Archive | July 2013

So, You Want to Write an Article About Electronic Cigarettes

The Flying Vapor


You are likely underinformed.

There is an emerging body of press shining something that wishes to be light on the growing popularity of eCigs.  Unfortunately, the quality of this coverage often lacks accuracy and objectivity.  In all honesty, a good deal of it reads like a terrifying love letter to the trembling masses on behalf of the Nanny State.  As a journalist, you might want to avoid that.

Here are some pointers to get you started:

  1. It’s NOT Smoking!  I’ve seen plenty of articles that casually refer to what we do as “smoking”.  Even in passing, this might give the reader the impression that eCig use is the same as smoking a cigarette.  On the contrary, eCig users are best identified as Vapers.  As in “People that use a Personal Vaporizer (PV)”.  What we are doing is Vaping.  Vapers Vaping Vapor.
  2. The FDA did a “study”…

View original post 1,357 more words

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco.

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


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.”

In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

A forum gets satirically truthful, Courtesy of Dragonmum

From the ukvapers forum —


Hey guys, been reading through all the posts with regards to the proposed bans/regs! This gov is so feckin corrupt its untrue! They juat want in on the tax and popularity of the vaping world

Anywqy Finding it hard to understand were we are at NOW? How likely are these bans to take place?

Are the goverment seriously going to put thousands of companies out of bussiness and put people back on the weed? Or will the vendors juat have to sell licensed products ?

Can it not just mean that the eliquid vendors will have to be checked and regulated?

Can someone put it all in a nutshell for me please Wink


Once upon a time a thing called an e-cig got invented and started to gain a market circa 2007/8ish. No-one was bothered because it was only used by a bunch of cranks who were looking for a substitute fag and of course there could be no such thing.
Fast forward to December 2012 and the ranks of cranks had swollen to millions in the U.S, E.U and U.K and, even worse, a lot of them had stopped buying tobacco because, by a really serendipitous happenstance, the ecig not only satisfied the users – they actually grew to prefer it!! What was really surprising though was that the health of ecig users appeared to improve. Lungs cleared up, asthma sufferers threw away their Salmeterol – heart conditions improved, joggers who had been sedentary for years put on their running shoes again, the list went on and on.
This was wonderful news.
Alas, not for the tobacco companies who were losing a big slice of their market; not for the big pharmaceutical companies either – these “vapers” were a huge threat to them. Not only were they no longer in need of the expensive drugs for C.O.P.D and related conditions, of which, according to their figures, one in two smokers die – but it was entirely possible that they would avoid lung cancer, and that is seriously expensive treatment.
As if that were not enough to contend with there was the loss of all the billions paid out world-wide for Nicotine Replacement Therapies which, it is said, are ineffective 95% of the time – unlike the e-cig which satisfies the user 57% of the time, a conservative figure.
Most smokers desperate to quit will pay anything for a “cure” – if they are fortunate enough to reside in the U.K the Government will fund this indefinitely, at the tax-payers expense; other countries are not so generous.
And so we come to Government – I can only cite the U.K of course.
Now, for any cynics out there, they only want what’s best for us – don’t they?
Smoking-related disease is estimated to cost the NHS £1.3 billion per annum and that’s a serious amount of money; on the other hand they screw smokers for £9 billion per annum. Now, mathematics was never my strong suit, but one has to wonder whether the fact that one smoker subsidises treatment for himself and six or seven other (possibly non-smoking but still sick) citizens might not weigh just the teensiest bit with them when they consider their budget.
What a dilemma for them all you might think, but help was at hand; in December 2012 they found that the Tobacco Products Directive or TPD was due for resurrection so, taking advantage of Christmas when everyone would be full of good cheer, they slipped in a little clause making E- cigarettes a “tobacco product” – how clever was that? Well, not very, actually. as we shall see.
E-cigarette users all over Europe picked up on this i……

Sorry this isn’t a nutshell reply, not even a reply really – I haven’t answered any of your points but others will. Your post just started me thinking is all.

The self-righteousness of vapers

My thoughts on

The self-righteousness of vapers and their “miracle” product. a post by Simon Clark on the “Taking Liberties” blog.

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed both in SC’s article and in many of the comments here.
Yes, there are some sanctimonious and sometimes even evangelistic vapers out there, and usually they are the ones who took it up as an aid to quitting, or are new to “the hobby” and have not really discovered the joys and choices of vaping. The attitude would be best summed up by the saying “There but for the grace of ‘e-cigs’, go I”!
There are also many people out there who are pro e-cigs, who are keen to show off what they have, what they use and even how it tastes etc. These are the ones quietly getting on with what they are doing, who will happily pause to answer questions and show off, they may even give advice as to how to find the vaper’s ultimate goal – the “perfect vape”. They will however know that there is no such universal beast, and warn that the search for it can prove almost as expensive as smoking. These are vaping’s success stories, as far as switching goes. The prime UK example of this type of person is a presenter of Vapoutrails TV, David Dorn. Encouragement as opposed to evangelism is the key here!
Ms Devlin has been captured by her job, and as such is required to be evangelistic to do it properly, but sometimes she does overdo it a bit. Kath is a wonderful person who would not deliberately become sanctimonious.
Myself? I am what is dismissively called a “dual-fueller”, that is one who both smokes and vapes. Thus attacking smokers for their “bad habit” would be cutting my nose off to spite my face. I love faffing around with a genesis atomiser and home-made mods in the evening, but during the morning I just don’t have the time, so I smoke – a little.

PS. Advice for Vapefest – book a hotel room somewhere near it NOW, as I am assured that beer is a goodly part of the proceedings. I just wish I could get there, but for a Bournemouth hotelier in August, it’s an impossibility.

First they came for the smokers . . .

One example of what is written at this page:-


First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the motorcycle riders
and I did not speak out
because I was not a motorcycle rider.
Then they came for the fast food eaters
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fast food eater.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

By Martin Fierro

But is it “Evidence”?

An interesting post that would be correct if real evidence existed!

Whilst the title is right, it appears that the content uses a slightly distorted version of the English language. The word “evidence” seems to be being used in a way that I don’t understand, instead of being used as “proven fact”, it is being used as “ideological theories”.
To date there is no data at all as to whether plain packs will have any effect at all on the rate of take up by youth. Only Australia has this at the moment and no figures have yet come to light. To call the theories that led to the Australian experiment “evidence” is misleading to say the least. The studies that suggest this policy are, to date, only theoretical ones, and remain invalid as evidence that the policy will work. To be sure, they suggest that it might work, but I would suspect that a minimum pack size of 25, and a price bump, would work better and end up a lot cheaper to implement.

To be honest, when I was smoking, I didn’t look at the packs at all, just the prices.

I have no objection in principle to plain packs for tobacco or minimum pricing for alcohol, I do object to the waste of resources that may be incurred by either imposing these theories before they have been proven by testing, or by legal costs from challenges by IP owners.

University of East London research finds electronic cigarettes help people stop smoking

Research by the University of East London has found nearly 75 percent of people using electronic cigarettes found the devises helped the stop smoking.

The findings just published show nearly 75 percent of respondents started using e-cigarettes as a complete alternative to smoking, while 22 per cent stated they had started using the devices for other reasons, such as stopping smoking (seven per cent), for health reasons (six per cent) and to avoid smoking restrictions (three per cent).

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed confirmed they had not smoked cigarettes for several weeks or months since using the e-cigarette, and that the amount they smoked had decreased dramatically.

Lynne Dawkins, who led the study, said: “We know the majority of people reported great health benefits – a reduction in coughing and improved breathing for example. The benefits are most likely from people smoking fewer cigarettes, rather than as a direct effect of the devices.

“This survey is just a starting point, and further research is clearly needed to evaluate their effectiveness and long-term safety.”

A total of 1,123 ex-smokers and 218 current smokers from 33 different countries took part in the online survey.