Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Lindsay Fox
E-Cig Advocate and Vaper
E-Cig Advocate and Vaper

Lindsay's posts

Post has attachment
The unintended consequences of FDA e-cigarette regulation. Comments from top vapers and advocates. 

What are your thoughts on this? Can we save vaping? How should vaping be regulated? 

Here's what the FDA has proposed so far (

- Ban on sales to minors
- Ban on free samples
- All e-cigs and liquids must contain a warning stating that nicotine is addictive
- Companies must provide a full ingredients listing and report any harmful or potentially harmful constituents
- Reduced risk claims (direct or implied) can only be made if the FDA agrees that the evidence supports them (which they currently don’t).
- Vending machines selling e-cigs can only be placed in locations where youths aren’t allowed
- All existing and new e-cig products will be required to submit a pre-market approval application (a long, detailed bureaucratic process requiring many man-hours and great expense), or, if they’re “substantially equivalent” to products on the US market prior to February 2007 (which no currently-available products are), a substantial equivalence application
- No bans on flavoring, online sales or advertising, although these could be imposed in the future

The deeming regulations proposed by the FDA in April last year have been decried by most vapers for a very simple reason: they offer no notable benefits in terms of quality control or product safety and impose insurmountable legislative hurdles for the majority of companies in the industry.

Post has attachment
Great read! The Future of Vaping: the unintended consequences of FDA e-cigarette regulation.

Insightful comments from advocates and vapers including: +Grimm Green, +Stefan Didak (SFATA), +John Manzione (Spinfuel), Lynda Abshear (moderator of reddit's r/electronic_cigarette), Lynn (ECF), Meg, Steve K. 

Can we save vaping? Or is it too late? What are your predictions for the future of vaping? How will regulations affect vapers and smokers?  

Post has attachment
Looks like you've put yourself in check, Five Pawns.

After the recent acetyl propionyl (AP) scare with Five Pawns' e-liquid, they've attempted to allay fears by releasing some new test results, showing much lower AP levels. But things aren't as good as they might seem.

Despite the AEMSA (US), ECITA (UK) and ECTA (Canada) all recommending one testing method, Five Pawns appears to have taken it upon themselves to use a different one, which is mentioned by none of these organizations and is prone to bias if not properly conducted. Oh yeah, and that bias would make it look like there's less DA and AP in the juices than there really is.

Even if Five Pawns' new results are accurate and they really have re-formulated their e-liquids to address concerns: they've done it in an unfathomably stupid way and there are STILL problematic levels of AP in some of their juices.

Post has attachment
If you don't think we need e-cigarettes to help reduce the damage done by combusted tobacco, you're missing something crucial: smokers don't exactly do what you want them to.

A smoker is the sort of person who decides to start doing something unilaterally called leading preventable cause of death in the world. Smokers are regularly recommended medication for quitting, but most don't take it. They're told they should go to counseling to boost their chances of quitting, but hardly any of them do. They're told that cold turkey is the worst approach, but try it anyway.

The lessons are that smokers are perfectly happy to take a risk if they get enjoyment out of it, the options available to them for quitting don't really appeal, and that they don't really "follow the best evidence" when it comes to choosing how to quit.

But, despite no official recommendations, e-cigarettes have quickly become much more popular than patches, gums or any other approach for trying to quit smoking.

The reason? Because vaping is actually fun.

Tobacco control might not think we need it, but they couldn't be more wrong.

Post has attachment
A new study looking at the toxicity of e-cigarette vapor to human airway cells has found that vapor appears to be no more damaging than ordinary air is. This is more great news for vapers, but the fact that the study was funded by British American Tobacco is destined to invite some undue criticism, despite no clear issues with the study itself.

The study hasn't been too widely-covered in the media (no surprise there), but the UK newspaper the Mirror claimed it showed "e-cigarette vapor is as safe as air."

As nice as it is to see something positive about vaping, this is a clear misinterpretation of the results: e-cigs are much safer than cigarettes, but they're pretty unlikely to be totally safe (because very little is).

Post has attachment
A new study looking at the effect of e-cig ads on teens' interest in vaping has been described by Stanton Glantz as offering "direct evidence that e-cig TV ads are recruiting kids to nicotine addiction." Just in case the fact that Glantz said it wasn't a big enough clue: the evidence is far from convincing.

In reality, the study shows that even viewing four of the best e-cig ads consecutively has a very small effect on teens' interest in vaping, and that peer influence is a much more relevant factor. This may have been obscured as much as possible by the authors, but the suggested action - prohibiting e-cig ads for the sake of the children - is in no way warranted by the available evidence.

Post has attachment
“If the health risk associated with tobacco smoking is equal to 100, vaping health risk is 4. The choice is yours”.

- Professor Polosa

Post has attachment
Do you need to worry about metals in e-cig vapor? Check out +james dunworth's  interview with Dr. Polosa, a world expert in tobacco addiction and respiratory medicine who has also carried out research into electronic cigarettes.

Post has attachment
Authors of a new paper by the New England Journal of Medicine claim that e-cigarettes lead to cocaine abuse. 

While we’ve gotten accustomed to hearing unsubstantiated claims about a gateway to tobacco, this takes things to a different level. While the media in the US were largely scared away from the story by a CASAA press release rightfully identifying the claim as “junk science,” UK newspapers were quite happy to repeat the claims. 

The problem is that the research the claim is actually based on simply addresses nicotine (the same stuff in patches and gums), was conducted on mice and is based on the idea that the gateway hypothesis is true, which it probably isn’t.

Dr. Carl Phillips of CASAA responded: "This study tells us little about human biology and nothing at all about real-world human behavior. It does not even measure mouse behavior. The study provides no evidence there is a gateway effect, and there is no reason to believe there is one. Even if there were, this would merely offer one hypothesis about why it happens, and tell us nothing about the real world."

Post has attachment
The American Heart Association issued new policy recommendations on the use of e-cigarettes and their impact on tobacco-control efforts.

The AHA comes out in support of the FDA’s proposal, and even advocates further actions such as including vaping in smoke-free air laws and increasing taxes, but manages to hold this view despite conducting a fairly reasonable analysis of the evidence beforehand.

It seems like doublethink, but the AHA admits that e-cigarettes are likely much safer than smoking while still suggesting that strict regulation is necessary.
Wait while more posts are being loaded