Buzz
For those who've been following this site for a while, you might know me as the person who occasionally contributes strange and eerie lists under a playful pseudonym, often using the royal 'we' to avoid taking full credit for the bizarre content. You may also notice that my output has decreased somewhat, and for now, I’m actually speaking in the first person. Let me explain.
About a year ago, a couple of close friends invited me to join them in running a vape shop and eventually an e-juice manufacturer in my hometown of Louisville, Colorado. Those of us in this industry believe that vaping could have a significant positive impact on public health. However, we've been frustrated by the negative portrayal it’s received in the media. This, coupled with the FDA's recent decision to enforce stricter regulations and the rising number of local ordinances, has prompted me to speak up.
To be honest, it’s mainly a list-driven approach. Because unless you actively seek out reliable information, you’re likely to encounter far more falsehoods than facts about what the media labels as 'e-cigs' or what most people refer to as 'vaping.' But why is that the case, you ask? I’m glad you did.
10. 'E-Cigs' Are Used To Describe Two Completely Different Products
When most people imagine an e-cigarette, they picture the device shown on the far left. It resembles a regular ('analog') cigarette, can be found at gas stations, and (if you choose Vuze or Blu, the two leading brands) is produced by tobacco giants—Imperial Tobacco and RJ Reynolds, respectively. The cartridges for these devices come pre-filled and must be swapped out when empty. They offer only a handful of flavor options and are marketed as a straightforward—perhaps healthier—alternative to traditional cigarettes.
However, despite their impressive sales figures, the vast majority of individuals who quit smoking for good in favor of vaping don't rely on these. In fact, my store doesn’t carry them, and no vape shop does—only gas stations and convenience stores do.
In a genuine vape shop, you’ll find products like the ones pictured in the middle (commonly called APVs—Advanced Personal Vaporizers—or 'Vape Pens') and those on the right ('Vape Mods'). APVs (typically made by Chinese brands such as Innokin) feature electronics that let users adjust the power output, create a moderate amount of vapor, and usually cost less than $100. Mods (mainly manufactured by American companies like Surefire or various smaller Greek and Filipino brands) are compatible with rebuildable atomizers, capable of producing enormous amounts of vapor, and can be quite costly.
Typically, users begin their vaping journey with mass-market products on the left, progress to the middle for a more satisfying experience (since the analog versions offer high nicotine but low vapor), and eventually move to the right when they desire richer flavors and less nicotine (more on this soon). This likely explains the decline in disposable sales as mod or 'open system' devices have grown in popularity (and why tobacco companies producing disposables would prefer mods to disappear entirely).
This is crucial because lawmakers and the media make no distinction between these two products, yet the difference is vast. When they assert that 'nobody knows what’s in these things,' it leaves me questioning exactly what they’re referring to, since . . .
9. The Ingredients in E-Liquid Are Not a Mystery
My job title at my company is Juicemaster General. I know, it’s an amazing title—I came up with it myself. It means that I am in charge of every bottle of e-liquid that leaves one of our wholesale customers’ shelves, and I personally craft 95 percent of it by hand. There are only four ingredients, and none of them were discovered on the Moon.
E-liquid starts with the main base, vegetable glycerin. We (along with most other manufacturers) use certified organic VG—it doesn’t carry flavor very well, but it creates a lot of vapor. The next ingredient is propylene glycol, which alarmists often claim is a 'main ingredient in antifreeze.' This is a mistake, as they are confusing it with diethylene glycol, which has actually been found in mass market e-cig products. I absolutely do not add any of that to my liquid because I’m not in the business of making antifreeze.
Propylene glycol—or PG—is a key ingredient in albuterol, the substance used in asthma inhalers, and is completely safe to inhale when vaporized. PG is thinner than VG and carries flavor extremely well—the next ingredient, flavorings, are typically suspended in PG. These flavorings are food-grade, can be either natural or artificial, and are only limited by the creativity of the juice maker.
A note about these ingredients—the 'we don’t know what’s in these things' arguments fall apart when faced with numerous studies like these, which not only show that we fully understand what’s in these products, but also that we have a clear understanding of their (negligible) toxicity when vaporized.
The final ingredient is pharmaceutical-grade nicotine, and all juice makers offer their products in different nicotine strengths. These range from the extreme (up to 36 milligrams per milliliter—essentially a Lucky Strike with the filter taken off) all the way down to zero. That’s right, zero. So why would someone sell a 'tobacco product' with no nicotine, you ask?
8. Many Vapers Use Little to No Nicotine
You might think I’m exaggerating, but the numbers speak for themselves: In our industry, e-liquids with very low to no nicotine content (6 mg per ml or lower) outsell medium-to-high nicotine strengths (12 mg and above) by more than double. Furthermore, since every single e-liquid producer offers zero-nicotine liquid—and at least one offers exclusively that—it’s clear that demand exists if there is supply. I personally quit smoking two years before I began vaping, and I use zero-nicotine liquid daily.
There are reasons behind this. Most users start with a higher nicotine level when they’re transitioning from analog cigarettes. Once they move to a device that produces more vapor, they don’t need as much nicotine to feel satisfied. Over time, they may decide to 'step down' (reduce the nicotine strength) once they realize that high nicotine actually dulls the flavor of e-liquid. Simply put, the less nicotine you use, the better the flavor, and despite what some in the media may think, it turns out that even adults enjoy things that taste good.
And no, I don’t mean 'kid-friendly' flavors like watermelon or blueberry—though I do have a good blueberry vape if that’s your thing. One of our blends is an intricate mix of oatmeal, rum, raisin, and anise. Another is a strikingly blue, nearly indescribable, tart-sweet menthol blend known as Heisenberg. We’re definitely not targeting the children’s market here.
You may be catching on that I’m referring to the countless media claims that we’re 'targeting' children—attempting to lure them in with sweet flavors, and perhaps even get them hooked on smoking. By the way, did you know that . . .
7. Nobody Wants Minors Buying These Products
In 10 states right now—including mine—selling electronic cigarettes or related products to minors is illegal. Legislation is pending in a dozen more states and is likely to spread to others, including possibly at a federal level, soon.
This quick action is typical for a new industry, but it’s really just common sense. We haven’t opposed any of these laws because we don’t want to sell to minors. In fact, we’re extremely cautious about doing so. We don’t need to create new customers. Ninety-five percent of our customers are former smokers, meaning the tobacco industry has already created plenty of business for us, and that trend will continue for a long time. We understand that we’re selling an adult product, and we intend to stay in business. We ask for ID from anyone who doesn’t appear to be over 25 years old, and I’m aware of no shop—either in my state or elsewhere—that doesn’t do the same.
There's been a lot of discussion around the rising number of teenagers trying e-cigarettes or vaping—a frequently cited statistic shows that teen usage doubled from 2011 to 2012. While this is true, the statistic misses key context. The e-cig/vaping industry itself more than doubled in size during that same year, meaning that overall use of these products, not just by teens, also doubled. Furthermore, during this period, teen use of smokeless tobacco—an older, less trendy product that’s never accused of targeting young people—rose by about 30 percent.
Interestingly—and this is a point where there’s no data available, likely because it directly contradicts the prevailing media narrative on these products—I’ve personally worked with many parents who wanted to buy a device for their teenager to help them quit smoking habits they’d picked up as younger teens. We can’t sell them for this specific purpose, but it’s a factor that’s glaringly missing from teen vaping statistics. Adding one simple question to surveys would clear this up: 'Where did you get your first e-cigarette?'
Of course, with the proposed state laws in the pipeline, sales to minors will soon be universally illegal. But as with the FDA’s proposed regulations on e-cig and vaping products, such measures would likely have been introduced sooner or later. Outside the industry, almost no one is aware that . . .
6. The Industry Has Already Begun To Self-Regulate
I’ve never come across a bottle of e-liquid—nor seen anyone else make one—that doesn’t feature labels with warnings like, 'Warning: May contain nicotine. Keep away from children and pets. For use by adults 18+.' (That’s the exact wording on our labels.) Additionally, most e-liquid producers either shrink-wrap their bottles or use child-resistant caps. In fact, suppliers of certain sizes of child-proof caps in the U.S. are having trouble keeping up with demand from e-liquid manufacturers. Many larger juice makers—and some smaller ones—have even gone as far as implementing full-on clean room practices in their production process.
We’re not being forced to follow these practices—at least not yet. Even without a formal governing body, though, we’ve adopted reasonable standards that anyone would expect from a responsible industry—and there are a couple of organizations aiming to become the regulatory body to enforce these standards across the board.
Why is this the case? It seems to me that some people—particularly lawmakers and policymakers—forget that our industry and the tobacco industry have fundamentally different objectives. The tobacco industry aims to hook as many people on nicotine as it can—ideally starting at a young age—by any legal means. Our industry, on the other hand, is focused on helping people quit nicotine, offering a pleasurable alternative to smoking.
We want our product to be recognized as safe and effective—because we believe it is—and any action that harms that perception is detrimental to the industry. It would be hard to find an e-liquid producer who doesn’t label their bottles with clear warnings, use child-proof caps, shrink-wrap their products, or all of the above. These practices are positive selling points when we’re looking to secure new wholesale customers.
There’s universal agreement that some form of regulation is necessary. However, when the FDA’s initial proposal—according to their own analysis—would push everyone but Big Tobacco out of the e-cigarette business, there’s clearly an issue. The FDA estimates that the preparation and submission process for each new product would require 5,000 hours and cost $300,000. By 'product,' they mean one flavor of liquid in one nicotine strength. By that metric, my company currently manufactures 155 'products.' Even without crunching the numbers, this is an obviously unreasonable proposal. We’re more than willing to engage with the federal government about regulating our industry, but nobody wants to start negotiations with a figurative gun to their head.
Now, let’s talk about that whole safety and effectiveness issue . . .
5. The Vapor Is Significantly Less Harmful Than Cigarette Smoke
The average person has likely encountered two extremes when it comes to the vapor from e-cigarettes: one side claims it’s completely harmless, while the other says it’s more dangerous than cigarettes, forest fires, and nuclear explosions combined. You’ve probably heard the phrase 'not enough studies have been done' more than once in relation to this debate.
This is where my job as the author of this article becomes much simpler. In case you don’t have the time to go through all the linked studies in full, let me share some key excerpts:
A 2012 Greek study titled Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device on myocardial function: comparison with regular cigarettes: 'Absence of combustion and different chemical composition, leading to less toxic chemicals created and absorbed . . . electronic cigarettes may be a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes.'
A 2012 research paper titled Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapor from electronic cigarettes: 'We found that the e-cigarette vapors contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product . . . our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.'
A 2012 study titled Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality: 'For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.'
You may not have known that this has been studied so thoroughly, and I could provide many more references. However, I want to highlight that last study, specifically focusing on 'secondhand' vapor. The early steps toward legislation in our industry are suggesting that vaping should be treated the same as smoking, due to concerns about the vapor’s safety. But across the board in our industry, the consensus is that . . .
4. The Issue of Public Vaping Is Largely Exaggerated
The studies I’ve referenced above clearly show that concerns about secondhand vapor in public places are often exaggerated—if not entirely baseless—and more research will undoubtedly be conducted in this area. In enclosed spaces, such as government offices and businesses, there is no need for any law on the matter.
The proposed legislation being discussed from coast to coast and across the country in the United States ignores the fact that businesses have every right to set their own policies on such matters. Proponents of such laws often overlook vape shops, but banning vaping in these shops means customers cannot sample liquids before purchasing. This is essentially why people visit vape shops instead of buying liquids online.
There’s also growing suspicion in our community that such legislation is part of a dual federal and local strategy designed to push small businesses out. It seems the next wave of local ordinances will target the sale of flavored e-liquids. And of course, it’s all framed as a concern for children, which I’ve already pointed out is an entirely misguided perspective.
But from where we stand, it feels like we’re being squeezed from every direction until we can no longer function, despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific research on our product is positive. While Big Tobacco has mixed feelings about this shift—they don’t want e-cigarettes to disappear, but rather want us out of the picture so they can claim the whole market—the major pharmaceutical companies are willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate vaping, and for one simple reason.
3. A Wealth of Studies Exists
There are countless studies. All the ones I’ve linked to here—and many others—clearly show that these products are much less harmful than cigarettes, more effective than pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, and pose no risk to bystanders. All the data is available, but it’s often hard to find due to being marginalized, taken out of context, or ignored by the media. Many of the links I’ve provided are compiled here, and the database is constantly updated—an ever-growing pile of evidence that the media is only telling one side of the story.
I hope I’ve done a decent job of presenting the other side of this story. Now, let’s get back to our regular programming and continue with the list.
2. Numerous Health Organizations Acknowledge the Advantages
And they’re beginning to make statements like this:
American Council on Science and Health: “Tobacco companies already control 99 percent of the nicotine supply, and they could soon dominate the rapidly expanding e-cigarette market. Without proper regulation, tobacco companies could increase e-cigarette prices and profits, reducing the incentive for smokers to transition to safer alternatives, while simultaneously safeguarding their tobacco cigarette sales from competition.”
Royal College of Physicians, London: “Based on the available evidence, the RCP believes that e-cigarettes could significantly reduce smoking rates in the UK, prevent many deaths and serious health issues, and help address the social health inequalities that tobacco smoking exacerbates.”
Action on Smoking and Health, United Kingdom: “E-cigarettes are proving to be more appealing to smokers than nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), while offering a safer alternative to cigarettes. Evidence suggests they can be effective in helping smokers quit, and there is minimal evidence to support that they are being used by non-smokers.”
It appears that when neutral public health organizations review the available, unbiased, peer-reviewed data, they consistently reach the same conclusion: Although more long-term studies are necessary, current evidence strongly suggests that vaping is much safer than smoking and is a highly effective tool for helping people quit smoking.
But hold on! You’ve probably heard countless experts on TV claiming that no studies have been done on e-cigarettes? Well, here's a recent Chicago Tribune article that directly states, “No studies have been conducted to assess the safety of e-cigarettes. As a result, there is no evidence for doctors to evaluate the potential effects of this product on a person’s health. Additionally, no convincing evidence shows that e-cigarettes are effective in helping people stop smoking.”
The Chicago Tribune has blatantly misinformed the public. As I’ve shown throughout this list…
1. Vaping Does Help Smokers Quit
As the industry grows, even mainstream outlets are now acknowledging that there is some evidence suggesting that electronic cigarettes could be effective in assisting smokers in quitting. This has been known for quite some time. Once again, let the evidence speak for itself:
“The majority of participants (72 percent) were former smokers, and 76 percent used e-cigarettes on a daily basis. At the start, current users had been using e-cigarettes for three months, taking 150 puffs per day, with refill liquids containing 16 mg/ml of nicotine, on average. Nearly all daily vapers at the start were still vaping daily after one month (98 percent) and after one year (89 percent). Of those who began vaping daily less than a month before, 93 percent were still vaping daily after one month, and 81 percent after one year. Among those who had previously smoked and were daily vapers at the start, 6 percent had relapsed to smoking after one month, and another 6 percent relapsed after one year.”
“In a large, international survey (emphasis added) of current, former, or never users of e-cigarettes, 72 percent of users reported that e-cigarettes helped them manage cravings and withdrawal symptoms, 92 percent noticed a reduction in smoking when using e-cigarettes, and only 10 percent felt the urge to smoke tobacco cigarettes while using e-cigarettes. Furthermore, of more than 2000 former smokers surveyed, 96 percent confirmed that the e-cigarette assisted them in quitting smoking.”
“In smokers not aiming to quit, the use of e-cigarettes, with or without nicotine, reduced cigarette consumption and prompted lasting tobacco abstinence without significant side effects.”
When compared to the alarmingly low success rates of traditional nicotine replacement therapies like patches and gums—which some pharmaceutical giants base their entire business models on—it’s not hard to see why there’s pushback. This might also explain why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advocating for legislation that would essentially hand over control of our industry to Big Tobacco—those so-called protectors of public health—while pushing smaller companies like mine to the brink of collapse.
At the same time, some of the genuine defenders of public health are beginning to shift their views on the matter.
