E Cigarette Direct Survey of Electronic Cigarette Users on Anti Smoking Claims

James Dunworth, over at E-Cigarette Direct, is a curious guy, like me. We've traded some very interesting info over the last few months and he sent over the results from a survey he did this week asking people about their opinions and beliefs in some of the anti smoking groups outrageous claims. What he found did not surprise me, but I thought it would be fun to go down the list and see what they thought.

The survey included 250 people, smokers, non smokers and vapers, so not that comprehensive of a survey, but a nice place to start. The respondents broke down like this:

• 34% Non Smoker (91)
• 18% Smokers (48)
• 33% Electronic Cigarette Users (89)
• 15% E-cig users who still smoke (40)

Question 1: Do you believe smoking is bad for your health?

95% said YES | 2% said NO  | 3% were undecided

Well, this is no surprise. If you are still one of the 2% who believe smoking is good for you, you've had your head in the sands for half a century! I think we've proven over and over again without a doubt that smoking is well... just bad for you all the way around.

Question 2: Do you believe that second hand smoke causes Cancer?

49% said YES  | 41% said NOT SURE  |  10% said NO

It further broke down like this:

76.7% of non-smokers thought second hand smoke causes cancer while 37% of smokers agreed and 29.9% of e-cigarette users thought so too.

Now this did not surprise me at all. While some studies have shown second hand smoke may cause cancer, even the medical community is not in full agreement on this yet. So it's not surprising to find the general public is still a bit split as well.

While my personal opinion is that second hand smoke can't be good for those around you, i'm not ready to jump on the band wagon with ASH and the like and start pulling kids out of their smoking parents homes.

Although I can say, even being a smoker, my own lung problems of childhood growing up with a chain smoker in a small house seem to have dissipated when I left home. BUT, i also lived on a busy street where the gas man would read deadly levels of carbon monoxide in my front yard, so who knows if it was the smoking or the cars that caused my health issues as a youth. (but just try and say cars cause problems and see how fast and loud the city and the general driving public laugh at you).

Question 3: Does third-hand smoke cause Cancer?

18% said YES  |  48% said NO  |  34% said NOT SURE

Broken down further, 35% of non-smokers agreed and only 5.7% of e-smokers said yes while 60% responded firmly they did not believe third hand smoke causes cancer.

Now this is good news. This is one of the most outrageous claims made by anti smoking groups that is unfounded in science or credible medical research. It's all smoke and mirrors to cause panic and confuse the public into believing that even being in a room a smoker was in weeks ago could kill you so they can gain support for their vilification of smokers.

Sadly, it is the basis for many oppressive laws prohibiting smoking in apartments, houses and even your own car in some places. But it's good news to see that almost half of the people see thorough this lie, but worrysome that 34% are still undecided.

Question 4: Do you believe that smoking bans can lead to an instant 20-30% drop in the rate of heart attacks?

32% said YES  |  39% said NO  |  30% said NOT SURE

As expected most of those voting yes were non-smokers, while only 32% of smokers and 12.6% of vapers agreed with this.

This is another one of the anti smoking groups smoke and mirrors tactics. They claim that smoking bans can reduce heart attack rates even though there really is no solid evidence to support this claim. Some have even gone so far as to claim that non smokers exposed to even 30 seconds of second hand smoke have a high chance of a heart attack. However, were this true, you'd think more people would die of heart attacks in bars and such where smoke fills the air. Especially back in the day when most of the public smoked. Yet how often do you hear of anyone dropping dead in a smoke filled room?

In my own experience deaths in bars and such are usually alcohol related and more often than not from the violence that drinking can provoke, not from second hand smoke. I worked in bars for years in my college days, and while I saw hundreds of people injured and a few who died, it was always due to violence or alcohol poisoning, not heart attacks.

Again, a deliberate deception with little to no scientific data to back it up and very little anecdotal evidence either after the bans went into effect. In some studies they show that heart attack rates have stayed the same or even gone up since smoking bans went into effect. It's good news to see that most people see through this deception.

For more info on this you can read: Error Disclosed in Meta-analysis of smoking bans effects or Article questions conclusions about smoking bans and heart attacks

Question 4 Are Electronic Cigarettes Dangerous?

16% said YES  |  48% said NO  |  36% said NOT SURE

Now this one is the most interesting so let's break it down all the way:

• Non-Smokers: 32.6% yes |  15.1% no  |  52.3% not sure
• Smokers: 10.9% yes  |  24.8% no  |  54.3% not sure
• E-cigarette users: 0% yes  |  98.6% no  | 1.1% not sure
• E-cig users who smoke: 0%  |  89.5%  |  10.5% not sure

Now this really came as no surprise that not one single vaper answered yes. It's one of the things that is frustrating the anti smoking campaigns and the FDA; they can't seem to find any e-cig users who claim any adverse health problems or side effects at all. This is indeed rare and unusual for them.

We all know smoking is bad and every day more and more reports come in from users of other smoking alternatives or cessation products that report horrendous side effects from mild discomfort to life long joint pain all the way up to life threatening throat swelling, suicide and murderous thoughts and even actions with the likes of Chantix, but try as they might the most the anti E-cigarette activists can come up with are some claims of "unfair business practises" because e-cig retailers have made some claims they can't back up with billion dollar long term studies or the assertion that even after five to eight years on the market "we just don't know the long term effects".

The FDA has had a hotline now for almost a year to solicit reports from users of the dangerous side effects of electronic cigarettes and as yet, have not reported even one single case of a user calling in to report the dangerous side effects they suffered.

It is heartening to see though that over half of non smokers and smokers alike are not sure yet. As they say in politics, the "battle for the hearts and minds" of the public is far from over.

Question 5: Do you agree with this statement: "Smoker's breath can be harmful to health, especially to children, the elderly and those especially sensitive to many chemicals?"

29% said YES  |  49% said NO  |  21% said NOT SURE

What is interesting about this question though is that almost 60% of non smokers believe they can be at risk by simply having a smoker breath on or near them. More than a quarter (26%) of smokers also believed this. It was the electronic cigarette users who were more sceptical, with 10% of the e-cig only crowd agreeing and 8% of the e-cig/smokers who thought the same.

There was a study published in Indoor Air in 2008 that claimed such a thing. ASH and other anti smoking groups immediately jumped at the chance to use it to demand new policies that companies fire smokers, refuse to hire smokers and that any smoker be prohibited from raising children.

"This study suggests that society must go beyond merely protecting children from being in the presence of parents and others who smoke in their homes, and think about more effective measures to protect children from parents who smoke anywhere."

Even though many scientists rose up to refute this claim, it still finds it's way into anti smoking propaganda even today. See the rest of the story for Dr. Michael Siegels thoughts.

Dr. Brad Radu, professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville responded:

"Quite simply, these statements are either gross exaggeration or pure fiction."

"John Banzhaf’s comments about the harm related to smokers’ breath has no medical rationale, but it is an excellent example of the increasing marginalization of smokers using pseudoscience. Extending Banzhaf’s logic, non-garlic eaters may be able to absorb the possible health benefits of garlic by moving into the vicinity of garlic aficionados"

Carl V Phillips, Associate Professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health responded most harshly:

given that purely speculative epidemiologic claims were stated as if they were facts, this has to be seen as explicit falsehood. Keep in mind that a scientific hypothesis about a phenomenon needs to be supported before it can be claimed as true; simply finding some reason to propose a particular hypothesis (e.g., a particular exposure might be harmful because there are tiny quantities of some chemical) and then declaring it to be true without evidence is not just unethical - it also damages the public’s ability to make sense of science.

Again, these people try to take advantage of scientific ignorance to claim whatever strikes them as expedient without regard to the science. Points 3 and 4 are particularly absurd since the “study” that gets cited as the basis for saying “third hand smoke” is harmful was actually an unethical push-poll that manipulated lay people into saying they feared the effects. This obviously offers no useful information at all.

And yet, as this survey shows, over 60% of non smokers bought this hook line and sinker. Is it no wonder the anti smoking campaign has now started using the same sorts of stuff against e-cigs without any science to back it up?

Question 6: Do you agree with this statement: "Someone else's smoke can kill you even if you can barely smell it, and even if you can't smell it?"

29% said YES  |  48% said NO  |  23% said NOT SURE

Again, non smokers were the most convinced that even trace amounts of smoke in the air can kill you with 61% responding yes while only 28% of smokers agreed. E-cigarette users were once again the most sceptical with 7% of vapers agreeing and 11% of those who use ecigs and still smoke jumping on board.

My personal thoughts lie along this line: If a minute amount of smoke can kill you, do these people have fireplaces or wood burning stoves in their homes?

While there is overwhelming evidence that a smoker, who is exposed to great amounts of smoke directly taken into their bodies can suffer many health problems, compounded over many years of use, there is no evidence I've seen that even suggests scientifically that trace amounts of smoke you can't even smell will cause any health problems.

My personal opinion is, from personal experience, that the exhaust from cars would be a lot more dangerous to your health than some smoke you can't even smell. But i'll certainly be open to look at any credible study that suggests such a thing, if and when one is done.

More smoke and mirrors that seems to be taking hold in the public perceptions without any scientific data to back it up at all.

Well, not surprisingly this survey, even though a small one, suggests that Electronic Cigarette users are not convinced by the anti smoking campaigns assertions of the dangers smoking poses to non smokers and even less so of their new claims that electronic cigarettes may even be more deadly and dangerous than traditional cigarettes.

But the one thing that this study does show: public perception, particularly that of non smokers is molded less by actual science and more by propaganda that has little to no scientific proof to back it up.

What do you think?

Visit E Cigarette Direct to learn more