Guardian Article on E-Cigs

[gibla53]

From a Director of Public Health in Herts , some excellent comments already any more?

t.co/EW04vjWPm8

Please remember its a  Very Influential  Public Platform if you do comment  ( Reasoned + Sensible will have the most impact ) 

[markm]

It reads as remarkably open minded for someone who demonstrates
A minimal understanding of the subject. He has obviously done SOME
reading and needs to do a lot more, I hope some of the replies help
Him gain a fuller understanding of the issues.

[barrynorton]

They are also concerned that e-cigarettes are inconsistent in standards and nicotine delivery

What, like coffee? Sometimes the caffeine content is not listed - most independent coffee shops couldn't tell you - and the devices (Nespresso, Tassimo, Dolce Gusto) produce markedly different results with no reliable information of the delivery of the active ingredient.

[barrynorton]

I couldn't help but expand on my comment in The Guardian, mailing the author (and editor) directly with this:

I hope you don’t mind my contacting you personally, but I hoped to engage you directly with my response to your piece in The Guardian.

First let me say that I’m pleased that you’re attempting to keep an open mind on the issue. I hope you’ll be receptive to my offering a different perspective on medical regulation.

It’s worth stating that I’m one of those million plus Brits who’ve adopted e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking, and personally I’ve broken my habit of buying a packet of cigarettes each day to my current happy position of not having bought a pack in three months. With regard to your closing question I’d say I’m happy to be ‘tobacco free’ and I’ve no concern to be ‘nicotine free.


Regarding medicalisation, then - to which I’m opposed as raising the barrier to entry both to other potential adopters and to innovation within the devices market, which is currently frenzied - let me state my case by analogy.

Caffeine is a legal stimulant like nicotine, and not without (very similar) health concerns - those with notable reason to be cautious are those with high blood pressure or heart problems. For my part I have no particular worries about my use of nicotine and caffeine.

As in the current e-cigarette market, caffeine is delivered in both commodity pre-prepared form (e.g. what we tend to call cig-a-likes versus carbonated drinks, both available in news agents, and instant coffee), in ‘gourmet’ form (coffee shops and vaping shops that offer both ‘ready to use’ and basic devices for home preparation) and in somewhat specialist high-end devices usually together with ‘DIY’ preparation of ingredients. With a background in research science it’s perhaps no surprise that I tend towards the latter in both cases.

Now, regarding your statement about concerns of "inconsistent in standards and nicotine delivery", ‘cig-a-likes’ - the small disposable devices that look like cigarettes, on which the debate too often focuses - appear troublesome, I’m happy to concede. They’re unreliable devices due to their small batteries and their stated measurements are not wholly useful, quoting the mg/ml concentration of nicotine in the contained liquid, but often neither listing the quantity of this, nor able to vapourise all of this due to unreliable battery discharge. Here, the carbonated caffeine drinks seem to be better. Looking more widely though, how many independent coffee shops could tell me the caffeine concentration in their coffee (or tea)? Try it. The answer I’ve found is none. How many instant coffees tell you the caffeine levels in the jar, let alone help one compute the caffeine in a cup? I just looked (in the kitchen at work); again, none.

Regarding the ‘mid-market’, more credible to developing coffee fans and vapers alike, I would point out that such caffeine-delivery devices as Nespresso, Tassimo and Dolce Gusto do not deliver consistent results and their doses of caffeine are often not documented or, where they are, reliable. While it’s true that different e-cigarette devices may deliver nicotine at variant rates of absorption, at least the nicotine-based e-liquid is wholly vapourised so that the nicotine in the vapour is precisely measured (the devices beyond cig-a-likes most often have ‘clearomizers’ where the amount of liquid vapourised is quite accurately measured in tenths of a millilitre).

When it comes to higher-end devices, I both roast my own coffee and mix my own ‘e-liquid’. In the latter case I can tell you exactly what the strength of the liquid, made from pharmaceutically-licensed ingredients is. Regarding my coffee, I simply have no idea; here both the roast and the brew are so variable that I cannot have a hope to know.


The sole reason consumer devices for nicotine delivery are held up to higher scrutiny are that the active ingredient they deliver is the same one contained in a plant leaf that, when burned and inhaled, causes health problems due to the smoke's other ingredients. Is this fair? If we found out tomorrow that tea was cancer-causing, would coffee suddenly become subject to such draconian medical licensing?

If you’ll indulge me, this specific analogy can be furthered, based directly on Coca Cola. While Coca Cola has caffeine in a highly measured dose, it is still produced using coca leaves - though these days decocainised - and these produce oral cancers via their traditional means of consumption (chewing).

If the debate is down to this association with the traditional form (cf. cigarette smoking) then, may I suggest, if you’ll forgive my being facetious to make a point, that Coca Cola, and by extension coffee and tea, be immediately subject to medical licensing?

[djs]

This sort of thing annoys me.

One study has shown e-cigarettes to be as effective as patches, another has shown that among smokers not intending to quit who were provided with e-cigarettes almost one in 10 had completely stopped smoking at the end of a year.

What does it mean? As effective as patches? I thought NRT was a 90% failure.
1/10 stopping smoking - that sounds crap quite frankly.

If that's it, what hope is there. ???

People I know who do not want to smoke and buy decent e-cigs all seem to manage to give up smoking, and quite easily too.
A few days of struggle, maybe a week or two of dual using, then BANG, end of story.

Somehow, until people start recognising e-cigs are better than this the whole cause is in dire trouble.

and what of this little beauty?

They are also concerned that e-cigarettes are inconsistent in standards and nicotine delivery

What's inconsistent? The liquid and delivery in the crap cartomisers from the equally crap companies that are selling little more than placebos?

It gets my goat.

Apologies to fellow vapers, but all the time people think E-Lites and Nicolites are the "real deal" we are in such trouble.

[gibla53]

No study information is quoting 2nd Gen (Ego type) or 3rd Gen (VV/VW) future studies will start to catch up and hopefully start to see better  results . Also using real world nic strength ( 18-24mg would help ) and offer users flavours which NONE of the published tests have yet managed .

We know they work, scientific testing has to catch up with the rapid progress . I know that Prof P Hajek is trying to do a 3rd Gen study using experienced London Vapers ( volunteers reqd ) , similarly Dr L Dawkins . Dr F. also will be doing yet more testing

[barrynorton]

Nov 20, 2013 19:05:06 GMT gibla53 said:

I know that Prof P Hajek is trying to do a 3rd Gen study using experienced London Vapers ( volunteers reqd )

Do you have more details on this? I used to be a postdoc at Queen Mary.

[gibla53]

He is attending the next London meet 7/12 see ukvapers.org/Thread-The-8th-London-and-South-East-meet -sorry not aaec link

I spoke to him about 3rd Gen testing and that is when he mentioned wanting London based volunteers . Probably will discuss at the meet further details of what reqd.

[barrynorton]

OK, I'll really try to make this meet then. Thanks.

[barrynorton]

Just heard back from Peter Hayek:

This is something at a planning stage, not yet actioned. We are thinking of having a panel of vapers to test products for nicotine delivery - would involve coming in the morning and having blood samples taken over 30 minutes while vaping, repeated for each of several products and also for a cigarette. It would be paid, but we did not sort out the funding yet, let alone ethics and other red tape issues.

[barrynorton]

Heard back also from Jim McManus, who wrote the article in the OP.

I linked him here.

[Deleted]

Okay barrynorton.....linky please

[barrynorton]

Sorry, I'm afraid these are all email conversations. I'm actually a little shocked about the lack of presence for the QMUL/BARTS/Wolfson Tobacco Dependence Research Unit. They have an 0800 number rather than a website, like it's the 1980s!

[GunJack]

Nov 20, 2013 21:36:00 GMT barrynorton said:

Just heard back from Peter Hayek:

This is something at a planning stage, not yet actioned. We are thinking of having a panel of vapers to test products for nicotine delivery - would involve coming in the morning and having blood samples taken over 30 minutes while vaping, repeated for each of several products and also for a cigarette. It would be paid, but we did not sort out the funding yet, let alone ethics and other red tape issues.

WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?! "and also for a cigarette" ?!?!?!? Surely most serious vapers wouldn't touch another stinky with someone else's, never mind their own !!! Does this not in itself show a distinct misunderstanding ???

...or is it just me ???

[barrynorton]

I'd 'take one for the team'.

I'd rather smoke another cigarette than take some new drugs that's only been through animal trials.