Utah teens are experimenting with e-cigarettes

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • MattZuke TACOMA, WA
    Jan. 26, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    "I use nicotine as an insecticide"

    Indeed, we've been using nicotine as an insecticide at 40% concentration for OVER 200 years, and it's still in use. The EPA has guidelines as to how much is allowed as residue on your food. Because of one intentional poisoning, the EPA asked manufactures to voluntarily cut down to a ~15% solution.

    E-cigarettes in contrast use fluid at a 0-2.6% solution typically, 1.6% being typical and the highest option from a well known company. At 18mg/ml, 1 ml is typically consumed over 16 hours. There is a debate how much is absorbed by the user, but presuming 99%, and 200 puffs/day that's .0009mg/puff, so hypothetically locking lips with an e-cig user 10 times would expose this person to as much nicotine as one serving of eggplant. Obviously this disparate to trace levels.

    The argument is to disallow something that is allowed under the clean air act at concentrations that would hurt a fly.

    This site prohibits links to the CDC, so Google: "CDC beef poisoning".

  • MattZuke TACOMA, WA
    Jan. 26, 2012 1:33 p.m.

    "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Vapor (a marketing term used by the e-cigarette lobby) contains lots of health issues, as many have pointed out (Google New Jersey GASP E-Cigarettes for more information)."

    @health Junkie

    You're going to need a better citation than GASP. Near as I'm aware, it's just
    Karen Blumenfeld's personal blog. As a lawyer she'd entitled to give informed opinions on law, but that's it. She uses arguments like "Youth are attracted to electronic gadgets", and asserts the gateway hypothesis, without evidence that it's valid.

    There is no evidence cited here on any health issue associated with e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes are nothing more than a battery operated Glade Plug-in, except Glade Plugins are a good deal more toxic, HMIS health rati2ng of 2. The only supporting evidence cited is the FDA own study which demonstrates that e-cigarettes actually contain fewer tobacco specific impurities than the Nicotrol Inhaler.

    We use fog machines without restriction, and these don't use food grade PG, and they use mineral oil. How can something LESS TOXIC at lower volumes be MORE dangerous?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 26, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    Nicotine is nicotine whether from a smokeless cigarette or a normal one.

    I use nicotine as an insecticide.

    Jan. 26, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    "It's confusing to a smoker or someone who is trying to quit," he said, noting that nicotine gums and patches are offered in varying nicotine levels and help people kick the habit.

    Whats confusing to this ex-smoker is that the patches and gum continue to be pushed as effective methods of quitting, when research is showing that real life usage of these products produces abysmal sustained quit rates.

    By all means, protect the children (although purchase of electronic cigarettes by children is already illegal and cost prohibitive as well). I dont want to see anyone picking up any sort of tobacco use, but dont thwart the current adult smokers who desperately want to quit and have found success using electronic cigarettes.

    Jan. 26, 2012 6:55 a.m.

    Some consumers view an e-cigarette as a nicotine replacement, a method to help them quit smoking. But Neville argued that the device is not compatible with a step-therapy program because it delivers a specific level of nicotine to the user and can be refilled when emptied.

    This is false. Nicotine liquids can be purchased in a variety of strengths. A user can easily reduce their nicotine usage if thats what they want to do. There is actually a larger range of nicotine concentrations for nicotine liquid than is offered for patches and gums. Yes, you can refill when its empty, but you can also grab another pack of cigarettes whenever you want or more gum and patches.


    Jan. 26, 2012 6:54 a.m.

    In smoking a cigarette, he said, a user generally knows how much nicotine is being consumed. "They know if they are a half-a-pack-a-day smoker. When it comes to an electronic cigarette, you just don't know. You just keep on smoking," Neville said.

    I seriously doubt that the average smoker really knows how much nicotine (or carcinogens, for that matter) they are getting. They might know they are a pack a day smoker, but they generally have no clue how much nicotine a cigarette contains or delivers. An e-cigarette user will similarly usually know how many cartridges or milliliters of liquid they use in a day, and they will typically know the concentration of nicotine in the liquid they are using. Id argue that e-cigarette users are probably MORE aware of their nicotine usage than smokers are.


    Jan. 26, 2012 6:54 a.m.

    I cant really argue with trying to prevent children from starting smoking or using nicotine. As EKeller points out though, according to the statistics in it one of the sources for this report, it seems that children are trying e-cigarettes much less frequently than other nicotine containing products. Why are they being singled out with such particular concern and attention?

    There are quite a few questionable statements in this piece that relate less to protecting the children than they do to demonizing electronic cigarettes.

    "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke," said David Neville,

    Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke which is one of the reasons they appear to be orders of magnitude less dangerous than cigarettes.


  • Cache Kid LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    This over-reaction is typical.

    Mom's, you've got to ask yourself something... Would you rather have your kids trying e-cigarettes, or THE REAL ONES? Kids who are going to experiment ARE GOING TO EXPERIMENT anyway.

    E-cigarettes contain only nicotine, which is a stimulant VERY SIMILAR TO CAFFEINE. Real cigarettes, on the other hand, contain carbon monoxide, tar, and hundreds of other CANCER CAUSING COMPOUNDS.

    I personally know of several parents of teen smokers who have gotten them to quit smoking using e-cigarettes. It's 1000 times less harmful than smoking tobacco, and they wanted what was best for their kids. Should these parents be jailed? Jailed because they understood their kids would use one or the other?

    This is an issue FOR PARENTS, not for the state, not for the PTA.

    When we banned wine coolers, the kids just started getting the hard liquor, because their sources had to go to the liquor store anyway.

    Some laws FEEL GOOD, but don't accomplish a darn thing. This law would actually force people who are trying to quit tobacco, BACK ON TO TOBACCO, which is FAR FAR WORSE.

    Get real, use your heads.

    Jan. 25, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    I have a couple of questions. Since when are people over the age of 19 considered children? Why put all the focus on the one product that kids are least likely to have tried? The percentages of males in Grade 12 that use real smoke-emitting Cigarettes is 23.2; Hookah, 18.5; Cigars, 15.6; Chew, 8.3. For females, the numbers are 7.4, 7.5, 4.0, and 2.8, respectively. This compares to only 7.8% of males and 2.8% of females that have tried E-cigarettes. (Source PNA) The survey does not dig deeply enough to effectively inform policy decisions. Why do kids try E-cigarettes? What if they are using E-cigarettes for the same reason that adults do--to stop smoking? What if kids are experimenting with E-cigarettes instead of the real thing? Given that E-cigarettes are more similar in dosage to pharmaceutical nicotine inhalers, they are much less likely to create addiction than smoking. Last question: Shouldn't resources be focused on the products that are most frequently used--especially if those are the products most hazardous to health?

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    When I noticed the State legislature bringing up the issue of e-cigs. I thought it was MAINLY to figure out a way to tax them.

    Utah State Legislature: PLEASE stop trying to control people and things. Leave people alone. THE CITIZENS can make their own health decisions.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    Perhaps a little "zion curtain" to cover the appearance of evil, would satisfy these moral police.
    Keep the feds out, we want to nanny our state to death internally.

    Just admit it, a cleric state is the goal in Utah.

  • Johnson72 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    Or drinking for the same matter?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 25, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    I've heard that it can be very difficult for some people addicted to nicotine to stop smoking. Some even continue after they develop any of a number of diseases associated with smoking.

    Personally I wouldn't know. I never had the urge to see my money burn up in smoke.

  • Johnson72 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 11:20 a.m.

    What is it with Utah and kids smoking?

  • capo689 Park City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    @Health Junkie.... the e-cig Vapor has less that 9 PPM of carbon... cigs over 3000. If you trust science then you see that these are FAR safer for the smoker and those around. Some people DON't want to quit nicotine... and that's their right, this provides a far safer alternative. Why would anyone want to prevent that?

  • Health Junkie North Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    Mukkake: Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Vapor (a marketing term used by the e-cigarette lobby) contains lots of health issues, as many have pointed out (Google New Jersey GASP E-Cigarettes for more information).

    Capo689: Smell isn't an indicator of safety. Carbon Monoxide, Radon, etc. are invisible, tasteless, and odorless gases that cause major health problems. You don't even claim e-cigarettes are safe; you claim them to be "safer" than cigarettes. The fact of the matter is that there are no scientifically valid studies supporting e-cigarettes, and the e-cigarette lobby has refused to submit them to the FDA for testing. I trust what science tells me, and it tells me to beware of e-cigarettes.

    The bottom line in my mind is this: Quitting tobacco is good. Replacing it with another addiction is bad. Choose freedom. Choose to quit tobacco.

  • capo689 Park City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 5:51 a.m.

    My closest friend, a smoker of over 20 years has not had a cigarette in over 30 days... and has currently no desire to go back mainly due to e-cigarettes. Your story has several inaccurate statements I am glad to help correct.

    There is no proof that e-cigs cause harm...
    "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke," said Neville.. while this is true e-cigs do not deliver smoke, they deliver vapor.

    "It's confusing to a smoker who is trying to quit," he said, noting that nicotine gums and patches are offered in varying nicotine levels and help people kick the habit. e-cigs DO come in different strengths, and the flavors actually help smokers move away from tobacco flavor. They also have NO smell. Because there is no smoke of smell they are safe on airplanes and such.

    These all about the children articles could just be titled bad parenting, this world has a ton of pitfalls... we can't make them all illegal, you have to parent your child. E-cigs are far safer, a great method for quitting smoking, and I find this attack with not one shred of evidence quite juvenile.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2012 3:57 a.m.

    Uneducated and reactive. E-cigarettes have no second hand smoke. Its vapor. I can smoke an e-cigarette in a restaurant or bar, and no one can even smell it, unless I blow it directly in their face. Even if the law passes, I'll still use my e-cig wherever I want, because its easy to get away with.