E-Cigarettes Look More Effective Than Nicotine Gum or Patches

Jacob Sullum | August 10, 2009

A new South African study suggests that smokers who try to quit by switching to electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver nicotine vapor instead of tobacco smoke, are more likely to succeed than smokers who use other nicotine replacement products. Doctors in Cape Town gave Dutch-made Twisp e-cigarettes to 349 patients. After two weeks 6 percent of the patients had stopped smoking, and the quit rate rose to nearly half (45 percent) after two months. By contrast, a 2002 study in the journal Addiction found that the six-week quit rate was about 16 percent for smokers chewing nicotine gum and about 19 percent for smokers using nicotine patches. After six months, those rates fell to about 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

Even allowing for the likelihood that the success rate for e-cigarettes also would fall over time, they seem substantially more effective than the alternatives. That makes sense, since e-cigarettes more closely reproduce the experience of smoking. This new evidence of efficacy, combined with the fact that smokeless nicotine delivery is undeniably much safer than sucking in myriad toxins and carcinogens, reinforces the argument against banning e-cigarettes, which Oregon recently did and the Food and Drug Administration is threatening to do nationwide.

WWJGD|8.10.09 @ 1:13PM|#

I think the solution is clear. We must invade and destroy all Dutch factories that make e-cigarettes.

Or just ban South African studies.

Sigmund X. Freud|8.10.09 @ 1:15PM|#

It is simple: ze e-cigaretten are more effective because zey satisfy ze smoker's oral fixation in ze same manner as ordinary cigaretten.

Kyle Jordan|8.10.09 @ 1:16PM|#

So a product that works and may save lives?

No wonder they're gonna be banned. Can't have that level of logic floating around. It's dangerous.

|8.10.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Just tax e-smokes, and all the usual suspects will love them now.

Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Don't let facts get in the way of righteous indignation against e-cigarettes, damn it!

Zygmunt Froyd|8.10.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Sometimes a cigar(ette) is just a cigar(ette).

Helen Lovejoy|8.10.09 @ 1:32PM|#

Won't somebody please think of the children?

|8.10.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Won't somebody please think of the children?

I'm thinking of children blowing water vapor "smoke" rings from their e-cigs.

|8.10.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Report Abuse Bill Hannegan August 7, 2009 12:59AM CST

A cancer epidemiologist, who conducted the largest secondhand smoke study ever done, the UCLA Study, completed "too late" to be included Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 report, wrote a letter, at the request of Keep St. Louis Free, to the St. Louis County Council, that ended with these two paragraphs:"I should say that, personally, I feel strongly that non-smokers should not have to be exposed to cigarette smoke. While the available evidence does not suggest that average exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is an important cause of heart disease or lung cancer in people who do not smoke, cigarette smoke is irritating, can trigger allergic reactions in some people, and can exacerbate asthma and other chronic respiratory conditions. Yet, since the available evidence suggests that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed, lawmakers may therefore have greater latitude than generally believed to consider the segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration as adequate and responsible ways to address the health concerns of ETS in workplaces such as bars and restaurants. If it is possible, through segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration, to reduce all components of environmental tobacco smoke in establishments where smoking is permitted to the level of the air in non-smoking establishments, there is reason to believe that any risk would be undetectable."

THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Chart (Table 1)

-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.

|8.10.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.

Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.

FOX NEWS ARTICLE
March 8, 1998

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon , France , which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

|8.10.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Ahh, walls of text. Aren't they wonderful?

|8.10.09 @ 2:03PM|#

@harleyrider1978

Hope you lay your bike down.

|8.10.09 @ 2:06PM|#

Ahh, walls of text.

A technique pioneered by music producer Arlen Specter, if memory serves.

obama on drugs|8.10.09 @ 2:19PM|#

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/americas/11prexy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Dr. Sherman Cottle|8.10.09 @ 2:57PM|#

I, too, am skeptical of all the anti-smoking propaganda.

|8.10.09 @ 3:01PM|#

"Or just ban South African studies."

Why do you hate the Humanities?

"A technique pioneered by music producer Arlen Specter, if memory serves."

Teh Awesome!

Robert|8.10.09 @ 3:06PM|#

This new evidence of efficacy, combined with the fact that smokeless nicotine delivery is undeniably much safer than sucking in myriad toxins and carcinogens, reinforces the argument against banning e-cigarettes,

Unfortunately efficacy also gives FDA an excuse to say this is an intended use of the device regardless of what its purveyor says, making it a medical device.

Super-Duper-Super-Men|8.10.09 @ 5:34PM|#

Take it from lifelong smokers, e-cigarettes are actually quite nice. Even the Nicorette gum commercials say nicorette sucks, but hey, it kind of maybe helps a little? God forbid an attractive replacement ends up on the market.

|8.10.09 @ 5:42PM|#

The e-cigarette offends the sensibilities of the neo-puritans for one very basic reason: It looks like there's a real chance that some tobacco addicts might actually enjoy using it.

Giving smokers an healthier alternative delivery vehicle for their drug of choice is all well and good, so long as the experience is as miserable and/or clinical as possible. If they take any pleasure at all in sating the cravings of their vice, it pretty much defeats the (real) purpose.

|8.11.09 @ 1:20AM|#

Just like when the new FDA regime decided to crack down on Cheerios, because you can say that your food is generically good for your heart, but if you include numbers and reference a study, you've moved over to drug territory.

Chip|8.11.09 @ 4:29AM|#

I'm reading this with my morning coffee and my favorite e-cig. 8 months ago I would have been doing it with a real cigarette. I won't be going back, and neither will most people. After 10-14 days with an e-cig (and nothing else) most people (if they relapse) find real cigarettes to be gross-tasting, nauseating, and not very satisfying. It's like drinking Olympia after you've learned to appreciate real beer.

PicassoIII|8.11.09 @ 5:34AM|#

Seriously HRider1978 this article had very little to do with 'classical' SHS. Although yes, the effects have been tweaked out of all proportion.

As for e-cigs 'exposure'? Gee, a little prop glycol (FDA approved as a FOOD additive) and minor traces of nicotine. About what you get from eating eggplant.

Oh and the e-cig 'testimonials' arrive as well. *sigh*
@ Chip: Funny i felt the same way going from additive soaked commercial cigs to roll yer own. Cigar and pipe smokers won't even consider it.

|8.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#

FDA is using the save the children approach.
I did some research on what the FDA says are so terrible.
Comparison of nitrosamines FDA mentioned: Camel 7450, Skoal 9290, Marlboro 11,190, and THE KILLER ELECTRIC CIGARETTE-A WHOPPING 8.2.
Nitrosamines are in FDA approved stop smoking devices. Some have higher doses and most bought off store shelf AND BY CHILDREN. Nitrosamines are in fried bacon. Bacon contains sodium chloride which is used to melt snow off roads-BAN THE BACON.
The anti-freeze scare. Propylene glycol(PG) is added to make anti-freeze LESS TOXIC.
Diethylene glycol(DC), a minuscule trace was found in ONE Ecig and it was in the Ecig liquid because the nicotine was taken from tobacco.
One more thing about PG. It's in stuff we put into or on our bodies…"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined propylene glycol to be "generally recognized as safe" for use in food, cosmetics, and medicines."
Our government is just a bunch of BS. Also at fault is the newsmedia for printing what the BSers say without investigating.

Romario|8.11.09 @ 4:14PM|#

i cut back from a pack a day to 4 cigarettes a day since i started smoking ecigarettes, does that count for anything?

|8.11.09 @ 4:52PM|#

Outstanding!! What, we need more 'stinking tobacco' tests? I do believe this should more than be sufficient. Political correctness is going to be our downfall. FDA may just push us all over the cliff.

|8.11.09 @ 4:56PM|#

PS ~ I stopped endangering children after smoking thousands of cigarettes over 44 years with ONE electronic-cigarette, on DAY ONE. And I have stepped down my user-controlled density of nicotine by 25%, with no withdrawal pain.
Should tell everyone something!

|8.12.09 @ 2:51AM|#

"I, too, am skeptical of all the anti-smoking propaganda."

Skeptical?? How do you take hayriders's information as being anything but solid proof that current anti smoking propaganda is entirely invalid, regardless how much the general public might believe it?
And even after the reams of material posted by hayrider, Kathy still maintains she endangered her children. How do you define brainwashing? What level of brainwashing does the OSHA deem acceptable?

|8.12.09 @ 3:06AM|#

Oh, and I heard of one study (uk) that felt that HPV might be the exact cause of lung cancer. This would mean that smoking is not the cause, but sharing a drag might be an infection source, and also might explain why spouses might also become infected.

e-cigarette|10.16.09 @ 3:31AM|#

E-cigarettes are much better than the nicotine gum and patches because the E-cigarettes are designed and looks like the real cigarettes.

Jess Hernick|11.16.09 @ 6:00PM|#

I used E-cigarette that I bought on this website - www.usaecigarette.com - and it helped me cut down to 2-4 cigarettes per day instead of half pack - pack that I smoked before!

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements