Despite marketing claims, there’s no proof that e-cigarettes help smokers kick the habit — and they may even hurt their efforts to stop, according to new research.
“The overall cessation argument that’s made to sell e-cigarettes is directly contradicted by the evidence,” said Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Glantz co-authored a major review of the scientific literature on e-cigarettes on May 12.
“People who are interested in quitting are more likely to use e-cigarettes but are less likely to quit,” he said. “More people who are using them are failing.”
They might also be subjecting themselves to health risks, according to Glantz.
E-cigarettes deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol popularly called “vapor” by heating a solution usually made up of glycerin, nicotine and flavoring agents. Although the long-term biological effects are unknown, it’s clear that e-cigarette emissions are a source of air pollution and aren’t merely “harmless water vapor,” according to the study.
“While e-cigarettes aren’t as dangerous as cigarettes, they’re still exposing users to high levels of some toxins,” Glantz said. The ultrafine particles — produced by heating the “e-liquid” that’s a mixture of nicotine, propylene glycol or glycerin and other chemicals — in e-cigarettes haven’t been shown to increase heart attack risk, but similar unltrafine particles in cigarette smoke and air pollution have.
“If you have a day with high ultrafine particles, you have a day with more heart attacks,” Glantz said. “That hasn’t been shown to be the case with e-cigarettes, but people need to worry about it until it’s shown that it’s not the case.”
Dual use — with some smoking conventional cigarettes as well as using e-cigarettes — is a major concern. If smokers switched completely from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes, there would be less disease caused by nicotine addiction, Glantz said. But as long as dual use is the dominating pattern, it doesn’t matter that e-cigarettes are less toxic.
Investment analysts say dual users are a boon to tobacco industry and the wave of the future, a troubling trend fueled by marketing tactics, according to Glantz.
“It’s completely the Wild West out there,” he said. “It’s like getting into a time machine and going into the ’50s and ’60s.”
E-cigarettes are rapidly penetrating the youth market, he said, and the FDA isn’t doing anything meaningful to stop it.
“The FDA has the legal authority to clamp down on claims that e-cigarettes are good for smoking cessation,” Glantz said. “Those claims should be absolutely prohibited until proven true. The evidence we have is just the opposite.”
I switched from regular Cigs to E Cigs about a year ago with the idea of stopping smoking.
I have recently been getting a hard crusty coating or clumps in my throat and nose. No question that is it coming from the E Cig. I’m using a vapor solution from Blue Ox Vapor 11mg skinny mint. This has to be bad for you. I also seem to be sucking on the darn thing more than I would if I had lite cigs. So, in the long run I think I’m probably getting more nicotine. I think their is a need to really check what’s going in these vapor cigs.
I really wish that people would read SCIENTIFIC articles from both sides of this issue. I smoked combustible cigarettes for 46 years and I tried EVERY product on the market to quit. I tried the first generation ENDS in 2009 and saw the potential but something was missing. On January 1, 2014 I picked up a battery, e-liquid and a tank. I read every article pro and con regarding these devices. I use AESMA accredited liquids. I read and I read until I felt confident that Stan Glantz was WRONG. You will now find articles that are in favor of e-cigarettes as a THR device an alternative way to finally quit those disgusting combustibles.
Now the FDA is going to ban all devices made after 2007 BUT if a company has millions of dollars ( AKA BIG TOBACCO) they will approve their version of the electronic cigarette and states will approve their fair share of taxes. We call those cigalikes and they are no where near as effective as a tank system. Not to mention expensive. Between my husband and me we paid 76 years in taxes for cigarettes.
Bernard did not do his homework. Maybe he could not tolerate them. Maybe he didn’t READ enough to make intelligent choices and find out the reason for his crusty mouth. Yes there is a reason. Read the forums for information. For informational links go to CASAA.org.
For me and my husband it has been two years since we have had a combustible cigarette. We stopped coughing, our cholesterol dropped and two medications (heart and lung by the way) were stopped. My pulmonary function improved drastically. I have converted 10 hard core smokers to these with success.
Not to support these devices is to continue to have people who are desperate to quit NOT have an alternative to that nicotine gum or dangerous (for some) Chantix. The FDA, AHA, ALA all support cigarettes because the way we choose to quit was not their way.
They are saying that nicotine is addictive and dangerous yet they support nicotine gum, patches and inhalers.
Addiction journal is now stating that these devices are a pathway to quit combustibles. This is just ONE article that is now scientifically coming to the conclusion that these work for many smokers. Why are these organizations who want to promote no smoking not realizing that cold turkey or other useless nicotine products (BIG PHARMA) don’t work for everyone.
I just answered my own question: BIG TOBACCO and PHARMA. They are in everyone’s pocket,including the smoker who wants to quit. But in a different way.
Sad, very sad. Don’t worry the FDA will take away the new and improved hardware and send thousands of us back to a combustible death.