings relevant to the current TPD text.



1. TPD’s Comparison of Nicotine Delivery From Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes

TPD Text: Recital c) for Article 18 states: “Nicotine containing liquid should only be allowed under this Directive where the nicotine concentration does not exceed 20 mg/ml. This level of concentration is similar to the dose of nicotine derived from a standard cigarette during the same duration of smoking.”

The science: The Commission quotes (1) Dr. Farsalinos’ papers (2,3) to justify the claim that 20mg/ml of nicotine matches the average cigarette delivery. Dr. Farsalinos has written to the Commission stating that they have misinterpreted his findings. His research instead shows that 20 mg/ml e-liquid provides less than one-third of the nicotine delivered by one tobacco cigarette (4,5). 50mg/ml is needed to roughly match a tobacco cigarette. All other existing studies confirm this (6-9). Some 20 to 30% of electronic cigarette users use liquids above 20mg (8,10). Higher nicotine content liquids are typically used by the most dependent smokers, who have the highest risk of smoking-related damage, and who benefit most from switching to electronic cigarettes. Most such heavy smokers need more than 20mg/ml to switch from smoking to vaping.



2. TPD’s Assumption On Nicotine Toxicity

TPD Text: Recital f) for Article 18 states: “Given that nicotine is a toxic substance…” and the Commission asserts that “The acute lethal dose of nicotine in an adult human is estimated to be about 60 mg” (11)

The science: One justification for limiting nicotine levels in electronic cigarette liquid to 20mg/ml rests on the claim that higher levels would be dangerously toxic. This is not the case. People have ingested doses 60 times higher, which only led to nausea and vomiting and no other adverse effects (12). The Commission’s contention that 60mg of nicotine is lethal has been traced to dubious self-experiments recorded in a pharmacology textbook of 1856 and not confirmed since then (13). Poisoning from tobacco, nicotine replacement medications or e-cigarette liquid is extremely rare. There is also no risk of overdosing through inhalation. As with conventional cigarettes, excessive doses cause nausea, so inhalation is stopped long before any overdosing or health damage is possible (for review of evidence, see 14). Childproof caps are sufficient to protect young children from swallowing e-liquids.



3. TPD’s Requirement For Consistent Nicotine Delivery

TPD Text: Article 18.3 says “Member States shall ensure that:… (f) electronic cigarettes deliver the nicotine doses consistently”

The science: The medicinal concept of “consistent delivery” is inappropriate for a consumer product used freely. Users of cigarettes, oral tobacco and e-cigarettes spontaneously determine their nicotine intake according to individual and momentary needs. Individual users of the same electronic cigarette differ in their nicotine intake 20-fold (4,5,15). Quality control of individual brands is needed to ensure consistency of nicotine content but ensuring consistent delivery makes little sense. No such demands have been placed on tobacco cigarettes or oral tobacco.



4. TPD Requirement On Electronic Cigarette Manufacturers To Provide Data On Nicotine Absorption From Each Product

TPD Text: Article 18.2 Requires manufacturers to notify 6 months before a product or substantial modification goes to market data including: “information on nicotine dosing and uptake “

The science: Bearing in mind the above comments on nicotine delivery, such data would be of no benefit to consumers, but would incur large unnecessary costs. No such data are required from cigarette or tobacco manufacturers, and this, along with other regulatory proposals, would create a market advantage for the much more dangerous tobacco cigarettes.



5. TPD Requirement To Limit Electronic Cigarette Refill Containers To 10ml And Tanks To 2ml

TPD Text Article 18.3 a): “nicotine-containing liquid is only placed on the market in dedicated refill containers not exceeding a volume of 10 ml, disposable electronic cigarettes or in single use cartridges. The cartridges or tanks shall not exceed a volume of 2 ml”

The science: This proposal seems motivated by the concern about e-liquid toxicity, which is misinformed (see above). Electronic cigarettes have an excellent safety record so far (16). Worldwide, only one electronic cigarette fatality has been reported caused by a small child drinking electronic cigarette liquid from an open container (17). The Commission’s proposal for smaller containers would generate more handling of refill bottles, so a higher choking risk for small children and higher cost to users. The alternative approach used with much more toxic household chemicals such as bleach is for the risk to be mitigated by common sense, warning labels and child-proof containers.



6. TPD Assumption That Electronic Cigarettes Are A Gateway To Smoking

TPD Text Recital h) of Article 18 states: “Electronic cigarettes can develop into a gateway to nicotine addiction and ultimatelytraditional tobacco consumption, as they mimic and normalize the action of smoking. For this reason, it is appropriate to adopt a restrictive approach to advertising.”

The science The gateway effect is given as one of the reasons for a restrictive approach. Existing data however do not suggest that electronic cigarettes are having any such effects. Daily use of electronic cigarette in never-smokers was assessed in two studies, which found no such use (18, 19). In the US, 1-2% of children experimented with electronic cigarettes, with none shown to have become regular users (20). In contrast, 54% of 15-16 years old European adolescents have tried at least once smoking cigarettes, and 88% of adult smokers who smoke daily report that they started smoking by the age of 18 years (21, 22). The evidence is instead that the gateway effect is out of tobacco use, as at least some smokers of all ages reduce or end smoking when moving over to electronic cigarette. However, use in adolescent non-smokers should be closely monitored in the future.


In conclusion, electronic cigarettes have a very good safety profile and are likely to provide a gateway away from rather than into smoking. Users should be allowed to identify a product and dosage that suit them rather than have regulators decide what they must use. Evidence-based and proportionate regulation should be implemented, and all stakeholders should be involved in the regulatory process. If wisely regulated, electronic cigarettes have the potential to obsolete cigarettes and to save millions of lives worldwide. Excessive regulation, on the contrary, will contribute to maintain the existing levels of smoking-related disease, death and health care costs.

Signatories

Professor Jean-François Etter, PhD,

Associate Professor, Privat docent, Institut de santé globale, Faculté de médecine, Université de Genève, Switzerland.



Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, MD

Researcher, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece
Researcher, University Hospital Gathuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.



Professor Peter Hajek, PhD

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.



Dr. Jacques Le Houezec, PhD

Consultant in Public Health, Tobacco dependence, Rennes, France
& Honorary Lecturer, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham, UK.



Dr. Hayden McRobbie, MB ChB PhD

Reader in Public Health Interventions, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK.



Professor Chris Bullen, MBChB, PhD

Director, The National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.



Professor Lynn T. Kozlowski, PhD

Dean, School of Public Health and Health Professions, Professor of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, USA.



Dr. Mitchell Nides, PhD

President, Los Angeles Clinical Trials, Director, Picture Quitting, the Entertainment Industry's, Quit Smoking Program, Burbank, CA 91505, USA.



Professor Dimitris Kouretas, MD

Professor and Deputy Rector University of Thessaly, Greece.



Professor Riccardo Polosa, MD, PhD

Director of the Institute for Internal Medicine and Clinical Immunology, University of Catania, Italy.



Dr. Karl Fagerström, PhD

President, Fagerström Consulting AB, Vaxholm, Sweden.



Professor Martin Jarvis, Dsc

Emeritus Professsor of Health Psychology, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, UK.



Dr. Lynne E. Dawkins, PhD

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, School of Psychology, University of East London, Stratford, London, UK.



Dr. Pasquale Caponnetto, Assistant Professor, Researcher

Centro per la Prevenzione e Cura del Tabagismo, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Policlinico-V. Emanuele”, Università di Catania, Catania, Italy.



Professor Jonathan Foulds PhD

Professor of Public Health Sciences & Psychiatry, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Cancer Institute, Cancer Control Program, Hershey, PA 17033-0850, USA.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/149-tpd-errors

[SirRevolutionary]

104. Ya but it's too bad some people

don't want to review that science, they prefer to shake their fists in the air in rage because people are "vapping" (we call it vaping ha!).

They keep asking "where's the science?", there's a whole heap of actual scientific studies right there vs the typical talking points about vaping turning another generation of kids into mindless zombies when Big Tobacco buys up all the technology.

If their argument was truly about getting people to quit smoking, or public health and safety, or the safety of the kids, they might want to research how much of our food has been owned and manufactured by Big Tobacco since at least the 80's http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/big/owns.html Where's the outrage?

That list doesn't just include a handful of Slim Jims and Ritz crackers, some of those companies are the largest food providers in the USA. What percentage of kids will ever try a cigarette or vape vs how many eat food? Hmmmm...

It really is about losing the bully pulpit. Glad you're researching the studies, I'm still hoping the actual science and logical minds studying it prevail over the fear mongering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Since the industry wanted, and sued, to be treated as a tobacco product

They will be treated as such.

They want FDA involved, we want all the relevant science. They don't, I don't want them in public spaces like Restaurants.

Go complain to the industry, it sued to avoid all the cost of the studies, and I suspect the mere possibility that vaping is not healthy. After all tobacco held that close to the vest.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. That was in regard to e-cigs that were pre packaged with nicotine.

They aren't very popular.

What is popular are refillable vaporizers that may or not contain nicotine.

They are sometimes called e-hookas and most all people who vape regularly use them.

They may or may not contain nicotine. They might contain no active ingredient or it it could be cannabis not nicotine.

Those devices are more similar to a bong which is sold as a tobacco product but likely used in other ways.

Vaping isn't a single monolithic thing, its got nuance.

I'm not sure I'm against regulating them, I do think it's intellectually lazy to pretend vaping and cigarettes are the same.

The whole "for the children" angle is the worst kind of demagoguery. There is a huge adult market for these products and people switch from smoking tobacco to a harm reducing steam...why not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Again, go complain to the industry

Until real science is out, I want my locals to ban them in restaurants. The industry sued to prevent the expense of those studies. I, or anybody else watching a person vap, has no way of knowing if that is oh cinnamon flavored, or cinnamon flavored with nicotine. Nor do we know the real effects of second hand vaping. The industry also tried to prevent studies on second hand smoke. With good reason, from their POV it seems by the way.

The claims made also require science. They refuse, they will be treated like tobacco, it is that simple.

They don't want to be treated that way...the lab is over there.

[Jesus Malverde]

19. I don't think vaping in a restaurant is appropriate.

We can deal with that as adults, without pretending they are cigarettes.

I'm pretty sure if one brought a bottle of perfume and sprayed it all over in restaurant one would not be popular either.

I sense an irrational outrage and not common sense when looking at the vaping lifestyle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. And I sense the we don't like how we are getting treated

Mentality, still.

[Jesus Malverde]

21. I'm not sure I get that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Until we have studies

that demonstrate the safety of these devices, people will continue to treat them as cigarettes. The industry refuses, catch 22 I would say

[Jesus Malverde]

26. Actually there is no "industry"

The vaporizer market and e-liquid market is wide open, with lots of competition and no consolidation to consider it an "industry" as such.

Just gave me an idea for a lounge post...

[Oilwellian]

60. Have you seen these studies?

Second-Hand Vapor Safety: Is Vapor Safe for Others?

Peering Through the Mist: Systematic Review of what the Chemistry of Contaminants in Electronic Cigarettes Tells Us about Health Risks: A comprehensive review, by a Drexel University professor, based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor. He found “no apparent concern” for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor – even under “worst case” assumptions about exposure.
Contaminants In Ecig Eliquids And Workplace Health Risks (PDF): A study that reviewed available data on chemistry of e cig aerosols and e liquids. This study found no evidence supporting the claims of e cigarette vapor exposure negatively effecting the health, and safety, of the workplace. Published January 2014.
Cytotoxicity evaluation of ecig vapor extract: A 2013 study designed to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of 21 eliquids compared to the effects of cigarette smoke found ecig vapor is significantly less cytotoxic compared to tobacco.
Ecigarette toxicants study: Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes have been found to be 9 to 450 times less than tobacco cigarettes in 12 brands studied; leading the researchers to conclude “substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants”. The study was first published online on March 6, 2013.
Is Passive Vaping A Reality?: This study sought to identify and quantify the chemicals released on a closed environment from the use of e-cigarettes – the findings? There’s little to be concerned about with regard safety. This research again confirms the type and quantity of chemicals released are by far less harmful to human health compared to regular tobacco cigarettes. In fact, it “could be more unhealthy to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping.”
Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study: Data at Clarkson University’s Center for Air Resources and reviewed by an independent toxicologist indicates electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures to byproducts relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study has been peer reviewed and will appear the Journal of Inhalation Toxicology.
E-cigarettes: harmless inhaled or exhaled: Report from Health New Zealand stating e-cigarette vapors do not contain substances known to cause death in the quantities found.
Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (PDF): This research acknowledges that no drug is safe, but the emissions associated with the e-cigarette brand tested appear to be “several magnitudes safer” than tobacco smoke emissions.
E-cigarette Vapor And Cigarette Smoke Comparison: High nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in a series of experiments and the emissions compared to tobacco smoke. The study results indicate “no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed”.
Propylene Glycol Safe: Monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of propylene glycol, a common component of e liquids for periods of 12 to 18 months. Results of the research state “air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless”.

Links included here:

http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/

[pnwmom]

80. They should submit them to the FDA. But a cursory glance shows that your barrage of studies

don't all prove the safety of all these products -- most conclude that they are "less harmful" or that they don't contain substances "known to cause death."

No one here is arguing that these products are as bad as tobacco -- except for the e-pen manufacturers, I suppose, who won a court case demanding to be classified as a tobacco product.


But the OP is about child-proofing containers. Why aren't you responding to that? Do you have something against childproof containers in general, or just with liquid nicotine?

[Oilwellian]

106. I have no problem with child safety caps

I think they're a good idea.

If wisely regulated, electronic cigarettes have the potential to obsolete cigarettes and to save millions of lives worldwide. Excessive regulation, on the contrary, will contribute to maintain the existing levels of smoking-related disease, death and health care costs.

Signatories

Professor Jean-François Etter, PhD,

Associate Professor, Privat docent, Institut de santé globale, Faculté de médecine, Université de Genève, Switzerland.

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, MD

Researcher, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece
Researcher, University Hospital Gathuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

Professor Peter Hajek, PhD

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Dr. Jacques Le Houezec, PhD

Consultant in Public Health, Tobacco dependence, Rennes, France
& Honorary Lecturer, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham, UK.

Dr. Hayden McRobbie, MB ChB PhD

Reader in Public Health Interventions, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK.

Professor Chris Bullen, MBChB, PhD

Director, The National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Professor Lynn T. Kozlowski, PhD

Dean, School of Public Health and Health Professions, Professor of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, USA.

Dr. Mitchell Nides, PhD

President, Los Angeles Clinical Trials, Director, Picture Quitting, the Entertainment Industry's, Quit Smoking Program, Burbank, CA 91505, USA.

Professor Dimitris Kouretas, MD

Professor and Deputy Rector University of Thessaly, Greece.

Professor Riccardo Polosa, MD, PhD

Director of the Institute for Internal Medicine and Clinical Immunology, University of Catania, Italy.

Dr. Karl Fagerström, PhD

President, Fagerström Consulting AB, Vaxholm, Sweden.

Professor Martin Jarvis, Dsc

Emeritus Professsor of Health Psychology, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, UK.

Dr. Lynne E. Dawkins, PhD

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, School of Psychology, University of East London, Stratford, London, UK.

Dr. Pasquale Caponnetto, Assistant Professor, Researcher

Centro per la Prevenzione e Cura del Tabagismo, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Policlinico-V. Emanuele”, Università di Catania, Catania, Italy.

Professor Jonathan Foulds PhD

Professor of Public Health Sciences & Psychiatry, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Cancer Institute, Cancer Control Program, Hershey, PA 17033-0850, USA.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/149-tpd-errors

[pnwmom]

120. I'm glad we agree on that then. n/t

[misterhighwasted]

123. Thank You for posting this info Oilwellian. I shall bookmark

and happily spread the word.

[Oilwellian]

129. The credit goes to Sir Revolutionary above

I'm happy to pass it along as well.

Welcome to DU!

[hedgehog]

25. Your post raises two questions for me:

The more important question - does the person vaping absorb all the nicotine, or does some of it linger in the air for the rest of us to inhale?

Related question - what other chemicals are in the vapor that the rest of us might be absorbing? The "Cinnamon" flavor is most likely not cinnamon at all. I don't even want to guess what's in "Bubble gum" flavor! If I can smell it, that means that there are chemicals involved that I am inhaling whether I want to or not.


I think you are correct that some of the response is to a perceived vaping lifestyle rather than to vaping itself. Still, I don't want to be inhaling someone else's stimulants!

[Jesus Malverde]

32. I'm guessing it's about as dangerous as being around someone who takes a hit

off an asthma inhaler. The vapor disappears into the air, it's steam.

I did hear someone complain about a roommate who vaped a strawberry flavor at home which the roommate could smell.

Smokers when not smoking smell like cigarettes. I don't think the same is true for those vaping if that puts it into perspective.

Lets treat these as vaporizers and design appropriate norms and laws for them. I have zero problem with that. Just don't pretend they are cigarettes.

[hedgehog]

40. I don't think people using an inhaler are putting the medication back into the air -

at the very least, there is no visible vapor.

[Jesus Malverde]

41. If they exhale there is likely a trace.

Second-hand Aerosols in Acute Care

http://www.monaghanmed.com/sites/monaghanmed.com/files/76323-03_AEII_second_hand_aerosol_prod_lit.pdf.pdf

[LadyHawkAZ]

61. That's funny

because when the FDA insisted on phasing out the $7 CFC-propelled albuterol inhalers and making us all switch to the $50 HFA-propelled versions, the excuse we got was that the CFCs released by the inhalers was damaging the ozone layer. The implication being that it wasn't all staying in our lungs.

I'm sure it wasn't mainly about putting money in someone's pockets, just as I'm sure the sudden crusade against vaping isn't mainly about eliminating a product that's giving serious competition to a billion-dollar established industry...

[hedgehog]

63. Here's a little background on that -

The CFC inhalers were phased out when alternative delivery systems were available as required by the Montreal Protocol. Given that loss of ozone protection in the high atmosphere means more days with ozone down here where we're trying to breathe, getting rid of CFC is a win for those of us with asthma.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/exemptions/inhalers.html

I was also under the impression that once CFC was phased out for all other uses, the cost of manufacturing the small amount needed for inhalers would rise considerably, making the switch to HFA-propelled and other delivery systems a wash as far as cost is concerned.

[Oilwellian]

65. Funny, that

One of the things I learned today that is within the link I posted above, the ecigs the tobacco companies sell, do not contain enough nicotine that would ease a heavy smoker's craving, and therefore they wind up smoking cigarettes again. I know...I started on the small ecigs and they weren't very satisfying. I nearly went back to smoking until a family member turned me on to the stronger mg. liquids that are available. That did the trick and I haven't smoked since.

[Mariana]

159. I believe they are selling those crappy e-cigs

in every C-store in order to turn people off to e-cigs in general. A large portion of smokers who hear about e-cigs aren't going run home, fire up the computer and do a bunch of reading to find out what's available. No, they're going to go pick up a disposable at the corner 7/11 and try it out. And then when the shitty one they've bought doesn't do it for them, they'll just continue smoking. The tobacco companies win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Alas those asthma inhalers

Are regulated by FDA. The industry sued to prevent that regulation.

[Oilwellian]

70. Did you see the list of studies I posted

that you continually claim to not to exist? Ignoring my question won't make it go away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Continually claiming that they are regulated by FDA who they sued not to be regulated by

does not change that fact either.

As long as they refuse to come under the same regulatory standards as I don't know, Pfeitzer, they will continue to be treated as a tobacco product.

That includes the kind of university studies that have not been done.

By the way, that is not my bar, that is the health authorities bar, whether you are talking Germany, Spain or the US.

[Oilwellian]

86. Please show me where I claimed they were regulated by the FDA

I asked you if you have read the studies in the link I posted above. I noticed you never answered my question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. The health studies you posted are friendy to the industry

there are contradictory studies emerging from Germany that recommend that vappers face the same second hand regulation as smokers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-e-smokers-breathe-out-what-do-we-breathe-in/2013/05/28/ccce833e-c79c-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

So, I want those studies done under the standards of health authorities.

[LadyHawkAZ]

72. Sottera sued to have them classed with tobacco products, rather than as drug delivery devices

and won, and having read the decision (which it seems a lot of people have not) I agree with the court's findings. The courts did rule that they can still be regulated under the laws applying to tobacco. The government opted not to challenge the decision, and obviously the FDA isn't incredibly concerned about possible negative effects since after 3+ years since the Sottera decision, they are still only kinda sorta thinking about issuing regulations for e-cigs.

In those 3+ years, how many people have died from smoking vs. how many have died from e-cig use? I would suspect those comparative numbers are part of the reason the FDA is dragging its feet on regulating the devices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Alas due to that they will be banned

and are being banned, and are getting treated as tobacco. And all the rest changes none of that. As long as they are tobacco products (by regulation) I do not want them in public spaces, movie theaters, restaurants, planes. encloed spaces, ergo every where where you cannot smoke.

Beds come to mind.

[LadyHawkAZ]

85. I actually have no real issues with them

being regulated in indoor areas where smoking is also banned, although I think it's silly and unnecessary. I do understand that there are some people who are mentally incapable of separating vaping from smoking, and will equate the two no matter how many safety studies are done showing the clear differences between the two. They are going to get the, pardon the pun, vapors no matter what. And I'm already used to going outside.

I draw the line at outdoor and private residence/ vehicle ban though. Stupidity needs a few regulations, too.

[beevul]

164. No, thats false.

TWO companies were involved with the lawsuit you refer to.

TWO.



The "industry" contains THOUSANDS of companies.

So yeah, not as "black and white" as you'd have everyone believe.

[pnwmom]

76. Some of the nicotine settles in the environment in the propylene glycol residue.

And they don't know what else is in the vapor because it isn't regulated, and different manufacturers have different processes. UCal Riverside found nano particles of metal in some vape pens they tested.



From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center:

http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/center-news/2014/03/the-great-e-cig-debate.html

What about secondhand effects on kids?

A big unknown is what the effects are of inhaling propylene glycol vapor, which Bricker said does leave a residue on drapes and carpet and furniture.

“We don’t know the long-term effects of that getting in the blood system and how it might affect diseases and cancers,” he said. “We don’t know how it impacts children. Are e-cigarettes dangerous? We don’t know. They haven’t been around long enough and we haven’t studied the chemical compositions to see what impact they have on the body.”



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272425.php

Medical News Today reported on a 2012 study finding that, although e-cigarettes contribute less to indoor air pollution than traditional tobacco cigarettes, they are "not entirely emission-free," and so bystanders may be exposed to the released vapor.

SNIP

E-cigarettes and thirdhand smoke risk

Examining the issue of bystanders' exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RCPI) researchers studied the extent to which e-cigarettes left a nicotine residue on indoor surfaces. This residue is often referred to as "thirdhand smoke."

To do this, the scientists vaporized the contents of three different brands of e-cigarette inside a special chamber. The floors, walls, windows, wood and metal surfaces of the chamber were then individually checked for nicotine levels.

In three out of four of these experiments, the researchers found varying but significant increases in nicotine residue, with the floor and windows of the chamber retaining the highest amounts of residue.

[Oilwellian]

88. I don't vape with propylene glycol

and there is no nicotine in the eliquid I vape.

[pnwmom]

91. So you smoke pot then? Or just get off on vaping plain water into your lungs?

To each his own.

[Jesus Malverde]

99. Interesting your use of the phrase "get off" It's coming through whats bothering you about

the whole vaping lifestyle. People are having fun, doing something different and unashamedly so.

[Oilwellian]

109. Bingo

It's hard to understand why they're upset over our efforts to find a healthier alternative to smoking. It just boggles the mind.

[pnwmom]

113. What boggles my mind is anyone who wouldn't support childproof containers for nicotine. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

150. Object? This would be my answer to this "concern". I use quotes because at anything near

user volumes, I suspect the worst that would happen is vomiting but some folks dilute from pretty strong stuff so better safe than sorry until you are mixed down to vaping concentrations.

[Mariana]

128. You're right on.

People are supposed to be miserable when they quit smoking. It really does make some people seethe with rage to know that many people are not only quitting smoking easily, but they're enjoying vaping more than they ever liked smoking.

[Oilwellian]

108. One could do both, I suppose

I vape a coffee flavored liquid.

You seem angry. Why are you upset that I'm an official ex-smoker thanks to vaping? Don't they inhale a mist in respiratory therapy? Can't be that bad for you. In fact, I suspect the mist helped to clear my lungs. Why the frown face?

[beevul]

155. Right...thats explains why they put PG in hospital air systems. N/T

[SirRevolutionary]

111. Here you go

Read up on the "Second-Hand Vapor Safety: Is Vapor Safe for Others?" section and you'll find a bunch of links to actual studies addressing your concerns.

http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/

[pnwmom]

75. The FDA and the manufacturers treat e-cigs and hoohah pens, etc. as the same.

They use the same technology, even though one variation is disposable and the rest aren't.

Both kinds usually are prepared with nicotine. It is has been a very successful marketing strategy to convince teens that hookahs are safer than e-cigs, even though hookah juices usually contain nicotine.

[beevul]

132. By whom, and where? Cite it.

" It is has been a very successful marketing strategy to convince teens that hookahs are safer than e-cigs, even though hookah juices usually contain nicotine."

By whom, and where? Cite it. Something FACTUAL that is, rather than someones opinion.

[pnwmom]

142. For example, a quote from an online e-cig marketer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry691%23%2Fe-cig

Marketers of e-hookahs and hookah pens say they are not trying to reach young people. But they do say that they want to reach an audience that wants no part of e-cigarettes and that their customers prefer the association with traditional hookahs, or water pipes.

“The technology and hardware is the same,” said Adam Querbach, head of sales and marketing for Romman Inc. of Austin, Tex., which operates several websites that sell hookahs as well as e-cigarettes and e-hookahs. “A lot of the difference is branding.”

SNIP

Indeed, public health officials warn that they may be misjudging the use of such products — whatever they are called — partly because of semantics. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 10 percent of high school students nationwide said that they had tried e-cigarettes in 2012, double the year before. But the C.D.C. conceded it might have asked the wrong question: Many young people say they have not and will not use an e-cigarette but do say they have tried hookah pens, e-hookahs or vaping pens.

The C.D.C. is sending a tobacco-use survey to 20,000 students nationwide that asks about e-cigarette experimentation but does not identify the devices by other names. The state of California, through a nonprofit partner called WestEd, is asking virtually the same question of 400,000 students.

Brian King, senior adviser to the Office on Smoking and Health at the C.D.C., said the agency was aware of the language problem. “The use of hookah pens could lead us to underestimate overall use of nicotine-delivery devices,” he said.

[beevul]

143. Try something more honest.

Try something more honest.

You said :

"It is has been a very successful marketing strategy to convince teens that hookahs are safer than e-cigs, even though hookah juices usually contain nicotine."

That's what you said.

You assert intent to market to teens.

Your cite shows no proof of any kind.

How about you admit you made it up and/or read things into that which you cited, which it does not say.

Things like this, is why nobody wants to be in agreement with you on this topic.

[pnwmom]

145. You're the one being dishonest. If you read the linked article,

you'd see that it starts out talking about a 17 year old. And that all the references to "young people" throughout clearly include high school students. Including the one I quoted in the previous post.

And you also missed this, from the same NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry691%23%2Fe-cig

Public health authorities worry that people are being drawn to products that intentionally avoid the term “e-cigarette.” Of particular concern is use among teenagers, many of whom appear to view e-cigarettes and e-hookahs as entirely different products when, for all practical purposes, they are often indistinguishable.

Indeed, public health officials warn that they may be misjudging the use of such products — whatever they are called — partly because of semantics. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 10 percent of high school students nationwide said that they had tried e-cigarettes in 2012, double the year before. But the C.D.C. conceded it might have asked the wrong question: Many young people say they have not and will not use an e-cigarette but do say they have tried hookah pens, e-hookahs or vaping pens.

[beevul]

149. Not a bit of it. projection isn't going to help you here.

"It is has been a very successful marketing strategy to convince teens that hookahs are safer than e-cigs, even though hookah juices usually contain nicotine."

That's what you said.

You assert intent to market to teens.

Your cite shows no proof of any kind, of the intent you assigned.


Please, quote and underline the part of the article that backs up the intent YOU assigned to the marketers, to "convince teens".

Go ahead, I'll wait right here.

And if you can't, go ahead and retract that statement, since you can't prove it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. What on earth

does one buy pure caffeine for?

TBH, yeah, I do think Amazon should probably stop selling it, at least to individuals who aren't manufacturers of some mass market product that has caffeine as an added ingredient.

[Jesus Malverde]

36. You take a milligram scale measure out a 100 milligrams and drink it with water.

It's like drinking a "dangerous" coke or coffee. I like it late at night when I'm going out to play, most people who buy it are gym rats.



This was the brand I bought "hard rhino". BTW a pound of caffeine at 100mg a dose lasts forever!



1.1 pounds of Pure Caffeine Bulk Powder. USP Pharma Grade.

There ought to be a law

http://www.amazon.com/Caffeine-Powder-Pharma-freshness-Powder/dp/B005L99402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395678079&sr=8-1&keywords=rhino+caffeine

[pnwmom]

74. Are you arguing against child-proof containers? Because it certainly sounds like you are,

considering what my OP says.

[Jesus Malverde]

101. I'm not sure what you mean,

When one buys drugs, you can ask for non child proof caps or flip the cap over when you get home.

I don't want kids poisoned if thats your point.

Vaping is not smoking.

[tridim]

3. Poison in the form of 2 liter bottles packed with refined sugar is just fine though.

Thanks big tobacco for the story!!!11

[Renew Deal]

33. How many kids have been killed by accidentally consuming a tablespoon of soda?

[tridim]

42. How many have been killed by accidentally consuming a tbsp of pure nicotine juice?

None.

Kids aren't hanging around pure nicotine juice, it's an industrial product.

There are thousands of toxic products available by the barrel. Make them all illegal?

[pnwmom]

84. They've ended up in intensive care. Why are you opposed to childproof containers?

Can you not stand even a few seconds delay in getting your nicotine fix?

[pnwmom]

83. Drinking a teaspoon of soda pop won't kill a child. A tsp of nicotine will.

What is your problem with the subject of the OP -- childproof containers?

[frazzled]

5. Well, sure ... but

A child can be (and is) killed by getting into the bottle of bleach in your laundry room, a container of toilet-bowl cleaner, dishwaher detergent, and a million things in your garage. They can definitely die by getting into your bottle of gin or scotch. They can definitely die from getting into your stash of weed.

The e-cigarettes I use involve individual sealed cartridges (made in US, containing water, glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring). I was careful not to get anything from China or unknown parts, with unknown ingredients of chemicals--but just for my own sake. We don't have young children around, but if I did, I'd make sure the cartridges (though individually capped and sealed until you break them) are safely put away.

But using children and teenagers as an excuse for everything is getting pretty transparent. I'm fine with regulation: I just don't want this as an excuse to whop a kazillion dollars of taxes slapped onto these things.

How about focusing on the increased safety to adults who are using these things to stop using tobacco?

[seaglass]

8. I am thinking about doing this starting next week (my cig store sells them) but the article

kind of freaked me out because I do want the liquid regulated or known to be safe.

Do you mind sharing what company you use?

[frazzled]

10. Sure ...

When I first thought about trying this (merely as a convenience for the times when smoking was just too impossible), I read an article where Lewis Lapham, former editor of Harper's (and aged 78 at the time, a long-time smoker) said he'd quit and was alternating between two brands, one of them "Blu." I decided if it worked for him it could work for me ... and they're easy to get at Walgreen's.

It worked immediately for me, after several unsuccessful attempts with gum or patches. Now, you can buy a "starter kit" at Costco for $22, and packets of the cartridges (5 cartridges, each the equivalent of about a pack of cigarettes) for $9. That's about a third of what I was paying for tobacco. For me, they've been great.

They have a web site, but since I don't like to advertise here, I'll just let you google for it. You have to be (or claim to be) over 18 to get onto the web site.

ON EDIT: I should explain that the starter kit consists of a plastic case (like a slim cigarette pack) that also serves as a charging device for the batter part of the ecig. It comes with two batteries, a USB cord, and a pack of five nicotine cartridges.

[seaglass]

12. OK, I noticed the store I go to has Blu, so I will check that out.

I have tried gum, patches, zyban, chantix (had really bad reactions to the drugs) but have heard so many good things about e-cigs I figured I'd give them a try.

Thanks for your help!

[LadyHawkAZ]

27. If you don't mind a piece of advice

Skip the disposables and especially the brands like Blu (owned by Big Tobacco) and look around locally for a vape shop that mixes their own liquids and sells the refillable tanks. Some have tester bars where you can sample the flavors before buying.

If that's not an option for you, PM me and I can give you a few websites to order from.

[seaglass]

31. No I don't mind the advice but I don't think we have any vape shops around here. The only

place I've seen e-cigs around here other than the store I mentioned is in malls and drugstores. I'll have to use the google

Thanks!

[LadyHawkAZ]

35. These folks:

http://saltlakevapors.com/

these folks:

http://www.sweetsouthernvapes.com/

and these folks:

http://www.myfreedomsmokes.com/

are all very good. The eGo batteries and Kanger and iClear tanks work well as starters without putting too big of a dent in the wallet.

Good luck!

[seaglass]

38. Thanks and I just found a place in the town next to me to check out. :-) n/t

[LadyHawkAZ]

44. .

[Michigan-Arizona]

181. I use this one that is local here in Tucson, AZ

http://freedomsmokeusa.com/

This place I get a pretty decent size bottle, I think it is 60ml of juice for like $25.00 & it last me well over 2 months. I maybe spend like 7.00 a month for wicks... Freedom Smokes USA is owned & operated by a local family.. The replaceable battery cost me around $20.00 which I've only replaced once in the last 8 months... Best of luck to you on whatever choice you make....

[frazzled]

37. If you don't mind another piece of advice

there might good reasons to stick with a brand like Blu. Its liquid components are all made here in the US (something to which you cannot be fully assured of in more homey-made brands) and contains vegetable glycerin as opposed to propylene glycol—in my estimation, a safer ingredient. Only 20% of e-liquids on the e-cig market are vegetable glycerin based. Vegetable glycerin HAS been approved and regulated in Canada and the US.

http://www.canadavapes.com/health/vegetable-glycerin-safety.html

I have absolutely no problem working with American manufacturers.

[B2G]

11. I use Smoke Tip

http://www.smoketip.com/

[seaglass]

13. Thanks! n/t

[tridim]

43. "They can definitely die from getting into your stash of weed"

Really? That's quite a claim.

[B2G]

7. Maybe we should focus on these instead.

The most common poisons among children are:

cosmetics and personal care products
cleaning substances
pain medicine/fever-reducers
coins, thermometers
plants
diaper care, acne preparations, antiseptics
cough and cold preparations
pesticides
vitamins
gastrointestinal preparations
antimicrobials
arts, crafts and office supplies
antihistamines
hormones and hormone antagonists (diabetes medications, contraceptives)
hydrocarbons (lamp oil, kerosene, gasoline, lighter fluid)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. I think the reason there is 'focus'

is in the second paragraph after the first 'SNIP', that include the words 'is soaring'. In epidemiology, the word is 'emergent'. Something changes, and a new disease starts happening in far greater numbers, it is considered an 'emergent' disease, and more attention is paid to it to determine why it is suddenly more prevalent, and if it is going to shoulder aside other disease in terms of morbidity and mortality. Presumably, when dealing with injuries and deaths related to toxins, the same sort of attention is paid to emergent patterns.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Actually, the article says about 3 calls a day to poison control centers over e-cigs

While over 300 kids a day go to ER for household poisons and 2 on average die daily. No one has ever died from an e-cig, but hundreds a year die from that list offered above. Even if all three poison control calls result in ER visit, that still accounts for about 1% of all household poisonings. 'Soaring' means 99% of the cases are from something else along with 100% of the deaths, but we want to focus on that which is not a problem while we continue to let kids drink cleaning fluids for the sake of shiny surfaces.
You say 'injuries or deaths' as if there had been deaths, and the article confirms no actual injury, just calls to poison control centers.....

[Demo_Chris]

15. Great writing, shoddy journalism. nt

[tammywammy]

22. There are no children in my household

And no children visit my home either. So should I not be allowed to have a substance that contains nicotine in case a child breaks into my house and drinks it? What about my bleach? I don't keep that locked up either. I don't even put the lids all the way back on medication either. Think of the children!

[otohara]

23. Jenny McCarthy Says They Are Sexy

she won't vaccinate her kids but does commercials for these horrible nasty things.

[snooper2]

46. "horrible nasty things"

LOL,

Ever do a bong hit?

[otohara]

53. As A Matter Of Fact

I have, not a fan of bongs or vap-pens

As a MMJ card holder I was given a vap-pen with a vile of oil and it gave me a headache, so I gave it away.

But what does that have to do with nicotine and that dummy on The View selling nicotine to kids as sexy?
Besides the whole China thing would make me not want to touch these things...don't trust the Chinese.

[snooper2]

54. you aren't supposed to drink the bong water LOL

also-

nicotine is an "OPTION"

[otohara]

59. WTF With LOL's

drinking bong water?

[snooper2]

69. you never drank the bong water?

[Autumn]

30. People should keep an eye on their children, any adult knows nicotine is toxic.

Problem solved

[Holly_Hobby]

39. I nearly choked to death on a cigarette when I was 1-1/2

because the dumbass smoker in the family left them in her purse on the floor while she got drunk at a picnic and left me to fend for myself (my mother).

[misterhighwasted]

45. As a smoker of toxic cigarettes for 40 years I WELCOME E CIGS. Thank You I can breathe again!!

Tried a few vape flavors & wasn't fond of fruity nor sweet nor those that tried, best they could, to mimic my brand of cigarettes, which BTW have been deemed by the FDA as toxic as hell but somehow safe enough to continue to be sold to adults. Get my point?
You are attacking the wrong industry in your efforts to prove that E Cigs & Vaping is so harmful it deserves being banned.

Start with the Tobacco industry. The FDA. Here's the list of toxins in tobacco cigarettes:
http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html

Chemicals in Tobacco Smoke
There are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and at least 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer.
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret.

Tobacco companies reporting this information were:
American Tobacco Company
Brown and Williamson
Liggett Group, Inc.
Philip Morris Inc.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company


--------------Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette – 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanides and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke or both. It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing ...

_____________________________________________________

So here's something for the OP to consider.
I still get nicotine. Fine. To me it means I've eliminated at least 4000 toxins just by Vaping. Vaping is vapor not smoke. The nicotine, I will lower the dosage as I see fit over time. I'm ok with that option too.

Now Fellow DUer, I respectably say that you may call it whatever you want, but your efforts to ban & demean are falling on more & more deaf ears every day.
I personally hope ECigs & Vaping puts the Tobacco industry out of business someday.
They have made billions by addicting people to their product, promoting to old, young, sick & healthy.
They have lied to the public, & with no shame, sat and defended their actions. And they are still allowed by our own FDA to market & sell their poison product, knowing full well what it contains.

Very well. Buyer beware.
Thats all it comes down to anymore. And like anything else we are exposed to now days, read the label. Know what you are buying & where & how its made.
I question most everything from China. The last thing I want is a cheap Vape liquid with more or less of what I want in it.

Find a supplier who you like, do some research & be loyal to them. There are outstanding USA made vape companies out there. They will proudly tell you so also. Support them.

So as for me, right now I am breathing easier than I have in years. I have actually lost a few pounds since I can now walk my body around more than a few city blocks & I smell really nice too. HA.

Your efforts to inform people as to the dangers of children & nicotine are appreciated and I guess just like knowing that "Stupid people shouldn't have loaded weapons in reach of children" well I guess there are stupid people who should be more cautious with their vaping supplies. Great to educate, but the value of ECigs & Vaping is truly lifesaving.

You need to know that. And respect that millions of us who bought the big tobacco lie as teenagers are doing what we can to detox & be rid of that demon.

Yes I have smoked since I was 20 yrs old. I have Vaped since I was 60. I can walk 2 miles a day & I can breathe.

Thank You

BTW the only vape I found that finally ended my addiction to cyanide & 4000 other toxins was one called Absolute Pin. It is made by Five Pawns. It is a bit pricey but far less than a month of toxic cigarettes cost me for 40 years.
Its delicious & it has saved my life & that's how important the E-Cig Vaping business is to me.

[SomethingFishy]

48. Welcome to DU... And you are wasting your breath...

This debate has gone over the edge on DU. Last week a list was posted of all the "toxic chemicals" that were in the liquid. After a very small amount of research I found every one of those chemicals in either food, soft drinks or beer.
When you defeat all the arguments they pull out the "children" card.

I quit smoking after 35 years thanks to e-cigs. My doctor seems to think I did the right thing. I feel way better and I saved a fortune. I still puff on the e-cig but I worked my way down to no nicotine cartridges. In effect I have totally quit smoking(well not the weed but hey we all need our vices). And the worst thing about this debate is the people who hate smoking the most are the most vocal about anti-e-cigs.
I have quit talking about this except with smokers who I believe can benefit seriously from gaping.

Again welcome to DU and congrats on the vaping!

[misterhighwasted]

52. Thanks & I hear what you're telling me. It is true.

Guess some need to stir stuff up to feel relevant.
Sad way to be.
Happy vaping & if weed keeps your world good & sane then blessings to you.

[Oilwellian]

78. I smoked for forty years as well

Congrats to you! I started vaping seven months ago and haven't touched a cigarette since. There are only a handful here who are myopically anal about vapes and refuse to read the studies that have already been done. According to those studies, vaping is far safer than smoking, and scientists and doctors are encouraging smokers to choose that route instead. My GP was ecstatic to learn I finally quit smoking. He suggested I wean myself off of the nicotine in the eliquids and was able to accomplish that a month ago with no withdrawal symptoms. Since then I've wondered if the greater addiction to smoking is the motion one goes through or the nicotine itself. At least for me, the nicotine was easy to give up...not so much the motion of it.

I recommend to anyone who wants to quit smoking cigarettes, do not start vaping with those over the counter small ecigs because they don't contain enough nicotine to satisfy you. You need to start with a 24-36 mg. nicotine level to be satisfied and not turn back to cigarettes. From there you can wean yourself down to a smaller amount. According to studies, one cigarette delivers 60 mgs. of nicotine so even if you use 36mgs. of nicotine in an eliquid, you're only getting half the level of nicotine you were getting in a cigarette.

[Mariana]

94. Understand that some people DO NOT CARE.

They DO NOT CARE if your life has been saved. They DO NOT CARE how much better you feel, or how much healthier you are. They DO NOT CARE how many other people's lives have been saved, or how much their health has improved. None of that matters.

You quit smoking and you enjoyed doing it. You still enjoy it. That's what they can't stand.

[misterhighwasted]

105. Well then, I'll just have to keep repeating myself louder & in their

crabby snarling faces.
They must be miserable. Bet they have no friends either.
That's why they start threads like this.
We are all they have.

Happiness is just a Vape away
Enjoying my wonderful new day.

[Live and Learn]

162. +1 nt

[blue cat]

134. I hear you

I feel better and I and smell better. Plus I can smoke in bed after sex without any worries. It's been all good for me. I think some of the flavors have even curbed my appetite a bit. Oh, and my dental check up went better.

[cthulu2016]

47. This is devolving into self-parody. Why not crusade against bleach and gasoline?

[misterhighwasted]

50. True But the Tobacco industry may have a problem with that too,

should they someday choose to use bleach & gasoline as an additive to their cigarettes. Or maybe they already Do?

[pnwmom]

114. Why don't you support child-proof containers for nicotine?

That was the point of the OP.

[blue cat]

131. I think its a fabulous idea!

Parents need to take responsibility for their own children and stop trying to take things away from responsible adults without children.

[DetlefK]

51. Toxic mystery-juice form China? I want to inhale that!

[misterhighwasted]

55. HA, the one thats labelled:

"Chicken Flavor**Grown in the USA (but processed in China)"
mmmmm

[phleshdef]

71. My e-liquids are all made in the USA.

[krawhitham]

56. Selling a poison by the barrel: Alcohol

[Hekate]

66. A teething baby whose gums are rubbed with whiskey doesn't typically die

Never did that myself, but it is an age-old soother.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Each day in the US more than 300 kids go to ER due to poisoning from household

products. On average 2 die each day. More than 700 a year die now, from cleaners and medications and whatnot, not one has ever died from an e-cig and even apparently about 3 a day called poison control, but this article does not indicate how many went to the ER of those 3.
So there are things making tens of thousands of kids sick enough for the ER, killing hundreds a year, but the substances which provide that pile of corpses are not an issue? We are standing among hundreds of dead worried about some possible future death? Not trying to stop the current daily deaths?
Sick priorities.

[pnwmom]

81. Which is why they have childproof containers. Are you objecting to nicotine

being sold in childproof containers, or to users being warned that even small amounts absorbed through the skin can cause serious problems?

That's what the OP is about.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. Those containers don't seem to work very well.

I think I'm objecting to 2 dead kids a day while you are objecting to no dead kids at all.
There are no kids in my house, so 'childproof' containers are not needed, but to claim that's what the OP is about is absurd, there is one mention of container types and lots of rhetoric about poison in barrels and injuries that have yet to be.
If the objective of this OP was about childproof containers, you did it all wrong.
I hear a big poisoning issue now is from detergent gel packs that are made to look like candy and sold in clear containers. No child proof caps. Looks like rainbow candy!
"Several poison control centers started to get calls from parents about the packets in March and April, soon after they were introduced in earnest. Texas reported 71 instances of exposure this year, all but one in March or later. Missouri reported 25 cases related to the packets, and Illinois reported 26.

"If you look at the Tide Pods, they're bright blue and bright red and they look very similar to some of the ribbon candy," said Julie Weber, director of the Missouri Poison Control Center in St. Louis.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47557814/ns/health-childrens_health/t/more-kids-eating-detergent-packs-docs-report/#.UzCaCLCPL14

[blogslut]

62. Bang the drum slowly and play the fife lowly.

If you get an outfit you can be cowboy too.

[Hekate]

67. Why, what a surprise.

At the very least, child safety caps should be on containers destined for personal use.

[pnwmom]

82. Can you believe there are so many people here who apparently oppose childproof containers?

[Mariana]

96. Are you in favor of childproof containers?

You don't say whether you are or not in the OP. You just quote the article.

[pnwmom]

136. I didn't just quote the article. Before the article, I said:

"Most nicotine poisoning cases involve small children. People who buy these products should make sure they're kept in childproof containers; and they should be aware that toxic doses of nicotine can even be absorbed through the skin. "

[Hekate]

103. Interesting, because any pet owner knows that a single cigarette can kill a cat or dog if eaten

Likewise a 2-year old child.

I still have my handbook of houseplants called Pretty Poisons. Doesn't mean I've never had any of them, but they are kept out of reach when I do. You can make a homemade insecticide for plant spray by soaking a cigarette in water -- it's good for that.

Anyhow, childproof caps aren't infallible, but like infant seats in cars, they have reduced childhood deaths.

[beevul]

133. Must have been a small or weak pet.

Seeing as one of our dogs LOVES cigs, and used to eat the whole pack and/or the contents of the ashtray if we so much as turned our back for 30 seconds without putting them out of his reach.

No vomiting, no sickness, in fact, no change at all.

Still the same goofy eskie, before and after, and he did this MANY times.

[pnwmom]

137. Actually, I'm a dog owner and I didn't know that. But, as an adult, I've never lived in a house

that had cigarettes in it. Reading the lists of toxins, my eyes must have just skipped over cigarettes.

But I did notice chocolate near the top, so I"m careful not to share.

[Hekate]

161. So much depends on the dog I sometimes think

My daughter used to love chocolate coated espresso beans. Her tiny dog was half Jack Russel and half Pomeranian, and all firecracker. It got into the stash of beans one time and ate some -- miraculously, the main effect was to make the doggie bounce off the walls like a rubber ball until it wore off. That was one tough little mutt.

[beevul]

135. Have you considered the possibility...

Have you considered the possibility that it isn't childproof containers that people oppose, rather its you and the agenda you clearly have?

[pnwmom]

139. Why can't we agree on regulation -- such as a Federal ban on the sale to minors,

and requiring childproof containers?

[beevul]

141. I can agree with those things.

I can agree with those things.

But I have a damn hard time agreeing with you...because your agenda is clearly aimed at far more than that.

Perhaps if your (anti) e-cig posts were better aligned with truth, fact, and honesty that wouldn't be the case.

I dare say I'm not the only poster that feels that way...not even close to the only one.

[pnwmom]

144. I don't care what adults vape as long as they don't do it where I have to breathe it.

I do care that minors, with developing brains, not get needlessly exposed to nicotine.

I once had to work at a job in an enclosed room with 6 or 7 chain smokers. That's what it used to be like in the bad old days. I have asthma but when I said it bothered me, I was told that cigarette smoke isn't an allergen, it's only an irritant.

Which is a way of minimizing it's effect on people. An "irritant" is something that triggers asthma attacks, but people would use that word to minimize its effect. It wasn't an allergen, it was "only an irritant."

Can you understand why people like me are worried about seeing the clean air we've worked for disappearing into vapor, the safety of which has never been approved by the FDA?

Can you see why it doesn't seem fair to insist on e-cigs being classified as a tobacco product -- to escape the need for submitting research to the FDA -- and then to turn around and insist they're safe and should be allowed everywhere?

Either they're a tobacco product and vaping should be banned in all the same places cigarettes are -- or they're a nicotine delivery system, and then they should submit the required safety studies to the FDA.

[beevul]

153. As if it were news...

"I don't care what adults vape as long as they don't do it where I have to breathe it."

In other news, water has been determined to be wet.

Yep. Ignore the clean air studies. You just don't want to breath air that those people have exhaled. Because you don't approve of what they're doing.

"once had to work at a job in an enclosed room with 6 or 7 chain smokers. That's what it used to be like in the bad old days. I have asthma but when I said it bothered me, I was told that cigarette smoke isn't an allergen, it's only an irritant.

Which is a way of minimizing it's effect on people. An "irritant" is something that triggers asthma attacks, but people would use that word to minimize its effect. It wasn't an allergen, it was "only an irritant."

Can you understand why people like me are worried about seeing the clean air we've worked for disappearing into vapor, the safety of which has never been approved by the FDA?

Take it up with the smokers that did that to you, and quit pretending vapor is the same as smoke.

NONE of that excuses your "take a stand now, ignore evidence which contradicts it, and to hell with everyone else."

NONE of it. Oh, it goes a long ways toward explaining it, but it most definitely doesn't excuse it.

"Can you see why it doesn't seem fair to insist on e-cigs being classified as a tobacco product -- to escape the need for submitting research to the FDA -- and then to turn around and insist they're safe and should be allowed everywhere?"

Nope, I can't.

The burden, in our system of government, is on those wishing to restrict a thing or action, to prove that burden necessary.

That would be you.

You can't seem to post on this topic, without twisting the stuth to make it appear as if things are a certain way, when in fact they are not that way. Go ahead. Ask for examples, not just from me, but from everyone else that's participated in these threads.

Either they're a tobacco product and vaping should be banned in all the same places cigarettes are -- or they're a nicotine delivery system, and then they should submit the required safety studies to the FDA.

And there we have it. It should be banned in all the same places cigarettes are JUST because its a tobacco product. NOT because of any claims you can truthfully make as to their usage in public...but JUST because its a tobacco product...

Or it should be submitted to FDA - that bastion of safety that gave us Chantix among other things...

My threshold is provable and not-insignificant harm, and nothing less, when it comes to talking about bans on public use. "I don't like what they're doing over there" isn't good enough, and "I don't like how that smells" carries exactly the same weight with me as someone saying "god I hate that cologne/perfume".

We - people that vape - aren't going to roll over to assuage the delicate sensibilities of people like you, without good and substantial cause to.

[pnwmom]

154. No, the burden is on the people who want to sell nicotine, which is already classified as a drug.

They need to do the required safety studies and submit them to the FDA.

It doesn't matter what your personal threshold is. Plenty of people have used your exact arguments to justify smoking tobacco products -- to pretend that those products were perfectly safe.

It's fine with me if they smoke in private. As long as they're not putting their exhaust into the air other people are breathing.

[beevul]

156. No, the burden is on those wishing to restrict.

ALL rights belong to the people, until and unless they are restricted VIA due process.

Welcome to America.

"It doesn't matter what your personal threshold is. Plenty of people have used your exact arguments to justify smoking tobacco products -- to pretend that those products were perfectly safe.

That's nice, take it up with the people trying to justify smoking tobacco products -- to pretend that those products were perfectly safe."

Until you can show the harm we are doing not just to ourselves but to others, or the risk we pose, just leave us the hell alone.

I'll just bet that you've been around vapers, and their vapor, have already breathed a bunch of it, and were none the wiser.

"It's fine with me if they smoke in private. As long as they're not putting their exhaust into the air other people are breathing."

Again, were talking vapor, not smoke. You don't own public areas anymore than anyone else. Until you can point to a harm being done, stop pretending that you do.

[pnwmom]

157. What you fail to understand is that vapor is just as capable of delivering toxins

to the lungs as smoke is. What matters is what is in the vapor besides water.

This is America, you're right -- where the FDA DOES regulate nicotine products, and requires them to have produced safety studies, with the exception of tobacco products. The e-cig industry thus far has chosen to be classified with tobacco products, instead of proving their safety to the FDA. That's their choice.

[beevul]

158. Can you be truthful? Just once?

"The e-cig industry thus far has chosen to be classified with tobacco products, instead of proving their safety to the FDA. That's their choice."

TWO companies were involved in the lawsuit you refer to.

TWO.

So much for "that's their choice", and the picture you attempted to paint of "the e-cig industry".

Again.

[frylock]

176. really? can you point to a single post that someone states they are against child-proof containers?

one post. one.

[pnwmom]

177. That's what the OP is about, and there are a lot of people who seem to disagree with it.

Instead of agreeing with the need for child proof containers, many are insisting that e-cigs are safer than regular cigarettes. Which is totally beside the point, when the issue is child proof containers for sweet liquids containing nicotine.

[frylock]

178. can you point to a SPECIFIC post where someone SPECIFICALLY stated..

that they are against child-proof containers?

[pnwmom]

180. No, they didn't directly oppose them. They just minimized the need for them.

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4718251

Are kids still going to ingest other household poisons we all have in our homes at this very moment? Yup, pretty much. But...won't someone please think of the children!!

Just make sure whatever happens, don't let them read a heap of scientific studies that crap all over the anti-vaping nannies arguments.

[Mariana]

95. Any adult who leaves their e-liquid laying around

for a child to get into should be treated exactly the same as an adult who leaves any other type of poison (or dangerous object) laying around for a child to get into. I do believe we already have laws in place that deal with intentional, negligent, and accidental poisonings.

[pnwmom]

115. We have laws requiring child-proof containers for other toxins, but not e-cigs and vape pens.

[dilby]

97. So how many children have died from e-cigarettes?

Or is this just a what if article where we create a boogie man when there is none. I remember all the pets are going to die by the thousands if they legalize cannabis articles back before they legalized it.

[pnwmom]

116. Thousands have ended up in E.R.'s. Do they have to die before childproof containers are required? n/

[DirkGently]

173. "Thousands?" Based on what information?

Is there some source you're referencing outside the article you posted?

Of the cases in 2013, 365 were referred to hospitals, triple the previous year’s number

[frylock]

179. literally thousands..

figuratively speaking.

[DirkGently]

183. Not that anyone is getting carried away or anything.

[NutmegYankee]

102. At this very moment I have no less than 15 deadly chemicals in my home.

I keep them away from both the cat and visiting children. Most of this article is pure hysteria.

[pnwmom]

117. Many people don't realize the hazard of liquid nicotine for children.

Why not require childproof containers?

[NutmegYankee]

121. That wasn't the point of the article.

The article was focused on hysteria. I did a search for e-cig refills and found that every one stated it came in a "child proof bottle". They look like the typical dropper style container.

[pnwmom]

122. That was the point of the OP, if you read it. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

147. The OP was based on the article.

I don't fall easily for hysteria. You didn't find the article just the slightest bit over the top?

[pnwmom]

152. What I said, before posting the article, was this:

"Most nicotine poisoning cases involve small children. People who buy these products should make sure they're kept in childproof containers; and they should be aware that toxic doses of nicotine can even be absorbed through the skin."

I don't think many people have thought about this issue, or realize that nicotine could be so easily absorbed through the skin.

[Eleanors38]

110. Okay, NYT, store E-cigs in a lockbox beside your pistol. Sheesh.

[blue cat]

130. how about

people watching their own children instead of taking away things from responsible adults? Guns are dangerous too but we're not at outlawing them.

[Marr]

138. I'm beginning to wonder if this ecig regulation push is coming from Big Tobacco. /nt

[pnwmom]

140. No, they're too busy readying themselves to take over the market. Lorillard already owns

an e-cig, and Philip Morris is releasing their product this year.

[beevul]

146. its almost like you can't post about e-cigs without adding a whopper.

We've been over this before.

"Big tobacco" isn't anywhere close to "taking over the market". Yet you continue to make these wild and crazy and patently FALSE statements to the contrary...why exactly?

Please tell us all:

Why do you continue to state falsehoods as if they were truth?

Particularly, you continue to do so, after being told by numerous posters who all CLEARLY know far more about the subject matter than you do, that the things you're posting are falsehoods.

So why do you continue to state them?




As I've said before, they understand the market, almost as well as you do - which is to say - pretty much not at all.

[pnwmom]

148. I said "readying themselves to take over the market." That doesn't include a timeline.

But it is what large companies do. Their aim is ALWAYS to clobber the competition. It's incredibly naive to think that that isn't their aim here, too. The question is only if they will succeed -- not whether that's their aim.

[beevul]

151. Yeah, and it was a falsehood.

You said "readying themselves to take over the market."

Yeah, and it was a falsehood.

"Their aim is ALWAYS to clobber the competition."

Yeah, just wait til they come out against flavors. Then you'll be in a real bind wont you.

"It's incredibly naive to think that that isn't their aim here, too."

Yeah, and you might have an aim to build a spaceship and fly to pluto too. That doesn't mean you're close to it happening, or that it will EVER happen. Whats funny though, is if I were to draw a parallel:

An alarmist statement by you, that "big tobacco is readying themselves to take over the market" is the equivalent of an alarmist statement made by someone with no knowledge of aerodynamics, saying that a company with almost NO knowledge of aerodynamics was preparing to build a space ship and fly to pluto.

You don't know what you don't know, but you sure seem to revel in it. Like I said, "Big tobacco" understands the market, almost as well as you do - which is to say - pretty much not at all.



I truly wish you could be bothered to take the time to understand the subject matter of this topic, to the point that you might say things that are actually aligned with fact and truth. As things stand now, and I'm putting this nicely, your posts on this subject have a casual relationship with fact and truth, at best.

[Live and Learn]

163. Rest easy, Pnwmom.

Every bottle of e-juice (from many different sources) my spouse has purchased has come in a child proof container.

If you want to crusade for a law to make child proof caps mandatory, please do so. It isn't as if we have enough laws already. Please make some more so we can keep those private prison beds full.

[jtuck004]

165. There was a death reported in Israel, I think. 2 year old sucked the liquid out.

Nicotine poisoning goes on all around us. New workers get it from the green leaves, gardeners report to the ER after spraying it as an insecticide.

In 1997, there were over 5000 reported cases of kids 5 and under eating Trandermal Nicotine Patches, in addition to those who just got their hands on cigarettes. Yech!

I think vaping pipes and e-cigs are a safer substitute, and I welcome new info that calls this into question, but the way the numbers are reported sometimes makes me wonder what a reporter is trying to accomplish besides report. There is a lot of money and influence being used by tobacco companies to make sure the opposing viewpoint gets out there. Tobacco is way too profitable to let it go without a fight. So I try to read these a bit closer.

I looked at the report the data was selected from, here.

2012 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison
Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS):
30th Annual Report -
5 years of age and under:

If the poisoning was from the tobacco cigarettes they had in their posession - 5313 total exposures < cigarettes

If the poisoning was from contact with the something that contained e-liquid - 168 total exposures < e-cig
If the poisoning came from the e-cigarette liquid they had in their posession - 4 total exposures < e-liquid

Looks like the odds are far safer in a home with e-liquid, though with no access to the 2013 numbers it's hard to check. Feel free if you can, it's late.

From the link above "linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351 in 2013". There are two categories. One is essentially "touched" the e-cig, the other is ate e-liquid.

The "cases linked to e-liquids" for 2012 was, from above, 459. If you total ALL the tobacco-related (cigs, cigars, snuff, other) you get 7,647, or about 15 times as likely to have a poisoning when tobacco is involved instead of e-liquid or it's equipment.

It's also interesting to note that this is prefaced by "notably among children", and yet the stats refer to all ages they track up to 20, which is well out of the toddler stage, and sometimes in the Navy. Also, they just started tracking this in 2010, so these are early numbers which may see error and revisions, and big swings wouldn't be uncommon.

But let's say they are 100%, grade-A accurate. There still is no context. Should behavior change because of this or will that cost us more? Vaping pipes and e-cigs, when used as intended, replace cigarettes that would otherwise be smoked by the addict and burned in the air you share. This costs you less and there is no evidence that they are anything but less harmful than tobacco.

Note: I can't compare deaths from e-liquid to the thousands and thousands of people who the Cancer Society says die of tobacco smoke each year, either primary or (perhaps) second hand. Not because we can't find them, but because there are so few deaths from e-liquid they only get case numbers.

But it does suggest - KEEP THE TOBACCO UP HIGH, AWAY FROM THE BABIES. NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

Oh, and just fyi, didn't make the top 16 things people are poisoned with either:

Substance (Major Generic Category)
Analgesics 311347
Cosmetics/Personal Care Products 211314
Cleaning Substances (Household) 193802
Sedative/Hypnotics/Antipsychotics 162634
Foreign Bodies/Toys/Miscellaneous 110070
Antidepressants 108773
Cardiovascular Drugs 103922
Antihistamines 96997
Topical Preparations 96431
Pesticides 88694
Alcohols 74858
Vitamins 68168
Cold and Cough Preparations 68144
Bites and Envenomations 64787
Antimicrobials 62426
Stimulants and Street Drugs 61185

Thank you for posting this. It's interesting.

[pnwmom]

166. You're right about the toddler who died. She won't be the last,

especially if parents and manufacturers don't start paying more attention to the problem.


http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Toddler-who-ingested-liquid-nicotine-passes-away-314683

A two-year-old girl who ingested liquid nicotine from an electronic cigarette passed away on Tuesday evening in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Karem, Army Radio reported.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the girl’s parents were questioned to determine whether the cigarette came from them or a different source.

[jtuck004]

167. And hundreds more will die from the far, far more common problems, while people waste their time

and taxpayer money to, probably ineptly, try to prevent these which so far can be counted on less than one hand. The way they prevented us from everyone being murdered by marijuana addicts. booga-booga-booga. Scared yet?

Hypocrites.

I wonder why the hundreds of babies or thousands of older kids that will die in auto crashes or the 10 most common of poisonings

Analgesics 311347
Cosmetics/Personal Care Products 211314
Cleaning Substances (Household) 193802
Sedative/Hypnotics/Antipsychotics 162634
Foreign Bodies/Toys/Miscellaneous 110070
Antidepressants 108773
Cardiovascular Drugs 103922
Antihistamines 96997
Topical Preparations 96431
Pesticides 88694

are less important, judging by the attention and headlines in the newspapers, that a single death will get when reported with the overly dramatic and nearly salacious headlines that don't accurately reflect the case?

But put e-cig or pitbull in there and one can certainly draw eyeballs, sell ads. Too bad it gets other little kids killed to satisfy the thrill of attention-craving adults.

They are just shoveling the dirt over all those kids grave to market their own cause. No better than the Koch Bros., and just as deadly.

Based on the number of poisonings, there ought to be a headline saying keep pain killers, personal care products, and cleaning substances away from your children about 5 times a week. Bet you see something which is far less common to be worried about first, especially if it has teeth or you can splash the word POISON across the header.

As someone noted b4, I was born in the morning, but not yesterday. I don't think people are mainly interested in protecting the kids. Not really.

[pnwmom]

168. There is no special technology needed for nicotine dispensers to have child-proof containers.

And no excuse for them not to be required by law, as is the case with aspirin and all other drugs.

This is not a zero sum game. It is possible to be concerned about more than one risk to children. And it's possible to support car seats and childproof containers at the same time.

[jtuck004]

169. They already have child-proof containers, at least most do. The ones I get in Spokane do.

The bottles it comes in all should, you are correct.

I said nothing about what it's possible for people to support. I said newspapers and social media sites are spewing propaganda in order to sell stuff, which ought to be common knowledge. I pointed out that we will see headlines about this stuff when the kids are hundreds of times more likely to die from other causes, deaths which might have been preventable if people hadn't used their limited resources on something that is still as yet quit uncommon, and, unless 50 million people run out and buy e-liquid and start squirting it all over hell and creation tomorrow, is probably going to stay stay among those deaths that are so few they don't even rate a category heading in the poison center papers.

In the kid's death in Israel, IF the reports are accurate, the caregiver(s?) had the primary responsibility because it came from the e-cig, not from the bottles the e-liquid was shipped in.

Manufacturer can't make caregivers responsible, and from what I have seen and judging by the number of kids killed, hurt, in foster care or in jail trying to legislate "good behavior" (in this as well as other areas) seems like one of the biggest flops in history. Once the basics are covered to make mfrs act somewhat responsibly, much of the law is reactive, deals with things after they blow up.

For example: if a kid drinks a bottle of bud left next to it's sippy cup, and the kids dies, no one calls for child-safe beer bottles, because they aren't supposed to have them.

I would bet that < 2 year old in Israel wasn't supposed to have that e-cig either. Caregiver was ?...

Probably should have a law that makes them liable for leaving it laying around, but the kids still die.

On a more positive note, since we know the odds of the kid dying from many other poisons or hazards is hundreds of times more likely, and this is probably going to stay comparatively rare, we can care about it all, sure, absolutely.

But we should also endeavor not to let other kids die by giving too much attention to the trumpet blowers that are out there for greed or ego.

[pnwmom]

170. Part of what is needed is EDUCATION. I am posting this here because many people

are not aware of the tiny quantity of nicotine that could kill a child. I wasn't -- there was no reason for me to pay much attention to nicotine before because no one I knew smoked.

So when some parents leave this stuff around, it is not just carelessness; it is ignorance. Like some dog owners not realizing that too much chocolate could kill their puppy. Wouldn't it be better for everybody to be aware of the danger of nicotine to small children?

And many people aren't aware that nicotine could be absorbed through the skin. I was aware of that, but it never occurred to me that a person could absorb enough from a spilled bottle to develop heart problems.

Also, many people, especially teens, might not pay attention to the concentration of nicotine in the "juice." Canada limits the concentration to 2%. Some sold here contain up to 10%. The higher concentrations are much more dangerous to any small children who get hold of these products.

And finally, not all containers of nicotine are childproofed, and the dropper tops almost never are. It's good if yours are. They all should be.

Below is from a pro- e-cig site. The writer recognizes both the need for child-proof packaging and the fact that it isn't universal -- in fact, that once the safety cap is removed, the dropper top probably isn't child-proof. And it should be.

http://e-cigarette6.wikispaces.com/The+Need+for+Child+Proof+Nicotine+Liquid+Bottles

We need to do whatever it takes to not let children be hurt. To keep children safe and the ecig industry running strong, we must urge makers of nicotine liquid to strictly sell containers with child proof caps. The suppliers that do sell child proof nicotine liquid containers more often than not only have safety caps on the bottles that they ship. The actual dropper tops that replace the original cap once opened are almost never child proof. We do not feel that the government should regulate electronic cigarettes or pre-filled cartridges, but, if the manufacturers don't make it a priority to make electronic cigarette liquid refill bottles child proof, government regulation might be the only option.


Until makers make this standard please keep your nicotine liquid out of the reach of children. If it is possible that kids will come into contact with your e liquid keep it secured out of their reach. Electronic cigarette liquid should be treated the same as any other toxic materials in your home.

[Mariana]

171. Absolutely education is important.

ALL products containing nicotine - e-cigs, e-liquid, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, nicotine patches, and nicotine gum (which are available in tempting fruit flavors) are dangerous for children.

Since poisonings from e-cigs and liquid are a small portion of the total number of poisonings from nicotine, why don't you call for ALL those products to be sold in child-resistant packaging for home use, rather than focusing on e-cigs as if they're some kind of special and unique threat.

[pnwmom]

172. All non-nicotine medications ARE sold in childproof containers, except for ones specially labeled

as non-child resistant so that people with arthritis can open them. And those childproof pill bottles are still child-proof after they're opened the first time.

I agree that nicotine gum and candy should be packaged in a child-proof container.

A child is much less likely to ingest a fatal amount of nicotine from eating a cigarette or a nicotine patch than from swallowing a sweet nicotine juice, but if you think they need childproof packaging, in order to be consistent, fine.

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/consumers/cmi/n/nicorettepatch.htm

Each patch is sealed in a childproof pouch.


https://www.redlinepharmacy.com/compounding-services/nicotine-lollipops.html

The lollipop is placed in the mouth when you feel the urge to smoke and removed when it is over. Each lollipop can be used for 4-6 cravings. They are dispensed with a child-proof container to prevent children from mistaking them for candy

http://www.saferproducts.gov/ViewIncident/1221424

Product Description
Equate Brand Nicotine Lozenges, 4mg-in a tube with a "child-resistant" cap

[Mariana]

175. That's great, but what about all the other products?

As ituck004 posted, there are many, many more poisonings from tobacco than there are from e-liquid. Yet, cigars, cigarettes, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, etc. are not packaged to prevent children from getting into them.

Honestly, I haven't ever purchased e-liquid that didn't come in a bottle with a child-resistant lid, but I'm sure some vendors don't use them for some reason. I have no problem requiring them to do so. I do think smoking and chewing tobacco should also be packaged that way, since they cause many times more poisoning episodes. We want to prevent as many poisonings as possible, don't we?

[Live and Learn]

182. +1 nt

[krawhitham]

174. Use a little perspective

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/24/new-york-times-warns-that-drinking-e-cig

The number of accidental poisoning reports related to e-cigarette fluid increased from about 338 in 2012 to 1,351 in 2013. None of these poisonings was fatal, and most (73 percent) were not serious enough to require hospital treatment. In 2012, by comparison, 311,347 poisoning reports involved analgesics, 221,314 involved cosmetics, 193,802 involved cleaning substances, 96,997 involved anthistamines, 88,694 involved pesticides, 68,168 involved vitamins, and 49,374 involved plants. So if "e-liquids pose a significant risk to public health," as Richtel says, the risk posed by common products such as aspirin, window cleaner, and bug spray is gargantuan.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/24/new-york-times-warns-that-drinking-e-cig