The FDA Kills Smokers

Banning e-cigarettes won't save lives.


"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health."

That's what the Food and Drug Administration tells us on its website.

My intuition makes me grateful that the FDA is there to protect me—to make sure that every drug is proven both safe and effective—but "protection" kills people.

Last week, I discussed how the FDA kills by keeping useful medical devices off the market. Now, we learn the FDA threatens the health of cigarette smokers who want to quit.

How can I say that? Hasn't the FDA proposed that new warnings and gruesome pictures be placed on cigarette packages because the old scares apparently weren't working? As Reuters reminds us:

"The Food and Drug Administration in June released nine new warnings. … Warnings must cover the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs and 20 percent of printed advertisements, and must contain color graphics depicting the health consequences of smoking, including diseased lungs, dead bodies and rotting teeth." So the FDA certainly seems to be trying to save smokers' lives. How can I say the FDA threatens smokers?

What other conclusion can we draw when we consider that the FDA now talks about banning electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes. It sent threatening letters to manufacturers of the product.

E-cigarettes look like cigarettes, but instead of burning tobacco, they vaporize liquid nicotine when users puff on, or "vape," them. The resulting aerosol mist satisfies "smokers" without their inhaling tars and the most dangerous of tobacco's chemicals into their lungs.

What could be wrong with that? Well, the FDA says e-cigarettes contain trace chemicals that "may" be "toxic."

But most everything "may" be toxic. New York Times science columnist John Tierney writes: "The agency has never presented evidence that the trace amounts actually cause any harm, and it has neglected to mention that similar traces of these chemicals have been found in other FDA-approved products, including nicotine patches and gum. The agency's methodology and warnings have been lambasted in scientific journals."

Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, concluded in the Harm Reduction Journal that the FDA results "are highly unlikely to have any possible significance to users" because it detected chemicals at "about 1 million times lower concentrations than are conceivably related to human health."

Moreover, Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told Tierney: "It boggles my mind why there is a bias against e-cigarettes among antismoking groups" such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.

It boggles my mind, too, because as Tierney points out, e-cigarettes not only pose merely a hypothetical risk compared to real "cigarettes containing thousands of chemicals, including dozens of carcinogens and hundreds of toxins," e-cigarettes also have been shown to be unusually successful in helping smokers quit. A new study from Italy found that after 24 weeks, half of all smokers using the e-cigarettes reduced their consumption of the real McCoy by 50 percent. A quarter gave up smoking altogether.

True, the cigarette substitutes are basically nicotine-delivery devices. But so what? Britain's Royal College of Physicians found that "if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved."

The American Association of Public Health Physicians wrote that e-cigarettes might "save the lives of 4 million of the 8 million current adult American smokers."

Four million lives!

The FDA seems to believe that it can create a risk-free environment here on earth. But that is pure balderdash. Life is always a choice between greater and lesser risks—zero risk is not an option. Striving to abolish risk kills people.

"It's time to be honest with the 50 million Americans, and hundreds of millions around the world, who use tobacco," Rodu writes. "It's time to abandon the myth that tobacco is devoid of benefits and to focus on how we can help smokers continue to derive those benefits with a safer delivery system."

The FDA claims that all its regulations save lives. But its e-cigarette policy would kill smokers.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at


NEXT: Vote in Economist Debate: This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…e-cigarettes not only pose merely a hypothetical risk compared to real “cigarettes…”

    but e-cigs pose a REAL threat to taxes

    1. This

  2. It would appear that the lesser of two evils is the e-cigarette, for now!

  3. I thought they’d already backed off that nonsense, and e-cigs had survived a few challenges, legal and otherwise.

  4. The FDA is emblematic of a government run amok.

    It far exceeds it’s basic imperative to ensure overall safety of food and drugs and in the process, spreads death and misery.

  5. I’m reminded of a garage sale conversation I overheard – about the hazards of aspartame/nutrasweet.

    I offered this:

    “It’s choice. On the one hand, the possible risks of nutrasweet. On the other – the well-known highly-likely risks of sugar.

    1. The risks of sugar, or the risks of HFCS? They aren’t the same, especially considering one isn’t a naturally occurring substance.

      1. Refined sugar is extremely unhealthy.

        1. all sugars are refined in fact all foods are refined unless you were to eat it straight from the vine. That said it’s about quantity period if you eat only bananas it to will kill you.

          1. this is sophistry at its finest.


            there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between table sugar, and a food that contains natural sugars e.g. a an apple, etc. and it is much easier to promote diabetes and all sorts of metabolic issues by overindulging in the former vs. the latter

      2. Of course they aren’t the same, that’s why it’s called a choice.

  6. When are they going to stop the real killer?????

    More here.

    1. Too much water won’t kill you, it will strip your bod of salts, which can kill you. As long as you continue to take sodium and other electrolytes you can conceivably drink as much water as you want.

      1. Too much water won’t kill you…

        Tell that to Natalie Wood.

      2. right, but the point is that even water TAKEN TO EXCESS without those other things will kill you

        and it aint hypothetical. i was marshalling the run to the sun ultra in maui the year the japanese runner died from this…

  7. Smokers of regular cigarettes started to be harassed under the nebulous concept of “second hand smoking”.

    This doesn’t apply to e-cigarettes, so now the FDA goes back to the (originally unsatisfactory) “for the benefit of the smoker” justification.

  8. FDA is talking about lowering the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to make them less addicting. So I guess instead of lowering… you know… the toxins, let’s lower the amount of the substances the smokers actually want, which will in-turn cause them to smoke even MORE to get the effect they are wanting. So yeah, they’ll inhale more of the toxins in the process.

    Seriously, regulators are this f***ing stupid.

    1. You don’t understand. Someone, somewhere, may be deriving pleasure from a drug. That cannot be allowed.

      1. Allowance are made if the pleasure seeker can be made to endure a disproportionate amount of suffering from the experience. It’s What Jesus Would Do.

    2. Are you positive that regulators are stupid? It is my firm belief that they aren’t stupid at all; it is intentional that they want to increase cigarette consumption (for the somewhat diminished pool of smokers). Excise taxes aren’t calculated on nicotine content, so selling more cigarettes means more revenue for the govt. As far as smokers’ health goes, that’s just a foil for a power grab by the regulators, as the case of e-cigarettes nicely demonstrates.

    3. This whole debate angers me. I don’t smoke but there are people in my life that do that I care about.

      I always thought that to make a reduced risk, mind you not no risk but reduced risk cigarette, you should remove all the tar possible, then boost the nicotine to something like 5 X normal amount by artificially adding nicotine. This way smokers could smoke less cigarettes, with less tar each, and get sufficient nicotine to be satisfied. Of course the e-cigarettes are even better.

  9. I had an e-cig starter kit in my online cart, but couldn’t pull the trigger. Keeping a stock of cartridges, liquid, batteries, and vaporizers (none of them last more than a few days or weeks)…

    Far too much work for me.


      Just a charger, batter, and cartridge. Tastes good too.

      1. I clicked through a bit and found these disposables for $13 (which claim to be the equivalent of 30 analogs).

        Maybe that’s the cure for my “stocking” issue.

    2. @Hank – I understand. It took me a couple of months to warm up to my eCig. I bought the eGo-T which I think is the Jaguar of ecigs. When it works, it is great but it breaks down a lot. I had trouble getting over my fear of not having a cig and my ecig mess up. I invested into plenty of parts so I can repair it on the go. Much like carrying a toolbox in your jag.

    3. As opposed to needing to buy a new cigarette each time you use one up (that don’t last more than a few minutes of use each before wearing out), keeping a stock of cigarettes, keeping a stock of matches or flints and lighter fluid cartridges (all of which run out if used), etc?

      E-cigarettes have the same “issues” of consumable components as real cigarettes do. The components are merely different.

      1. Negative. Cigarettes are available at literally every gas station I pass, and for $5. I understand your point, but it’s absurd to say e-cigs are (currently) as convenient as analogs. I’m glad you’re satisfied, but a mail-order habit is one I won’t be able to maintain.

        Just a charger, batter, and cartridge. Tastes good too.

        I’ll check those out, but I did quite a bit of lurking on the message boards and got the impression that the batteries and vaporizers had to be replaced every few weeks at a minimum, and the cartridges had to be refilled or replaced practically daily.

    4. If your batteries and/or atomizers are breaking down after a few days or weeks, then you have bought some crappy cheap Chinese-made parts.

      While it’s true that atomizers are fickle and could give out at any time, my experience over 3 years of vaping is that 90% of the time they last at least 1.5-2 months, with most lasting 3-5 months. You always want to have spares laying around though, so you’re not out an e-cig while waiting for another atomizer to arrive in the mail. Depending on your e-cig, atomizers only cost $11-17, and since that and juice are the main things you have to keep buying, you save a lot of money compared to a cig habit.

      Batteries should last anywhere from 6 months to a year. If your battery only takes a charge for a few months, you have a bad battery. I have multiples so that one can always be in use and another charging.

      It’s not that much work. Really.

    5. There are many other choices out there for anyone who is willing to fore go the belief that they want something that is “just like a cigarette” shop for an joye “ego system with cartomizers. not that much hassle for the gain involved. And you still get to partake of the vitamin N!

  10. I can’t gainsay John , as he is in large measure repeating what I wrote in _Forbes_ on 8 September 1997 :…..rint.html.

    Making the world safe for cigarettes

    Think for a a monment, of the money that has been spent to make sure that
    airline seats can be used as flotation devices. When was the last time
    that someone paddled away from an aircraft wreck? Nevertheless, the
    federal government wants you to know that it is concerned with what might
    happen to you in an airline crash.

    So tell me: Why doesn’t the government put some money into cigarette
    safety? Given that some people are determined to smoke no matter what the
    docs tell them, isn’t their safety something the feds should be concerned

    Yes, you could make life safer for inhalers of both firsthand and
    secondhand smoke. You could reduce cigarette tar emissions and improve
    building air-cleaning systems.

    Smoke is no more wanted by smokers than coffee grounds by cappuccino
    addicts or a hangover by drinkers of red wine. No one suggests that,
    instead, we should ban coffee or red wine. Or automobiles. Vast sums have
    been spent to good effect on reducing auto emissions and on curing, as
    well as preventing, AIDS.

    Modern advances in air-quality improvement indoors and out have been
    monumental. But the arsenal of combustion science has yet to be brought to
    bear on the politically anathemetized cigarette. Just as gasoline taxes
    contribute to eliminating highway hazards, taxes imposed on smokers should
    go toward bringing the technology of nicotine ingestion out of its
    horse-and-buggy days.

    The hazard of smoking is a problem for the National Institutes of Health
    to solve, not for the FDA to mandate out of existence.

    Can’t we volatilize a drop of active ingredient without generating a
    thousand times its weight in burning leaves?

    Only one-tenth of one percent of a cigarette is nicotine, and it should
    not take a rocket scientist to devise a means of volatilizing that small
    drop of active ingredient without generating a thousand times its weight
    in burning leaves. Fire is fire, and how we control its progress dictates
    the relative presence or absence of benzopyrans and the other carcinogens
    that can spew from car engines, barbecues and cigars alike. A penny’s
    worth of activated carbon or a pinch of an oxidation catalyst could make
    the cigarette a safer product.

    Yes, I know how the anti-tobacco lobby would respond: Perish the thought.

    Smokers ought to manifest their concern for those who are irritated by
    their proximity by themselves demanding more energetic efforts at indoor
    filtration. Airlines, for example, have long displayed a reluctance to pay
    to operate their cabin air filters at full blast. Except in the
    cockpit;pilots are allowed to smoke and, because of adequate filtration,
    the fact that they do so goes undetected by the most vehement antismokers

    The Clinton Administration has yet to declare the FDA’s right to strip
    cholesterol from the nation’s arteries by limiting the fat content of
    burgers, to regulate caffeine to ban the heartthrob of espresso or, the
    repeal of Prohibition notwithstanding, to wind the alcohol level of all
    beverages down to the level of Coors Light. This is not to say that some
    neo-Prohibitionists won’t want to try after they’ve finished with the

    The nation’s 50 million smokers remain at liberty to vote en bloc for a
    fussbudget-free Congress. Are the pols ready to accommodate smokers?

    Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and ex-FDA chief David Kessler would
    rather pay for color-coding the Braille signs on wheelchair ramps. The
    absurdity of antismoker legislation has reached its peak in Massachusetts.
    There a fine awaits anyone daring to light up out of doors on the downwind
    rail of a ferry that itself is spewing a millionfold greater plume of
    black exhaust from a smokestack amidships.

    Enough of this puritanical witch-hunt. Rather than banning what many
    people regard as pleasure, why not spend some money to make it safer?

    Russell Seitz is an affiliate of The John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass

  11. Even if e-cigarettes are just as harmful as regular cigarettes, and even if both had absolutely zero positive qualities, it’s not the government’s job to control what people do with their own bodies.

    The only role government has any right to play here is in the possible externalities of second hand smoke.

    1. 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




  12. Well after reading both articles I must say,the anti-smoking activists dont want their cash cow gone and they dont want any replacements other than nicoderm for cigs,but whe ya follow the money of these groups aka ACS,ALA,AHA etc it all falls back to taxes,stimulus grants and the robert woods johnson foundation which is JOHNSON and JOHNSON BIG PHARMA makers of nicotine replacement therapy drugs the patch and gum!

    As far as a safer cigarette why did they push FSC and all the extra chemicals created in it with the burn process. Yet a look at the actual science on tobacco related diseases and we find this:

    Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one!

    So even to this day after probably a trillion dollars wasted on research all they have to show is PROPAGANDA and never once have they proven smoking causes ANYTHING!

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

  13. I am in the process of moving from real cigarettes to an ecig. I have at most two cigarettes a day down from a pack a day in just a few days. I tried quitting with patches and Chantix with no luck. I realize I am not really helping myself but at least I don’t stink and the people around me don’t have to smell me. 🙂

  14. Stink,your not a smoker your an ad man for ecigs and trying to pull the I hate smokers cause they stink angle to pull in acceptance from the tobacco control lobby! Nobody likes a quitter!

    Chantix and patches have a 98% failure rate to begin with and only keeps the financiers of smoking bans in profits BIG PHARMA!

  15. The problem is that the FDA has different classification systems for “natural” products like cigarettes, and for drug delivery systems like e-cigarettes. A natural product (tobacco, alcohol, etc) isn’t regulated by the FDA, and if inherently unsafe, oh well.

    But the rules for drug delivery technology are different. Here, the standards are such that being even slightly unsafe means the device is ruled illegal.

    Yes, this means that replacing a lethally dangerous natural product with a slightly hazardous delivery device will result in the delivery device being banned.

  16. I’ve been using the Joye 510 E-cig for 2 years now and the only issue is after a meal, sex or when drinking beer, somehow nothing is as good as a bit of Tobacco at these times,

  17. Holy shit I agree with John Stossel, Although describing a hypothetical future ban on e-cigs in the present tense “FDA Kills Smokers” is nonsense.

    And where are the REAL libertarians hollering that smokers have complete moral agency over their own persons? The FDA didn’t stick a cigarette in a smoker’s mouth– the smoker chose to put it there. To suggest that their voluntary choice to smoke was somehow mandated or forced by the government robs them of their unique moral agency, right?

    1. To suggest that their voluntary choice to smoke was somehow mandated or forced by the government robs them of their unique moral agency, right?

      Left. What is being mandated or forced is the choice of the nicotine delivery method (if & when the FDA bans e-cigs).

      1. Yes, I agree. The government is mandating the nicotine delivery method and that’s shitty. But the smoker has already chosen death. The FDA wasn’t a part of that decision. To suggest they were robs the smoker of moral agency.

        1. But the smoker has already chosen death.

          Even the worst predictions “only” say that half of smokers get killed by their habit (or more precisely that their habit will directly cause a disease which kills them). “Already chosen death” is very dramatic, but not true. The worst which can be said is the smoker plays Russian roulette with a half-filled revolver.

          1. Yes, your phrasing is more accurate. The smoker chooses to play russian roulette with a half-filled revolver. The FDA doesn’t enter into it.

            1. Yes it does if the player wishes to take out a couple cartridges from the revolver and the FDA says “no you can’t do that”. (Always assuming an e-cig ban by the FDA goes through.)

              Look, the statement “FDA kills smokers” is obviously an overstatement, but the line “FDA plans to sabotage harm reduction for some smokers” is nowhere near as catchy, although more accurate.

              1. I agree, it’s much more accurate. The basis for which government policies we should implement should be based on “harm reduction” rather than “rights infringement”. (Don’t tell Ayn Rand!)

                1. should be based on “harm reduction” rather than “rights infringement”

                  We’re going to disagree on this one, but the point is that the FDA indeed plans to screw over some smokers even by the govt.’s own stated standards.

        2. The FDA has chosen the death of some citizens by not outlawing cigarettes. I choose to use a product that…If used as advertised will most likely shorten my life if not cause my death. My government ALLOWS it to be sold legally. THere is no other instance; “if used as entended”.
          These socialist marxists have to go in 2012!!!

          1. Just to prove a point, I would love to come scrutinize your life and find out what activities you do that risk your life and put a gun to your head to tell you, “You can’t do that.”

        3. I didn’t chose death, it was the only option given to me at birth. I just choose to have a bit of fun along the way, who cares if I die a bit earlier?

  18. Sounds like Big Tobacco lobbying congress. How can they ban E-cigs and not actual cigs?

    1. Because the FDA can’t regulate “natural” substances like tobacco. But they absolutely can regulate technological “delivery devices”. Because the device in question isn’t proven 100% safe, the FDA wants to ban it; The fact it replaces an existing product that is 100% UNsafe is completely irrelevant to the FDA.

  19. I can kill too, ya know *flexes muscles*

    1. Prove it, pussy.

      1. Don’t listen to them, i’ve never killed anybody.

        1. Prove it, stinker.

          1. Innocent until proven guilty…right? right?? *trembles nervously*

            1. In a court of law, yes.

              In the court of popular opinion, not so much.

  20. I have quit smoking tar-laden cigarettes with my e-cigarettes.
    I guess the FDA wants me to get back to killing myself with carcinogens.

    1. I’m switchin to E-cigs after the new year. Still got 3 cartons left to smoke up first.

      1. Do you know which maker/brand are you going to switch to? I wouldn’t mind to give it a try myself, but I know nothing about which one to buy.

        1. neoteny, I get mine from a few online merchants (though there are many that are decent). If you’re just starting, I recommend going with a small starter kit, something like the 510 (the same models generally get sold under different names depending on the retailer), which is the most cigarette-like as far as size goes.

          I’ve used e-cigs for 3 years, so over time I found that despite the awesome look and size of the 510, the battery goes out way too quickly for me. I need an all-day vape, so I upgraded to a much bigger model.

          The main site I visit is Totally Wicked E-Liquid ( They’ve got both the 510 (Titan) and mine, the Tornado. Despite the name, I don’t usually order my e-liquid from them. Not that it’s not good, I just can find it cheaper elsewhere. But their hardware is killer.

          For juice, I usually got to‘s store. They’ve got great deals on getting three 30ml bottles, which would last you a while. Another good place for juice is

          Good luck with your transition to vaping!

          1. Thanks for the info; this is what I needed! 🙂

            1. Sorry boss, he beat me to it. I was actually going to get my kit from vapor4life, because I heard theirs’ were the closest to actually smoking real cigs.

            2. As long as folks are throwing out suggestions, seems to have some very cheap liquids. I’ve been vaping for about 3-4 weeks now and while I bought a pack of real cigarettes between e-cig orders (I replaced my first one with a Tornado), I find that I actually enjoy vaping more. Probably doesn’t hurt that it’s now winter and I don’t have to go outside anymore.

        2. I’ve tried a couple brands, and my favorite is Kingpin:
          They have starter kits, which is what most people recommend to people who are new to e cigs.
          They’re about to start carrying a new line of eliquid that is completely organic and offers pretty much any flavor you can think of.
          E cigarettes are how I quit smoking. Best of luck.

    2. They want you to go back to paying huge cigarette taxes.

      The cancer part is just a bonus.

  21. The FDA can take my Silver Bullet and Boba’s Bounty when they pry my cold dead hands off them.

    1. wow, my work comp’s filter blocked your silver bullet link in the category of “Alcohol & Tobacco”.

  22. Come this February, I will have been smoke-free for 3 years after smoking for eleven.

    I did that with the help of e-cigarettes, which I continue to use to this day.

    I find it ridiculous that not only are e-cigarettes routinely included in smoking bans around the nation (including in my own city), but that now the federal government even wants to go out of its way to take away the only thing that’s ever been able to help me quit smoking. And without any evidence of harm! There’s not even a comparison between a cigarette and an e-cigarette in terms of toxic substances. And I save so much more money in a year using e-cigs than I would if I still smoked.

    Shameful. I really don’t want to go back to smoking, yet if e-cigs ever get banned, I can’t swear that wouldn’t happen.

    1. that’s what they want you to do, bro…a lot of projects are connected to State Tobacco Taxes. Big big money 😉

      This is always why I hated the “not good for you” argument. it’s always some other reason or motivation involved.

  23. Oh man, this wasn’t a repeat. We’ll have to catch this episode when it’s shown again.

  24. I am puffing one as I type; this is the first time in 30 years I have been able to go a day or two w/out smoking (Cigarette free since Oct 28th), I have been hypnotiztd twice-acupuncture twice-tons of gum-Patches-wellbutrin-chantix, over the last 15-20 yrs, this is a great product for me. I do how ever also use the lightest patch with it. My Dr. says he doesnt care if I am addicted to nicotine (it is about the same as caffiene “just do not smoke”, he tells me.

  25. fwiw, if the FDA bans e-cigs, the practical effect will be that many smokers who would have lived… will die.

    period. full stop.

    it’s similar (but the difference is that cigs are legal, etc.) to states that make it difficult for people to get clean syringes.

    in my state, they are over the counter.

    even if you are virulently opposed to illegal drug use, etc. one should still want addicts to have easy access to clean needles.


    abscesses, communicable diseases, etc.

  26. “It boggles my mind why there is a bias against e-cigarettes among antismoking groups”

    Same reason there is a bias against condoms in anti abortion groups.

  27. Try this- go to any public place, indoor or confined outdoor, like a stadium or ballpark, and put a white stick in your mouth that resembles a cigarette. You will soon be accosted- people don’t have to smell smoke to be offended by cigarettes. The mere appearance of one will set them off.

    1. That’s why tje best advice I can give to a potential new egig user is “Don’t buy a white one with a red tip!!” 😉

  28. Stossel misses the primary reason that the FDA is pushing against them — the FDA is a government agency, therefore it exists to gather power unto itself. By leaving e-cigs alone, that power is NOT gathered.

    The other consideration is the one that got smokeless cigs banned a couple of decades ago — it’s a means of delivering a drug without letting the Dope Warriors catch the druggie.

    In each case, the Constitution would seem to come down in favor of e-cigs.

  29. While not surprising, this is disappointing and frustrating.

    Lots of research has been done on e cigarettes and has found that, a) They’re definitely less harmful than regular cigarettes, and, b) they help people quit smoking regular cigarettes. That’s how both of my brothers and I quit.

    Also, most e-liquid is made with US Pharmaceutical grade ingredients and contain no carcinogens or toxic substances.

    Regular cigarettes, on the contrary, are filled with a laundry list of dangerous chemicals that don’t even need to be in the cigarettes but are added to make them more addictive and all sorts of other reasons.

    It is shocking that so many people are working so hard to ban e cigarettes while big tobacco is left basically untouched.

    Logic and data should be all that matter.

  30. Apparently the FDA would prefer that 40 million Americans keep smoking tobacco and dying than give up power. Hopefully e-cigs will become so popular that they won’t be able to ban them because of the outrage it would cause.

    Does anyone know how long disposable e-cigs last (as in shelf life)? If they manage to ban them I’m gonna ask my fav brand ( to give me a deal for 100 disposables lol.

  31. I’m currently using WordPress for a few of my sites but looking to change one of them over to a platform similar to yours as a trial run.On my site photo montage I find it hard to keep up sometimes with people.

    esmoking 101

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.