Long life

The war on e-cigarettes is enough to make me give up giving up

Editing a magazine has always turned me back into a smoker; vaping is my only hope

6 September 2014

9:00 AM

6 September 2014

9:00 AM

I have been, on and off, a lifelong smoker; but I gave up in January 2009 on the day of Barack Obama’s inauguration as President of the United States. It was out of feelings of solidarity with the poor man, who I assumed (incorrectly, as it turned out) would have to quit too when he took office; for Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, had ruled that there should never be any smoking in the White House. I myself remained primly smoke-free for five and a half years, but took up cigarettes again in June when I became editor of The Oldie.

Before that I had edited four other magazines, including this one, and had always had a cigarette on the go for most of the time. I think I couldn’t imagine editing anything without one. But, given the poor condition of my lungs, as well as the illegality of smoking in an office, I thought I had better try to give up again, even though Auberon Waugh used to say that smokers were generally nicer people than non-smokers. I felt that this couldn’t possibly be true any more, since so many very nice people had stopped smoking in the meantime, and it also seemed a good moment to quit because researchers were proclaiming that September was the least stressful month of the year. So it’s now been a few days since I had a puff on a cigarette.

To help me keep my new resolution, I have been furnished with several packets of e-cigarettes, those clever imitations, invented by the Chinese, that contain no tobacco and exude vapour rather than smoke, but provide you with just enough nicotine to satisfy an addict’s needs. E-cigarettes come in various shapes and forms — it is a very competitive industry — but the ones I have look and feel like real cigarettes, come in boxes that resemble real cigarette boxes, and issue satisfying clouds of smoke-like vapour. But when you suck one, the tip turns blue, rather than red, and remains disconcertingly cold. Even so, it’s a persuasive substitute for the real thing and should be warmly welcomed by the health authorities as another powerful weapon in the war against tobacco.

The opposite, however, is the case. Instead of urging people like me to ‘vape’, as the practice of puffing on e-cigarettes is now called, both the World Health Organisation and Britain’s Royal Society for Public Health are doing their best to stop us. They have to recognise, because it’s true, that e-cigarettes are infinitely less harmful than real cigarettes and have the potential to save millions of lives, but all the same they burrow away looking for dangers in them. No matter that e-cigarettes are used by people to help them give up smoking; the WHO likes to imagine that they will lead paradoxically to more people doing it. Although, as the organisation admits, there is no evidence of children being tempted to take up cigarettes after trying electronic ones, it fears that this may not always be the case.

What if e-cigarettes became viewed as ‘cool’? That might make all kinds of smoking seem cool and turn the young to tobacco as well. And the RSPH agrees. It wants the name ‘e-cigarette’ to be changed to something like ‘nicotine stick’, because, it says, ‘we want to ensure that these products don’t begin to be seen as lifestyle choices and as something that appears cool or trendy’. So e-cigarettes, although designed to protect us from smoking, must be stigmatised as smoking is, just in case they should themselves turn out to be — if clearly not remotely as harmful as tobacco — possibly a little less innocuous than they appear to be.

There is not even now any consensus about the effects of ‘passive smoking’; yet untested fears that e-cigarette vapour could contain some pollutants have already led the WHO to demand a ban on ‘vaping’ indoors. Such a ban, it says, should remain in force ‘until exhaled vapour is proven to be not harmful to bystanders and reasonable evidence exists that smoke-free policy enforcement is not undermined’. You would think that the WHO had enough real health problems to deal with without needing to protect the world against imaginary dangers that may not even exist. And in this case, by banning ‘vaping’ indoors, it would also undermine the efforts of millions of people to give up smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. It makes me so cross that I may very well give up giving up.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Paul Evans

    I think it’s more the case that the WHO and RSPH have been recruited by various governments in the desperate battle against falling tax revenues.

    • Tim L

      It’s not only governments, but pharmaceutical companies as well. E-cigarettes have shown a quit rate of around 60% while gums, patches, and even medications like Chantix show a quit rate of about 2%. Since people tend to choose what works over what doesn’t when they have a choice. This translates to not only lots of tax revenue lost, but also disrupts profits for pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer.

  • Brewlady

    Exhaled vapor is not harmful to bystanders. Please read Peering Through the Mist, a research article by Dr. Igor Burstyn, public health professor at Drexel University. There is a wealth of evidence confirming the effectiveness and safety of e-cigs when compared to tobacco cigarettes.

    WHO has chosen to ignore the science. Smokers deserve truthful information in order to make informed decisions about their own health, including the way they use nicotine. When a health organization is more concerned about it’s own agenda than actually helping adult smokers, I shudder to think what else they are untruthful about.

  • Stosh

    Keep on “giving up”, vaping does work. Been smoke free over 4 years now, and starving the government of their taxes 😉

    Here’s a very small sample of the cost of lost taxes…. http://www.graphicsmonkey.net/vape/vapers.php

  • Well done on giving up! Only thing I would suggest is getting a APV / Ego-Type if you start to feel the cigalikes not working so well.

    I’m really not that suprised by the WHO’s stance, they receive a large sum of funds from Big Pharma, and Big Pharma’s NRT is going to take a nosedive if E-Cigs become less stigmatised.

  • getlost

    To sum up the facts below, e cigarettes can and do poison people. They can and do release nicotine to people around the user, though less than actual cigarettes. The people who manufacture them will not release facts about what is in them and do not want to be subject to any laws regarding their contents. They have unknown contents as well as nicotine and nobody knows how poisonous they are.

    I hate to break it to you, but it’s not some giant conspiracy. They’re just not proven – or anywhere near proven – to be safe. And not just to the users.

    It’s great you gave up. Sorry you made the choice to start again. And again, good you have made a healthy choice again. I suggest counselling if you are still struggling after all this time. And that’s nt meant to sound snarky.


    “Liquid nicotine is extracted from tobacco, but unlike tobacco leaves, liquid nicotine can be lethal. It can cause harm when it’s inhaled, but it can also be harmful when ingested or absorbed through your skin. Only a small dose is dangerous — less than one tablespoon of many of the e-liquids on the market is enough to kill an adult, and as little as a teaspoon could kill a child) [source: Richtel]. The number of calls to poison control centers regarding e-cigarette nicotine-infused liquids rose sharply every month between September 2010 and February 2014, from just one call per month to as many as 215 — that’s a rise from 0.3 percent to 41.7 percent of all emergency calls. As many as 51.1 percent of those calls involved accidental poisoning of kids under the age of 5 (roughly 42 percent involved adults age 20 or older) [source: CDC].

    Some testing suggests it’s not only the nicotine that may be dangerous. Certain e-cigarette devices may also release metals during use — including tin in some cases — as well as other impurities known to be toxic and/or carcinogenic.

    Despite being on the market for several years, many regulatory agencies and health experts aren’t sure just how safe e-cigarettes actually are. Among their concerns is the lack of disclosure of all the ingredients used as well as the lack of (or validity of) health and safety claims by manufacturers about their products. In 2009, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found some cartridges of liquid nicotine contained about 1 percent diethylene glycol (DEG), a toxic chemical ingredient also found in antifreeze [source: FDA].

    To make matters worse, the amount of nicotine listed on a cartridge label may not match the actual amount in the cartridge. FDA testing has found cartridges under the same manufacturing label may release significantly different levels of nicotine, ranging from 26.8 to 43.2 micrograms nicotine per 100 milliliter puff. And those nicotine-free cartridges? Lab tests indicate you’re still getting a low dose, despite the claims [source: FDA].

    The FDA regulates some tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. But it wasn’t until 2014 that the agency proposed requirements for e-cigarettes, nicotine gels and dissolvable tobacco, among other previously unregulated tobacco products, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Under these regulations manufacturers are required to disclose all ingredients in their products, and have FDA approval before marketing them. Additionally, e-cigs can’t be sold to minors (although the specific age depends on the state in which you live), and all labeling must include health warnings; free samples and vending machine sales are also prohibited [source: Federal Register].

    Manufacturers, however, say the e-cigarette is simply recreational, and should not be subject to FDA regulation….

    Nicotine exposure from e-cigarettes IS REAL, although studies suggest that exposure is far less from e-cig vapors than from the smoke of regular cigarettes. Nicotine emissions are 10 times lower than from burning tobacco, and the secondhand aerosol doesn’t contain significant amounts of tobacco-specific toxins (carbon monoxide or other toxic volatile organic compounds) [source: Czogala].

    Despite the marketing claims that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco, researchers are finding e-cig users experience diminished lung function, airway resistance and cellular changes, regardless of whether or not they currently (or ever) smoke cigarettes. And in the lab, cells exposed to e-cigarette vapor show unhealthy changes similar to cells exposed to tobacco smoke [source: Park et al]. Users who vape nicotine-free e-cigs can’t escape the effects, either; they also experience airway resistance and other signs of inflammation as side effects of e-cigarette use.”

    • Alix Golding-Mills

      I know exactly what goes into my ecig as I make my own juice…I have approx. 25% more lung function now than I did before I took up vaping (14 months ago) and I no longer have asthma that requires steroids…I think, due to my own experience, that I’ll stick with my ecig and live a much healthier, happier, chest infection free life. Oh and about the fact that liquid nicotine is toxic if swallowed or in contact with the skin in quite small doses, duh…I know not to drink mine and I keep it where my kids cannot possibly get to it for that reason. Bleach is dangerous too but that isn’t subject to prohibition is it? All that is required is education and labelling, the same goes for ecigs. Add to that the fact that it’s my right to kill myself quite literally with tobacco products, shouldn’t it be my right to choose an alternative which I find to be the best thing for me (and millions of others) to give up smelly, nasty fags…I say that as a 20+ per day, roll your own smoker since the age of 14 (now 35) who has tried (all on different occasions over the last 10 years); hypnotherapy (twice), cold turkey, lozenges, inhalers, patches and gum and failed miserably and been miserable the whole time I’ve been quit (which was a painful 2 years maximum) and now I honestly can say that all the while I have my ecig I will never want another cigarette as I don’t ever crave them, they are horrible. But before when I’ve tried to quit I’ve still wanted one every single hour of every single day. Now, where is my cherry menthol nicotine stick, all this is making me need a vape 😉

      • Frank

        I’ll have some blueberry cheesecake with double cream and strawberry sauce flavour please Mr. Willy Wonka 🙂

    • Frank

      1 : You can get nicotine-free liquids.

      2 : The ingredients in e-liquids are food grade approved for vapour inhalation. Same as asthma inhalers etc.

      3 : These are meant as a cessation from smoking. They aren’t ‘safe’ in the fact that they’re a bit naughty, like having a pint or a cup of coffee. Now, if you drink 30 cups of strong coffee a day, it’s not going to do you any good is it?
      The point is, it moves people one step further to giving up altogether. And doesn’t involve combustion, so no tar or carbon monoxide enters the lungs.

    • Matthew Adamczak

      Just to let you know, manufacturers do list what goes into their e-liquid. I have my bottle right here and can name every ingredient to you. As to what ingredients are in the flavors, ask the FDA what is nicotine inhalers that you so graciously accept as a an acceptable form of indoor nicotine cessation.

  • rogerrabbit

    So, let me get this straight:

    1) You’re trying to minimise the well documented dangers of passive smoking.

    2) You reckon blowing contaminated smoke into an office is acceptable. (Hint, even putting up with non toxic smoke – if such a thing could possibly exist – is something nobody is ever going back to).

    3) You’re trying to blame not being allowed to blow contaminated smoke into an enclosed space for choosing to take up your addiction again.

    4) And you’re absolutely fine with young people being tempted into becoming addicts like yourself, even though you have been through absolute hell to stop and know how irrefutably dangerous addiction is.

    Wow. Guess it’s true what they say, addicts will do and say anything at all to convince themselves they’re in the right and talk themselves into getting their next fix.

    Cue squeals of outrage, strawmen by the dozen and false equivalencies presented by other addicts.

    • JonathanBagley

      Just about everything is contaminated. It is the amount of contamination which is important and whether or not the contaminants are harmful. Nicotine inhalers are approved for use by twelve year olds, so inhaling nicotine is not considered harmful. Propylene glycol is pumped into hospitals via air conditioners, is used in pharmaceutical nicotine inhalers and has been used as disco smoke for decades. If you are objecting to vapour (not smoke) like I object to people eating beefburgers on trains, it is tough on both of us. Unless the Authorities have deemed something to be harmful, we have to put up with it.

      To me, addiction to nicotine is no longer a problem. My eliquid costs me less than £2 a week and its effect is similar to caffeine dependency, without the withdrawal headache. It is tobacco addiction, or dependency, which comes with significant risks to health.

      It wouldn’t bother me one bit if one of my nieces took up vaping. It is not expensive or harmful but, most crucially, they will never suffer from an indoor ban. Their social lives won’t suffer and neither will their work productivity or career prospects. This is because, in practice, vaping can’t be banned – not until every toilet cubicle, corridor or stairwell is fitted with CCTV.

      • rogerrabbit

        Oh, their social lives absolutely will suffer. Nobody wants to be around a smoker of any kind, even the desperately trying to stop so still blowing smoke into a closed room kind. And nobody is going to start promoting smoke being chugged into closed rooms. That time has now past.

        And of course vaping can be banned. Just like smoking. It might not stink as badly but the smell is distinctive and it is an obvious addiction not one you can hide. Interesting that you would immediately go to breaking the law and ignoring the rights and wishes of the majority though. Addicts will literally do anything and say anything to justify their addiction.

        Everything else I said you have not addressed at all except to do exactly what I said, make deliberate false equivalencies. No. eating beefburgers on trains is NOT the same or even close to the same as you blowing toxic smoke into my lungs.

        Astonishing selfishness and absolutely standard double think for addicts.

        • rogerrabbit

          There’s really no point in me continuing to check this thread. It’s depressingly predictable.

          Addiction really does rule addicts. No appeal to fairness, truth or reality will have any effect.

          • Junican

            Since you have decided to exclude yourself after your totally unscientific, unproven claims, perhaps there is no point in writing this. But…. Well, go on.

            Around 2005, a legal case arose in the Scottish Supreme Court. It was called McTear Versus Imperial Tobacco Company. McTear claimed damages from ITC because he got lung cancer after smoking their products. The Judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, dismissed every McTear claim. His principle reason was that he (supported by Action on Smoking and Health) could and would not produce evidence to the court that smoking causes lung cancer.

            If these people cannot prove ‘on the balance of probabilities’ only, that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, how on Earth could it be remotely possible that ecig vapour can be proven to cause any ailment whatsoever, no matter how long into the future you might look?

            Link to the McTear Case:


        • JonathanBagley

          Get it into your head, it’s not smoking and it doesn’t make you smell. Unflavoured liquid doesn’t smell at all and many flavours are no different to incense or slightly exotic perfume. The vapour is, to all intents, harmless and I didn’t say I wanted my nieces to become addicts. I’m bored now. You talk nonsense and, thank God, you’ve never met my nieces.

          • Frank

            I would disagree that it doesn’t smell. I would hope a good eliquid would smell for a while, probably a sign of quality to me. However, I agree with your point about perfume etc. – blimey, when a woman has too much perfume on, or a man has too much after shave, crikey that kicks up a stink. That lingers for ages. And is, for the most part, offensive.

        • Tim

          “Nobody wants to be around a smoker of any kind”

          Very funny. Try nobody wants to be round a tedious puritan. I bet the world can’t wait to invite you to their parties! Dost thou think that because thou art virtuous, etc.

    • Frank

      Your reference to it as ‘smoke’ immediately tells us you don’t know what you’re talking about. However, I personally never vape near other people, just out of respect, that much I agree with. Go to the car or something to do it. Perhaps they don’t want to smell blueberry vapour, apart from anything else.

    • Matthew Adamczak

      Stop using cars, buses, and airplanes so when people quit smoking they can breathe just fresh clean air. What’s the use quitting when office worker wear perfume/cologne, deodorant, and fabric softness that are proven to cause cancer and are just as irritating in small doses.

  • JoeDM

    Vile habit.

    • Damaris Tighe

      So what? You don’t have to do it.

      • Matt Smith

        Stupid comment from a presumed non smoker. The point is you *do* have to do it. It’s an addiction, created by a company, for profit. As with most corporate profits governments get a cut thus they have no interest in quitting. In my opinion rolling tobacco is a lot easier to quit from since it appears to lack the addictiveness of say a Marlboro – at least for me, your mileage of course may vary. If taking up vaping as a heavy tobacco user if you find that just using a low powered cigalike isn’t cutting it for you then invest in an ego style kit which provides more customisation and more vapour, as well as far lower nicotine liquids than you’ll be offered by a cigalike vendor as they are all owned by the tobacco companies – that shape and lack of effectiveness making you want a real ciggy anyone? Also, if vaping nicotine bearing juice but still having real cravings for a ciggy? You could try looking into WTAs (whole tobacco alkaloids) which are extracted from the tobacco plant (as is the nicotine in your vape). Nicotine by itself breaks down in the body to various B group vitamins, hence the clarity, relaxation and feeling of contentment when you feed your brain these necessary vitamins that non smokers get from their food at far reduced amounts. Trust in science, never in the media or corporate doctrine, their interests and yours are not the same thing.

        • Damaris Tighe

          In fact I am a smoker.

    • Penny

      I’m not a smoker and I have colleagues who are also non-smokers. Among them is one I’ll mention here because she has a tendency to inform smokers that they have a vile habit. It’s actually quite embarrassing because what she is blissfully unaware of is the fact that using a little more deodorant wouldn’t do her any harm, and neither would brushing off the dog hairs that cling to her clothes and which do not make for a pleasant scent.

      This colleague has taught me a worthy lesson: it’s probably not wise to point out other peoples’ personal shortcomings unless you’re pretty darned sure you’re perfect!

      • JonathanBagley

        Very well said. The sort of thing my mother would have told me 50 years ago, but sadly times have changed.

    • Frank

      What’s a vile habit? Smoking or vaping? Because vaping sure ain’t a vile habit.
      Also, I agree with the above posters. Usually people who utter the cookie cutter remark ‘vile habit’ have some sort of habitual behaviour themselves (toilet habits? Cutting nails? Coming into work with a cold? Shouting? etc.) which they are unaware of.

  • Damaris Tighe

    The new objections to e-cigarettes uncover the real motives of organised anti-smokerism: a totalitarian desire to close down activities they have taken a neurotic dislike to, even when their main objections have been dealt with by tobacco-free products.

    The libertarian former Director of the smokers’ defence organisation FOREST, Chris Tame (a lifelong non-smoker who hated the habit), called these people ‘health fascists’. I continue to lament Chris’s death.

    • Frank

      Meanwhile supermarkets are allowed to sell us sub standard foods with semi-poisonous amounts of salt and sugar, and advertise the crap out of them on tv. Not to mention MacDonalds using children in their adverts for emotioanl persuasion to buy their poison for your kids (otherwise you’re somehow not being a good parent) etc. – and what does their food contain?

      There’s no logic to it. I think the Libertarians hold the key.

      Vaping is lovely, much nicer than smoking. It’s a new era where we will see smokers converting to vaping in their droves, I’m hoping.

  • Bill Godshall

    The growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence consistently indicates that electronic cigarettes (e-cigs):

    – are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes,

    – are consumed almost exclusively (i.e. >99%) by smokers and exsmokers who
    quit by switching to e-cigs,

    – have replaced more than 2 Billion packs of cigarettes worldwide in the past
    five years,

    – have helped millions of smokers quit and/or sharply reduce cigarette

    – are more effective than FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges, patches
    and inhalers for smoking cessation and reducing cigarette consumption,

    – pose fewer risks than FDA approved Verenicline (Chantix),

    – pose no harm to nonusers,

    – have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker (youth
    or adult),

    – have never been known to precede cigarette smoking in any daily
    smoker, and

    – have further denormalized cigarette smoking, as youth and adult smoking rates have declined every year since 2008 when e-cig sales began to skyrocket.

    But in April 2009, Obama’s FDA revealed its unscientific, unethical and inhumane policy to deceive Americans about e-cigs and defend the FDA’s e-cig ban and nearly 1,000 product seizures by US Customs agents: “We don’t want the public to perceive them as a safer alternative to cigarettes.”

    In July 2009, Obama appointee (and former Waxman staffer) FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein held a press conference (defending the agency’s unlawful and unwarranted e-cig ban from lawsuits by two companies
    whose products were seized) where FDA’s e-cig lab findings were misrepresented
    to scare the public to believe e-cigs are carcinogenic and toxic, where e-cig
    companies were falsely accused of target marketing to youth, and where it was
    alleged (without any evidence) that e-cigs are addicting children, can be
    gateways to cigarettes, can renormalize smoking, and don’t help smokers quit.

    Thankfully for the rule of law, public health, civil liberties, market competition and common sense, all 12 federal appeals court judges upheld Judge Richard Leon’s Janaury 15, 2010 ruling striking down FDA’s e-cig ban as unlawful.

    But in response, the FDA stated its intent to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products by imposing the “deeming” regulation and by imposing additional regulations on e-cigarettes (despite the agency’s repeated claims that it bases all of its regulatory policies on scientific evidence).

    In April of this year, the FDA formally proposed the deeming regulation, which would protect cigarettes and threaten the lives of millions of vapers and smokers by banning >99.9% of e-cigs (including the most effective vapor products for smoking cessation), and to give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies.

    Smokefree Pennsylvania submitted the following comments to the FDA urging the agency to kill its deeming regulation and to correct and clarify the agency’s many false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs.

    All real public health advocates support smokers switching to e-cigs, and all real public health advocates support keeping life saving e-cigs legal and affordable.

    Unfortunately, Big Pharma shills (aka CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AAP, etc.) and other intolerant abstinence-only e-cig prohibitionists (including many who work at FDA, CDC, US SG, NIH, and state/local health departments) have been lobbying the FDA to protect cigarettes and threaten the lives of vapers and smokers by banning lifesaving e-cigs (just as they did in 2009).

    Bill Godshall
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218

  • doesntmatter20

    Society is never – not ever – going to roll over and allow you to force your smoke into their lungs again. Period. No matter what you claim is in it.

    Everything else is irrelevant.

    The rest of society has a right. Yep a right. To breathe air free from your smoke.

    Feel free to crap on about other pollutants. This is one every non smoker can and will stop in its tracks.

    Feel free to get addicted to pretend cigarettes instead of the real thing. And whine about how terrible everyone is to you for not letting you hit up in the foyer.

    You can smoke whatever shit you like and pretend it’s safe and not a dick move.

    In the privacy of your own home. End of.

    • Matt Smith

      It’s not smoke and under current smoking legislation it isn’t covered as no smoking refers to the combustion of tobacco or other material. What you are talking about here is something that creates vapour, not smoke.

      As it stands I can vape where I please with zero repercussions. I don’t because I have manners and toxic or not I don’t wish to force my preferences on others.

      Perhaps if I did vape with total impunity being an obnoxious ass about it you and everyone else would realise that there is nothing to fear and that as with so many things you are kept ignorant as it suits the corporate machine to do so.

      Wake up and smell the vape. You want smoking gone? Me too! Why not work with us rather than against us?

      I have no problem with you, only your ignorance and as you and so many people have pointed out that we don’t have to smoke – you don’t have to be ignorant. I assume you choose to do so.

      Go away, do some research, start at the beginning with what nicotine actually is, the b vitamin groups it breaks down to in the body. Then go to current uses for Vegetable Glycerin and Propylene Glycol, both foodsafe according to the FDA and commonly used in the preparation of the food that you eat. Neither of these are toxic chemicals.

      Nicotine is toxic but so is the bleach under your sink. Nicotine is addictive, but so is the caffeine in your coffee. Death from nicotine poisoning is a lot less common than death from alcohol abuse, why hasn’t that been banned yet?

      If you think you know it all about nicotine and vaping you are very sorely mistaken. You seem to be operating under all kind of false impressions and it’s giving the impression of ignorance with a side order of zealotry.

      Get the truth from an unbiased source. I’m not saying look at vaping websites, I’m saying look for research that hasn’t been funded by governments, cigarette companies or pharmaceutical companies. Now all the parties with a significant interest have been removed from the pool it should be easy to find some defninitive proof of how bad they are with hard science right?

      Look at studies conducted by universities and neutral groups, not ones that have been funded by people with a significant interest in making sure e-cigarettes never replace their own products or those who would miss the tax revenue. You’ll see that even with a worse case scenario the harm reduction potential is incredible.

      There are billions of smokers, e-cigarettes could help every single one of those people quit, or at the very least reduce their intake and reduce harm done and money spent supporting big tobacco.

      If we all want the tobacco companies gone, why are you helping them in their ploy to discredit something that’s a threat to them?

      Wake up and smell the vape.

      • Aidan93

        Perfect way of putting it, for generations there has always been a crowd of individuals willing to follow the opinions of those who benefit from the profit of products that actively assist in the degradation of our health, stop following those who cash in on your ignorance and open your eyes to impartial evidence.

    • Frank

      It’s not smoke. Now start again but this time with the facts, not guesswork. And tell me about car exhaust fumes, factory exhaust fumes, women’s perfume, men’s aftershave, kitchens, saunas, etc.

      However, and I stress this – this may surprise you but I agree with you. I always vape in private. I always fart in private. I never wear too much aftershave. I stay away from work when I have a cold. I try and never shout. I don’t see why I should smell someone’s dodgy flavour of e-liquid that I don’t like. I have my own flavours I like.

      But explain to me why we should tolerate these other things, for example, whereas we can not tolerate flavoured vapour coming from a Shisha pen?

    • Tim

      Maybe the WHO can encourage a ban on health freaks and mewling infants in public houses, as I’m pretty sure it’s bad for our blood pressure.

  • I think there is just two reasons to go smoking first is stress and second is style. A few months ago I tried an E-Cigarette from E-ciggy. I think this is a better option of safe smoking its main advantage is that it is smokeless which prevents the invisible smoking and eco-friendly.


  • bryan

    I tried many times to quit smoking over 30yrs I smoked e cigs for one year with no ill effects quite the opposite after 1 year away from tobacco I quit the e cigs with ease, its a million times easier than quitting cigarettes a slight longing for a couple of days was the only withdrawals from the e cigs, when I quit real cigarettes it was hell for months and months too many withdrawal symptoms to list one after the other sometimes all together I am now nearly 2 years off everything thanks to the E cigs and would recommend them to anybody who wants to quit smoking

  • Rancor

    I agree that the position of the WHO is pretty shocking towards ecigs, and is more founded on prejudices than evidence. But I can understand why some people are suggesting the marketing of eicgs should move away from the name. When the products first started out there was a similarity, but what’s a 3rd or 4th gen vapouriser now got to go with a cigarette? Absolutely nothing. The primary defining feature of a cigarette is surely tobacco?
    Just changing the generic product name by those companies who are still independents would remove some of the opposition of some people in public health but also put the e-cig industry into a stronger position of seizing the moral high ground.

  • Melani Erobin

    E-cigarette vapour is not simply water vapour. It contains small particles, similar in size and number to those found in tobacco smoke, that reach deep into the lungs. While it includes toxic substances, these are at much lower levels than in conventional cigarettes.