Can Electonic Cigarettes help you quit smoking, my rant on the discusson

Over at e-cigarette-forum.com we are having a bit of a heated discussion, which is not unusual. It is a great place for vapers, suppliers, manufacturers and activists to get together and hash things out. It's one reason I enjoy it there. I may even get in trouble for some of my thoughts since it's very against the rules to link to any health claims, doctor quotes or to say "might help you quit smoking" but I hope I don't get into too much trouble, for it is an important topic to discuss.

Im not saying "Electronic Cigarettes Help you Quit Smoking". What I am saying is you should be able to say that they can, if it's true. And I'm questioning the level of scientific proof one needs in order to state the obvious or personal experience.

I made a comment:

And Lacey is right, you do have to give some concessions, saying they help quit smoking, while completely accurate and true, gives our opponents fodder to shoot us with. She responded to Mac very well.

But where is the line? I"m not sure there is one, but where might it be?

We said "they help you quit smoking" they said "that is NRT territory and needs proof" so we stopped.

And Mac, another very outspoken member, responded quite poignantly which I respect him for. I do like outspoken people who speak their minds and he is definitely one of those. He said:

I strongly disagree.

First of all I have never said that.

Secondly I don't think they work as a cessation at all. Cessation means you quit smoking and then quit using what helped you quit smoking. If they take away our e-cigs most of us will go right back to tobacco. myself included. Perhaps my e-cig did help me stop burning tobacco. But I am no less addicted to nicotine.

3rdly the arguement is moot because it is a mis-classification. The concept is harm reduction. Not treating the diease of addiction. I personally think that anyone who can't make that very simple and very cut and dry distinction is doing so purposely because they have a seperate agenda.

Sticking our heads in the sand is not the answer. I do not fear regulation. I fear the behavior of corrupt governmental and private organizations who behave disingenuously and there is a big damned difference.

So, of course, i had to respond with one of my long winded rants. My apologies to Mac and the rest of the forum, for I do tend to get long winded.

But I think this is an important argument and discussion. Not just for e-cigs, but for regulations, law and advertising claims in general. We are getting to the point now, particularly in America where you can't even say the truth or the obvious without some expensive studies done by scientists to support you.

I'm very against outrageous claims. But is "E-cigarettes can help you quit smoking" really an outrageous claim?? Do we really need some scientists to do a survey when we have thousands of people proclaiming how they did just that on every ecig site you can find?

Isn't that the whole point of vaping in the first place?

Here was my argument:

//start rant

It's all a matter of semantics. Smoking is smoking, the inhalation of smoke, vaping is not smoking.

Cessation is to cease something.

Smoking Cessation == to stop smoking, to stop inhaling smoke, to stop burning tobacco, to stop smoking cigarettes.

If John Banzhaf were on our side, he would be arguing the same exact point. "smoking cessation" is defined as the cessation of smoking. Nicotine addiction is a whole other matter.

I do understand that up till now smoking cessation and the breaking of nicotine addiction have been synonymous. That point is not lost on me.

What is lost on me is how do you discuss harm reduction whilst being unable to mention that using this product, or any other, results in the cessation of smoking? The very benefits of ecigs and all other harm reduction tactics revolve around the fact there is no smoke and no burning tobacco. From the bans to the health benefits, it's all about smoke.

I do agree, we are going to have to retreat from this, the two things have been synonymous for too long now and it may be moot as you say. But i'm still sticking firmly to my guns that this whole argument is a carefully crafted tactic by our enemies to prohibit us from mentioning there is no smoke.

So, i have to disagree. I think it is those who say "you can't say it helps you stop smoking" who have the alternate agenda. If the FDA wants to be clear and concise, perhaps they should pick up a dictionary sometime and force the NRT makers to stop saying it helps you quit smoking, for they do not.

As you just said, when your NRT, whether that be the gum, the patch, or ecigs, fails, you will return to smoking tobacco. Their rates are what? 15% on the best long term study? 40% after three months by their own admission in their own studies?

If the patch is a "nicotine replacement" or the gum is too, than why are ecigs not also classified as that?

Yes, the goal of those programs is to break nicotine addiction, but the nature of the products is simply nicotine replacement. Go look at all the NRT sites, they all admit the same thing: "this is simply a tool to help you quit" and it's the mindset of the addict and the other aspects of their programs that really break the nicotine addiction, not the nature of the products.

Every NRT has a "quit smoking program" attached to it. Why then do they not just sell the product and be done with it? Because the product is not intended to help you quit smoking by its self. It's purpose is simply to act as a nicotine replacement and allow you the ability to slowly lower your dosages.

I'd even argue that any ecig with a "quit smoking program" attached would be identical to any other program. BUT, we have no studies to prove it's effectiveness, and that's the Achilles heal.

So, again,how do we discuss harm reduction without offending our enemies and giving them fodder to hollar "see!! they said no smoke!! it's a no smoking thing!! They said you stop smoking cigarettes!! They said healthier because there is no smoke!! They said 'less harm' without proof!"

If I published an ad right now that said "breathing the air in LA is safer than sucking on a cars exhaust pipe" I'd probably be in violation of some rule. After all, i'm unaware of any study that proves LA air is less dangerous than car exhaust".

But reason and logic tell me that even as polluted as the air in LA might be, even the news reports of "don't breathe today" still lead me to believe the diluted air has to be safer than going directly to the source.

Now, i know i'm being a bit over the top here. But do you see the point? Demanding a scientific study to PROVE things that are obvious can get old at times. I applaud the FDA for trying to protect us. It is their job after all. But must one always prove the obvious?

But if a statement is true, it is true. Words mean things. You should be able to use them with their generally recognized definitions. If you say "ecigs are proven to help you quit nicotine" you are on shaky ground. If you say "using ecigs can help you quit smoking cigarettes" how shaky is that ground?

It's only shaky if you sell NRTs, or have a major anti smoker agenda.

But, alas, it's all moot. Pie in the sky dreams aside, foolish hopes that the FDA is reasonable and will come to some table to discuss things aside, the fact is the FDA wants studies. The FDA wants proof. The FDA wants scientists in lab coats to say it's safe and effective. It's what they need.

And eventually, that's exactly what we are going to have to give them.

Should ecigs be marketed as a quit smoking program? As something with the goal of breaking nicotine addiction? No, of course not. At least not until someone proves they are effective for that. But should we be prohibited from saying "electronic cigarettes can help you quit smoking cigarettes" when that is their whole purpose?? That's my ultimate question.

//end rant

You know, now that I think of it, I need to be on the lookout for more data regarding the NRT's that claim "helps you stop smoking" and their programs. How effective are the programs by themselves? If you look at the long term, i'm betting the program alone is responsible for the majority of the success, no matter what nicotine replacement you use.

But i have no study to prove it, so forget I said any of this. ;) (untl I find one though, i'm sure someone else has wondered the same thing.)

*Electronic Cigarettes have not been proven to help you quit smoking and no such claims are being made here. These are the authors personal thoughts on the debate and are not based on any scientific study. Ecigarettes are not marketed as a smoking cessation device and no legitimate manufacturer makes any such claim. Ecigarettes should not be confused with any FDA approved nicotine replacement therapy, for, like cigarettes, they are not FDA approved nicotine delivery systems.