Tobacco lawsuit: An article in Business on Tuesday about a lawsuit filing by tobacco companies challenging federal restrictions on their marketing said that Ed Sweda, a lawyer for the Tobacco Products Liability Project, predicted the suit would be successful. He said the suit would ultimately be unsuccessful.

Oil spill: A news brief that ran Aug. 14 in Section A on a 2007 fuel oil spill in San Francisco Bay referred to the Cosco Busan as an oil tanker. It is a container ship.

LACMA film plans: An article in Wednesday’s Calendar about the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s hopes of maintaining its film screening program quoted Michael Govan, the museum’s director, as saying he was looking to raise $5 million to $10 million in endowments to fund an expanded film program. In fact, Govan said he was seeking to raise $5 million to $6 million.

Electronic cigarettes provide consumers with an aerosol of pure highly addictive nicotine and generate approximately $100 million dollars annually for manufacturers. Touted as having no carcinogens, e-cigarettes employ a nicotine filled cartridge activated by a battery powered nebulizer, and they are provided in nicotine strengths as high as 16 mg. The lethal dose of nicotine for a 150 pound male is 60 mg. Due to the burning process, traditional cigarettes deliver only about 1 mg of nicotine per cigarette, so reaching the lethal nicotine dose requires smoking about 60 cigarettes over a fairly short time. In high contrast “smoking” four electronic cigarettes delivers a toxic dose. Therefore the major concern about electronic cigarettes should be: Can a deadly level of nicotine be delivered in short order to an unwitting consumer?

Instead the debate focuses on the fact that some electronic cigarettes contain a small amount of diethylene glycol which non-chemists claim is antifreeze. Diethylene glycol is not antifreeze. The two letters “d” and “i” make a large chemical difference here. Ethylene glycol, not diethylene glycol, is the primary chemical in toxic antifreeze. Nevertheless, diethylene glycol is a toxic substance and has caused the deaths of healthy children and adults compromised by illness when it was added in trace amounts to teething products and cough syrups. As a note, the common food additive propylene glycol is non-toxic, naturally occurring, and not a primary ingredient in toxic antifreeze. RuyanTM, one type of e-cigarette, contains only non-toxic propylene glycol.

So, is nicotine alone deadly to humans? Yes, clearly. Is diethylene glycol toxic to humans? Yes also. Should humans drop their addiction to nicotine? Yes, but not in favor of even more toxic and widely dispensed prescription drugs.

In Roanoke, e-cigarettes are advertised on the local Craigslist, have been discussed at www.wsls.com (the local TV station) and at the Roanoke version of injuryboard.com. E-cigarettes are available for sale in the Roanoke area at Travel Centers of America and Pilot.


© August 18, 2009 Examiner

The Food and Drug Administration, recently granted the authority to regulate tobacco as a drug, is taking aim at electronic cigarettes — battery-powered cigarette look-alikes that deliver nicotine and produce a puff of odorless vapor.

Tests show that e-cigarettes contain “known carcinogens and toxic chemicals,” including diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, officials announced Wednesday during a teleconference. The FDA notes that the products have no warning labels.

Over the past year, the FDA has seized 50 shipments of e-cigarettes, which the agency considers to be combination drug/medical devices, says the FDA’s Michael Levy. Companies were marketing the products illegally, because they hadn’t gotten FDA approval for new drugs or medical devices, says Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of the FDA.

The FDA is reviewing the new tobacco law and considering a range of enforcement actions, which could include recalls or even criminal sanctions, Levy says.

E-cigarette makers say their products can be used anywhere and don’t produce secondhand smoke. In April, one maker, Smoking Everywhere, filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA, claiming the agency doesn’t have the jurisdiction to regulate its products.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Cigarette

Health advocates, however, say that e-cigarettes are being marketed to kids. By adding flavors such as bubble gum, e-cigarettes could get children hooked on nicotine and serve as a gateway to tobacco, says Jonathan Winickoff, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Tobacco Consortium, who spoke at the FDA’s teleconference. He notes that the products are sold online and at shopping malls, where their marketing videos are seen by children and teens.

Ads make e-cigarettes look sexy and grown-up, says Matthew McKenna of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And seeing adults use them in public places that are normally smoke-free could make kids think that smoking — of any kind — is normal and safe, he says.

On its website, the Electronic Cigarette Association denies marketing to children. It notes that the $100 cost of an e-cigarette starter kit — and the added cost of refill cartridges — make them unaffordable for kids.

Ron MacDonald, president and CEO of Crown7 e-cigarettes, says he’s just trying to give smokers an alternative to tobacco.

“The bottom line is that if a smoker wants to smoke, they are going to smoke regular cigarettes,” he says.
Usatoday

As home to one of the nation’s first public smoking bans, and one of the first localities in the country to raise the legal age to purchase cigarettes to 19, Suffolk County has been at the vanguard of national efforts to break America’s addiction to smoking. But now a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of “electronic cigarettes.”

Marketed towards young smokers, untested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and lacking any governmental oversight whatsoever, the skyrocketing popularity of “e-cigarettes” has spurred Suffolk County Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) to introduce legislation that would prohibit the sale of these devices to anyone under the age of 19. Cooper’s bill would also place the same public usage restrictions on e-cigarettes that are already in effect for traditional forms of smoking.

If approved by the Legislature, Suffolk County would become the first municipality in the nation, and one of only a small handful of governments worldwide, to place restrictions on these untested devices.

E-cigarettes closely resemble and purposefully mimic the art of smoking by having users inhale vaporized liquid nicotine (often through kid-friendly, flavored cartridges) created by heat through an electronic ignition system. This actually makes the tip of the e-cigarette glow as if it were really lit. The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette. Versions are also available that mimic cigars or pipes. After inhaling, the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke.

“These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. But they also have the potential to create a life-long addiction to nicotine,” says Cooper. “They’re just too dangerous to be left unrestricted. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to be able to get their hands on them.”

But kids are getting their hands on them. Besides being sold at numerous sites on the internet, there are currently at least four known locations on Long Island where anyone can legally purchase e-cigarettes. And that literally means ANYONE. Since these devices are so new to the American market and they don’t contain tobacco, e-cigarettes are not governed by Suffolk’s Tobacco 19 law or any other state or federal regulation.

“I commend Legislator Cooper for taking a pro-active stance on health care with this legislation prohibiting the sale of this drug delivery device to individuals under the age of 19 and banning its use where cigarettes are banned,” said Suffolk County Department of Health Services Commissioner Dr. Humayan Chaudhry.

Just because they don’t contain tobacco, don’t be fooled into believing e-cigarettes are safe. Manufacturers of these devices still have not subjected them to independent, peer-reviewed, scientific examination.

A known neurotoxin, nicotine is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption. More lethal than strychnine, just 60 milligrams of nicotine on the tongue “about three drops” is enough to kill a 160 pound person.

In contrast:

* The lethal dose for strychnine is 75 mg.
* For diamondback rattlesnake venom it’s 100 mg.
* You’d need to ingest 200 mg of arsenic to do somebody in.
* Cyanide’s lethal dose is 500 mg.

Studies show that adolescents can become addicted to nicotine after ingesting the equivalent of 20 traditional cigarettes (the amount normally available in a single pack). The appeal created by the flavorings of e-cigarette cartridges (including cherry, grape and vanilla, just to name a few) can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction.

To make matters worse, the current lack of governmental testing and regulation means that e-cigarette manufacturers and marketers can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices. This includes telling customers they can legally be smoked anywhere, which has already led to altercations between non-smoking restaurant patrons and “e-smokers.”

So now, after nearly a decade of progress on public smoking bans nationwide, e-cigarettes are being used where traditional forms of smoking are outlawed. This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke. It’s also causing confusion for public health agencies that are not sure what, if any, authority they have to prevent e-smokers from powering up and puffing away.

By giving county and municipal law enforcement and public health officials the tool they need, Cooper’s proposed law will also close that loophole. Non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand ingestion will no longer have to stress about being exposed to a cloud of vapor from an e-cigarette.

“When it comes to smoking in any form, we can’t wait for Washington to release another report or issue another obvious warning. We need them to step up and take real action,” says Cooper. “Until they do, we here at the local level who are on the front lines of the smoking war must once again take it upon ourselves to protect our most vulnerable populations from the enslaving dangers of nicotine addiction. If we fail to act on this newest front, the future casualties will be our own children.”

A public hearing on Cooper’s legislation will take place at the June 23rd meeting of the County Legislature, which will be held at Suffolk Community College’s Culinary Arts Center in Riverhead.
© Legislatorcooper

Between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, several types of cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, stroke and even cataracts, diseases contracted from cigarette smoking are the single most preventable cause of death in the United States and are some of the top players in the worldwide death rate.

Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths, and is even responsible for a varied array of cancers such as kidney, pancreatic, cervical, esophageal and even bladder cancer. Reading such facts used to make me wonder – if smoking is so bad, what are we doing to combat it? How are we helping those who are addicted and ill, or those that may become smokers?

Researchers across the world are all working furiously for new ways to combat cancer and stop addiction. Groups such as “Smoke-Free America” utilize the media to spread facts about smoking in an attempt to educate smokers and non-smokers alike about dangers of tobacco. Some companies have invented quitting aids that provide the user with a nicotine fix without the harmful effects of a cigarette in the form of gum, patches and even pills.

Recently, a new cigarette replacement has arrived in the form of the “e-Cigarette” a battery powered nicotine delivery system that effectively mimics the look, operation and even taste of a real cigarette. The operation is simple: it’s a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by delivering a vapor of mixed propylene glycol and nicotine.

In addition to providing the user with nicotine, it also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of real tobacco smoke, while no tobacco, smoke or combustion is actually present when the smoker “lights up.” Sounds like a great alternative, right?

Let’s recap: The “E-Cigarette” satisfies all the needs of a smoker, without actually smoking. No cigarette smoke leads to no health woes, right?

At first, it seems like a safe alternative to smoking. After all, it is seemingly advertised as the “family-friendly” cigarette, and with no more disposable cigarette butts, these could contribute a great deal to lessening the pollution of the planet. However, could the inventors of this new drug truly be so altruistic?
With an average price tag of just over $100, the makers seem to be after more than just lending a helping hand to struggling victims of cigarette addiction and the cleanliness of city streets everywhere. As history tells us, where there is money to be made, there are also corners to be cut. So I wondered just what the health effects, adverse or no, could these new cigarettes present?

Evidently, they present enough of a worry for the Food and Drug Administration to block all importation into the United States. Though they are refraining from confiscating the e-cigs already sold in the country, the FDA says that they are “undecided” when it comes to determining just how bad (or good) they are.

As it would seem, no one really has any clue what the effects of the new drug could be, other than the makers of the e-cigs themselves, and they aren’t talking.

Supposed tests and research conducted at labs in Europe have given the makers proof enough to claim they are “pretty sure” that the e-cigarettes are safe, but have refused to release research data.

So what about the millions of smokers worldwide waiting for a miracle savior from addiction and the many more who want to try smoking? They’ll have to either try it for themselves or wait patiently.

Ultimately, here’s my diagnosis: dangerous. When there is such a lack of information about anything, it is rarely a good idea to take part in it.

Cabernet sauvignon wines from California’s Sonoma Valley sometimes get lost in the marketing by their more famous brethren across the mountain in Napa Valley.

Yet Sonoma Valley produces some classic cabernets whose qualities exhibit the very best this grape has to offer – intense aromas, silky palates and dark fruit. One of the experts in my wine-tasting group noted that cedar aromas and/or flavors often distinguish a Sonoma cabernet.

The Sonoma Valley has several subregions, with perhaps the most notable being Alexander Valley.

My panel sampled Sonoma wines from three different vintages – all on the shelves now.

» 2006 Ferrari-Carano Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $29.99. We discovered scents of vanilla beans, cocoa, tea leaves, coffee and red and black currants. Like a black mint tea, this wine was intense in the mouth, but still silky. A pretty eucalyptus character pervaded this wine from beginning to end. It was our favorite.

» 2005 Sebastiani Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $32.99. The nose reminded us of firewood, roasted tomatoes, dried tomatoes and black cherries. On the tongue, the wine was opulent, rich with fruit. The Sebastiani was not nearly as tannic because of the strong fruit. This wine was the best balanced on the group. It ranked second in our tasting.

» 2005 Paradise Ridge Elevation Rockpile Vineyard Sonoma Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $37.99. We discovered aromas of black currants, black fruit, clove and chocolate cream. The palate mirrored the aroma, along with tannins and cocoa dust. This was a wine made from the grapes of a single vineyard. It ranked third in our tasting.

» 2004 Simi Landslide Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $40. Aromas included under-ripe or green fruit, pine, firewood and eucalyptus. Green wood tastes appeared on the palate, with nice cedar undertones. My experts said this wine was true to the Sonoma tradition, down to the cedar notes on the finish.

» 2005 Kenwood Jack London Sonoma Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $39.99. The bouquet included baked red cherries, strong notes of pomegranate, vanilla and under-ripe tobacco leaves. Flavor characteristics included cedar, black tea, tobacco leaves and pomegranate, along with firm tannins. This was another classic cabernet sauvignon with all the attributes you should expect in such a wine.
» 2005 Wine Smith California Cabernet Sauvignon, $25. We found scents of black cherries, semisweet chocolate, soy sauce and green herbal notes. The palate was mellow in all its facets, with a dusty cedar character. This wine was easy to drink, but there was less there than with the others. While the winery is in Sonoma, grapes came from multiple areas in the state.
Advertisement
Surfing the wine shelves:

» 2006 d’Arenberg “The Custodian’ Grenache, $19. Aromas of strawberries and other red berries plus lots of spice. Extremely well balanced and structured, this Australian offering was an elegant wine for this price.

» 2005 Innocent Bystander Shiraz Viognier, $20. Aromas of ripe plums, licorice and spice. The palate of this wine from down under was fleshier than the aroma led us to believe, with blueberry and blackberry flavors.

» Graham’s Six Grapes Reserve Port, $23. This nonvintage port resembled a young vintage port with its flavors of plums, cherries and raisins. Intense yet full of finesse.

» 2008 Peter Lehmann Layers, $15. This Australian white wine, a blend of pinot gris, muscat, gewurztraminer, chardonnay and semillon, offered scents of banana, pineapple and kiwi. In the mouth layers of melon, apricot and lemon flavors rolled across and lingered on the tongue.

One of the most controversial topics currently rumbling on and on is the future of electronic cigarettes. I don´t think it´s unreasonable to suggest that these ´smoking´ devices are polarising the population, or at least the part of the population that is aware of their existence.

The jostling arises because the electronic cigarette companies claim their product is much ´safer´ and ´healthier´ than a traditional cigarette, which if you take a moment to look through an e cigarette´s ingredients does appear to be the case. For a starter, there is no tobacco present, so immediately this sets itself apart from tobacco smoking.

Apparently during the burning of tobacco there are known to be 40 substances that are potentially cancerous and the distributers of electronic cigarettes claim that none of these are present in their product.

The passionate opposition to electronic cigarettes, at least to me, seems a little odd. I read recently that in the United Kingdom alone, one in five deaths during 2005 was smoking related!

Even if this statistic isn´t accurate, the major dangers of smoking tobacco cigarettes is commonly known, so when a product is launched that claims to be much safer and when common sense would say that if all these dangerous toxins have been removed, even if the electronic cigarette cannot be proved officially ´safe´, surely it does actually have to be ´safer´?

Of course these electronic cigarettes need to be tested and proved and of course it is only fair that they have to go through the same channels and procedures as any other new product but why it would receive such a hard ride when its potential (if proved) could change the face of the planet as we know it, is simply a mystery!

Try as I may, my cynical mind cannot help but think this mystery is a matter of money. Not just any old money either, but millions upon millions of it! The moment the headlines might read ´Electronic Cigarettes Declared Safe´, a mighty tornado is likely to rip through the offices of Mr Tobacco and friends, leaving a giant hole in their pockets!

Yes, it´s that BIG a deal! If electronic cigarettes are not safe or at least safer then let´s put them behind us quickly and start looking for the next thing that might be. Equally though, if e cigs do possess this world changing potential, then whoever is in charge, get your act together, get them tested, get them approved and market them vigorously like you once did with traditional cigarettes. Surely they deserve a chance?

Although I originally began writing about electronic cigarettes for professional reasons, I soon discovered that my personal interest would be great also. My father was a non smoker and died from passive smoking related, lung cancer. I became interested in the debate and its many complexities.
Source: Americanchronicle

Like millions of other cigarette smokers, Carolyn Smeaton tried countless ways to reduce her three-pack-a-day habit during her 34 years of smoking, including a nicotine patch, nicotine gum and a prescription drug. But they didn’t work.

Smeaton then tried an electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, after seeing it on a TV infomercial, which claimed to be a less dangerous method of getting her nicotine fix, The New York Times reported.

“I feel like this could save my life,” Smeaton, 47, told the paper. She has reduced her smoking to a pack and a half daily, supplemented by her e-cigarette.

The battery-powered gadget delivers nicotine and flavoring to the user without cigarette tar or additives, and produces a vapor similar to tobacco smoke, the report stated. Because no smoke is made, the e-cigarettes can be used in workplaces, restaurants and airports.

Electronic cigarettes lack an approval by the government, but it has not stopped thousands of smokers from purchasing them online, at local malls and elsewhere, the Times reported.

For approximately $100 to $150, a user can buy a starter kit, which includes a battery-powered cigarette and replaceable nicotine cartridges. When a user inhales, a sensor heats the cartridge.

E-cigarettes have their opponents, however, who argue the products’ safety claims are more rumor than fact, since the components of e-cigarettes have never been tested for safety, the report stated.

Public health officials have also argued the devices’ fruit flavors, novelty and ease of access may entice children, according to the report.

“It looks like a cigarette and is marketed as a cigarette,” Jonathan P. Winickoff, an associate professor at the Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, said in the report. “There’s nothing that prevents youth from getting addicted to nicotine.”

The Food and Drug Administration even refused entry into the U.S. to dozens of shipments of e-cigarettes from China.

“These appear to be unapproved drug device products,” Karen Riley, a spokeswoman for the agency, told the paper. “And as unapproved products they can’t enter the United States.”

Sales and use of electronic cigarettes are illegal on safety grounds in Australia and Hong Kong, and other countries regulate them as medicinal devices or forbid advertising, the Times reported.

Matt Salmon, spokesman for the Electronic Cigarette Association, which represents six distributors, said e-cigarettes deliver a mixture of nicotine and water vapor, and emit “no carcinogens.” While declining to give sales figures, Salmon told the paper “hundreds of thousands” of people used the products and that the average age of those users was the mid-40s.

“It’s a really good alternative for people who smoke tobacco,” Salmon said.

Edwin Schwab, who quit smoking regular cigarettes last year after trying e-cigarettes, started selling them at a mall kiosk in Providence, R.I.

When he took his e-cigarette out one night, he said, “When everyone was smoking outside in the cold, I just stood in the warm bar, smoking.”
Source: Csnews

“E-cigarettes” are the new trend in smoking cessation products and all the cool kids are doing it, the New York Times reports.
Related content
Dance & PlantsBash Compactor: Eternal Cool8 Million Stories: The Last StopCandy ManHe Used to Be SomebodyHip-Hop and the Obama Effect
Related to:NYpressNew York
They are being promoted as a “safe” alternative for people who want to quit smoking, but don’t actually have the willpower to do it.

The article reports that the battery-operated devices deliver dosages of nicotine and propylene glycol, which “is used in antifreeze, and also to create artificial smoke or fog in theatrical productions.” Consumers can purchase a starter-kit from $100 to $150. Then the smokes must be plugged into a charger before using.

Since the e-cigarettes are odorless and unregulated by the FDA, smokers can puff away in places where regular smoking is forbidden. One vendor boasts that they can be smoked in “airlines, hospitals and restaurants…even in bed.” In an attempt to tap into the consumer mindset, sellers are also offering fruity flavors like cherry for those who like their cigarettes dipped in NyQuil.

E-cigs are technically illegal since they are unregulated by the FDA, but they can be found easily online or at a New Jersey mega-mall near you. E-cigs are also technically inflammable unless a drunken e-smoker decides to try and light them. This supplier warns that they contain “a lithium battery which carries certain explosion risks if ignited.”

Who wouldn’t want to puff on a pricey, battery-operated explosive device anyway?
Source: Nypress