E-Cigarette Follow Up: Inhale This -- "Ba-Bye"

 

SAY BA-BYE to e-cigarettes. That's a "Gidday" in Australia; "Adeus" in Brazil; "Good bye" in Canada; "Lehitra'ot" in Israel; Nakemiin" in Finland; "Selamat jalan" in Malaysia; "Good bye, steady bo?" in Singapore; and, "Adios" in Mexico.

E-cigarettes are becoming  a mere mist of its former vapors. They have been banned in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico; and restricted in Finland, Malaysia and Singapore. In America, e-cigs are virtually banned in Oregon, threatened with legal action in Connecticut and the subject of a major class action law suit.  Legal activist and public interest law professor John Banzhaf says e-cigarettes are about to be banned in California, which could be followed in Kentucky, and then in other states.

SEIZURES, NO MORE PAYPAL OR FACEBOOK 

Declared illegal by the FDA, e-cigarette imports are being seized and sellers could face criminal penalties. Most e-cigarettes seem to be sold online over the Internet; now, however, PayPal has stopped facilitating their sale. Additionally Facebook supposedly has dropped ads for e-cigs.

Additionally, some e-cigarette wholesalers are determining it necessary that they provide product liability insurance to their retail customers.

 LEGAL ACTIVISM

Much what has happened has been influenced by the efforts of Professor Banzhaf of George Washington University Law School, who won a law suit which helped established the FDA's jurisdiction over nicotine products and who filed a legal petition with the FDA, demanding that the agency take action concerning electronic cigarettes. Banzhaf also warned PayPal, advising the payment agency to drop its e-cigarette accounts. Recently, he reports that a federal court decision in a crucial e-cigarette law suit may be imminent. In 1968, John Banzhaf founded the non-profit Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)and has been called the "Ralph Nader of Tobacco Industry." Hip! Hip! to John Banzhaf and legal activism.

As reported by Ethic Soup in past posts, the FDA and numerous health organizations have shown that e-cigarettes present an extensive variety of potential dangers to users (and maybe also to those around them) who inhale a mixture of nicotine -- both dangerous and addictive -- and propylene glycol which is an ingredient in antifreeze. Besides nicotine and propylene glycol, the FDA recently released research results that it found in samples of e-cigarettes a number of "toxic and carcinogenic chemicals." Those include specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens. 

TO READ "HEY HEY FDA: WHADDAYA SAY ARE E-CIGARETTES SAFE, EH?" CLICK HERE.

TO READ "FDA WARNS: E-CIGARETTES CONTAIN HARMFUL TOXINS, CANCER CAUSING CHEMICALS AND ANTIFREEZE COMPOUND" CLICK HERE.

TO READ "E-CIGARETTES NOT SAFE: OREGON SUES IMPORTER, PILOTS WANT TO BAN AS FIRE DANGER" CLICK HERE.

By Sharon McEachern

Comments

[twitter.com/Pheistyblog]

Propylene Glycol is found in athsma inhalers. In fact, it's one of the main ingredients, aside from the medication itself.

This is a travesty. Even at their worst, e-cigs are 100 to 1000 times less harmful than smoking tobacco cigarettes. So why on earth would they not "ban" cigarettes?

Because Big Pharma and the tobacco industry (and government--tax revenue) make too much money on it.

Also, these e-cigarettes come without nicotine, if you so choose.

[Sharon McEachern]

Hi Joey! Glad you responded to this post. I have several thoughts/questions to share. How do you know that e-cigarettes are 100 to 1,000 times less harmful than smoking tobacco cigarettes? Can you scientifically disprove that the following groups are all wrong about e-cigarettes being "poisonous?" --- American Cancer Society, American Heart Assn., American Lung Assn., the World Health Organization and the FDA.

You also say that e-cigs come without nicotine, if you choose. For what purpose? Might as well get those candy cigs for kids, which would be a whole lot cheaper. I could almost guarantee that very few people buy e-cigarettes without the nicotine.

And Joey, in your own blog you say that you don't have time to deal with the "intellectually dishonest." Okay, Girl, you haven't been exactly honest and transparent in your comment. You gave no warning that you had your first cigarette at age 14, admit that "I was born to smoke," and that when you wrote this comment you were in your first two weeks of being "smoke free." OUCH! I know when I stopped smoking three years ago, I was miserable and MY thinking was definitely not very logical. By the way, you say "smoke free" for two weeks, does that mean "nicotine free?" Are you using e-cigarettes.