Ignorance and laziness prevails in Oakley, CA over electronic cigarettes

Update Feb 12, 2014: This post and material provided below has been discussed in the Oakley City Council meeting of Feb 11 and as a result the proposed ordinance had unanimously been passed but without the inclusion of the part about electronic cigarettes. Which I think is the best outcome on the decision that could be hoped for. My message to any other “vapers” out there reading this, please know that you can make a difference. As it was mentioned in the meeting, a lof of this information was previously unknown to the council and in that it is very representative of what is going on in lots of other communities. Education is key and providing this information is important. Do what you can and be heard. Otherwise the only “information” council members have to go on is that which is provided by organizations such as the American Lung Association and County Board’s of Health (which in turn also get their “information” from organizations like the ALA).

This post is the direct result of being appalled at the ignorance and laziness that is being put on display by the Oakley City Council, or rather in particular the city’s special counsel William Galstan. A few moments ago I read a recent news article in our local paper, titled “Oakley Council passes smoking ordinance” by Kyle Szymanski. You can read the entire article here though I will be highlighting some of the crucial and important parts in this post.

I will be contacting the Oakley City Council on monday to inform them of the content of the post below. If you feel you have something to contribute or wish to assist in explaining why the city is ignorantly being used by the “anti-vaping lobby” please feel free to contact them at the following email addresses: http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/subpage.cfm?id=520523

The short version, in case you’re in a hurry (since this is likely not going to be a short post) is that the Oakley City Council passed an ordinance that limits where people can “smoke” around their apartment buildings. While I agree with the general gist of the ordinance being a result of people who may be less considerate than others about where they light up and it doesn’t in the least have any impact or relevance for me personally, there are a few important details to take note of that are showing a level of ignorance and laziness that is unbecoming of a City Council, and in particular with the parroted statements made by the city’s special counsel William Galstan. And I will explain exactly why.

The ordinance has been written to include the smoking of marijuana, crack cocaine and the vapors from electronic cigarettes. Like the latter even belongs in the same category! The article goes on to state

“which the city added into the ordinance after evidence from the American Lung Association and National Association of City and County Health Officials concluded the vapor includes harmful substances”.

Now here we’ve got a problem.

“There are some carcinogens and toxic chemicals that are actually released by the electronic cigarettes, some of which are the same chemicals you find in automobile anti-freeze,” said the city’s special counsel William Galstan.

And that there is a much, much bigger problem!

Without going into details regarding my own expertise on the subject of electronic cigarettes (which I am more than happy to explain at length to the City Council and Mr. Galstan at any time of their chosing if they are so inclined as to get some real factual information from someone who is not financially entangled at all regarding this topic) it is painfully obvious that Mr. William Galstan is simply parroting known (to the rest of the world but perhaps not to Mr. Galstan) inaccurate information that is being spread by parties such as the American Lung Association in order to demonize electronic cigarettes, their users, and their enormously growing popularity as a Tobacco Harm Reduction solution because the association has its own (mostly financial) incentives to create such statements aimed at presenting misinformation.

Mr. Galstan, could you please list and describe the “known carcinogens” present in electronic cigarettes (or the e-Juice used in such)? The American Lung Association has repeatedly failed to do so, so why are you parroting them? Do you have any clue at all what is generally used in electronic cigarettes (or e-Juice)? I do. Many others do as well. And none of them are carcinogens. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that nicotine itself is not known nor has it ever been listed as a known carcinogen. If you are going to be a mouthpiece of an organization that has direct financial interests that are at  odds with people giving up smoking (after all, the association would no longer have a source of funding nor would they be able to pressure companies into handing them money for their “programs” which as a lot of us see it is not too different from mobster like extortion) then please be ready to back up your statements and claims with actual facts and substantiate them. Perhaps you may need to inquire at the American Lung Association so they can provide you with a canned statement that will, as per usual, not really answer the question.

Mr. Galstan, could you please explain why you claim that FDA approved Vegetable Glycerin and/or FDA approved Propylene Glycol and FDA approved food flavoring (those three, with or without the nicotine because there is such a thing as electronic cigarette juice use that does not include it) are “toxic chemicals”?

Mr. Galstan, it is beyond appalling to me that you, someone who possesses a legal background, and as such should be more than capable of comprehending and reading as well as hopefully logic are making statements like “some of which are the same chemicals you find in automobile anti-freeze”? Do you need me to give you a list of products in every day use all over the planet that contain the very same “chemicals you find in automobile anti-freeze”? Like toothpaste for children? Like lubricants and hand sanitizers? Or how about thousands of food products that are also manufactured and/or sold by several businesses in Oakley?

How about the Propylene Glycol that is pumped into the air in hospitals and other large structures because it has anti-bacterial benefits? Does that mean asthma inhalers also contain “chemicals you find in automobile anti-freeze”? Well, yes it does, according to the actual facts that really are the basis for your by-proxy statement. But you don’t hear anyone say that in the same way, right? Will you be making the exact same statement about thousands of products? Technically I guess you should if you wish to be consistent. However, this is not about being consistent, this is about you losing your credibility because you chose to parrot words that were carefully picked and crafted, not by yourself, in order to give electronic cigarettes a bad reputation and to create some kind of “scare factor” for smokers who might want to try it as an alternative to smoking, often with the hope (and usually also the unintended outcome) that they actually quit the habit. The same which can not be said for big pharma’s NRT’s and just about every smoking cessation program known to man.

Mr. Galstan, do you really wish to be the person who scares smokers away from a reduced harm alternative to smoking? Do you feel comfortable knowing that you might in effect be possibly responsible for any smoker not having a reduced harm alternative and the possible consequences their smoking habit might lead to? Your statements sure would scare away smokers from even contemplating it with statements such as “like anti-freeze” and “known toxins and carcinogens”. It makes you no different from mis-informed and ignorant people who on the basis of a TV news story would say “oh, those electronic things will kill you faster than regular smokes”. That kind of ignorance used to be more prevalent in this country during the Salem Witch Trials and the age old concept of randomly pointing fingers and screaming “witch, witch”.

Mr. Galstan, you have shown yourself to have done nothing more than parrot statements that have already been shown to have a much larger ulterior motive, the basis of which you clearly spent no time on investigating for yourself and instead decided to go with a conclusion that the vapor from electronic cigarettes “includes harmful substances”. That may be fine for people who wish to remain ignorant and it makes for nice sound bites and I am sure several associations who’s existence depends on not having people move away from smoking. But in the end it’s still a display of utter ignorance that is unbecoming of someone who should be intellectually capable of doing some research prior to making statements.

I understand that it would be very easy to claim you looked up a few things online and discovered hundreds of articles all saying the same thing that the words of the associations you decided to parrot also say. But as former mayor Kevin Romick has often said, “do not believe everything you read online”. I would like to augment that by saying do not believe everything you read online that comes up in searches because what you will be presented with is only the popular articles based on the ranking of search results (and I have even more expertise in that so if you wish to be lectured on that I will be happy to oblige). If you spend a little more time and not focus on what’s popular and wide spread simply because association withlots of money to spend (money which they would not have if people stopped smoking and why electronic cigarettes are a direct and present danger to their bottom line, as well as the bottom line for the tabacco industry who are losing money and the big pharma companies that are losing money because the NRT’s that do not work for most people are finding themselves displaced by this disruptive technology called electronic cigarettes, not to mention the tax revenue lost from people not buying cigarettes) you will find there are plenty of studies showing the exact opposite of what the associations you parrot claim.

With one big difference. Those studies are mostly not paid for by those with a direct financial interest and provide substantiation that is severely lacking from the propaganda against electronic cigarettes that’s out there. Most of which originates from associations which have written the words you blindly repeated. Those studies actually don’t need to resort to ridiculous and credibility-destroying statements like “like you find in automobile anti-freeze”. Those studies are also ongoing and new ones are undertaken on a regular basis. Not unlike the few studies that the American Lung Association wish to base their “findings”, which date back to days when electronic cigarettes were a wild west and most of the liquid produced in China. A single contaminated example back in 2009 is not enough to warrant the demonization put forth by organizations with direct financial interests in keeping people smoking even though they are hypocritical enough to claim their intentions are the opposite. Perhaps you should spend some time looking at http://casaa.org/, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association.

As for the outdated and inaccurate statement regarding how vapor from electronic cigarettes “includes harmful substances”, maybe you are just living in the past too much and should perhaps spend some time reading this: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract (New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk by Professor Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health).

And if you are prepared to hopefully regain your credibility then perhaps you might want to look at the following (short) selection of information regarding electronic cigarettes at the end of this post. It is important, at least to me, and I hope for you and the entire City Council, that it would in the future refrain from putting itself and our city on public display as being totally ignorant and lazy by just accepting whatever misinformation is being presented to them by organizations with extremely big financial interests in having you repeat their propaganda and having you essentially do their work for them. it also does not become the city to craft ordinances or parts thereof based on ignorance of modern technologies that may not be entirely understood by its city staff because that sort of thinking could send the entire area back into the dark ages.

I assume that you are also totally unaware that most electronic cigarettes do not leave any odor or smell that lingers long enough for anyone to notice (under most normal use situations)? How do you ever think you could have the city enforce an ordinance where it is near impossible to do so? And likewise, no apartment building with “no smoking” apartments would ever know or notice that anyone inside might be vaping their e-cigarette because it leaves no traces nor does it do the kind of “damage” combustable substances like the burning of tobacco do. Including e-cigarettes under ordinances aimed at smoking, combustion, the actual production of harmful particles is pointless, useless, and really only shows ignorance, indifference and basically everyone using e-cigarettes would have a good laugh about it. Please spend the time paid for by our tax dollars on something that actually makes a real difference to us residents.

It appears I have some additional comments to make, though, after reviewing the video from the city council meeting regarding this topic. Which I had not yet learned of at the time I composed this public response.

The part of interest starts at 11:00 and ends at 28:00.

Mr. Galstan says that he brought the proposed ordinance to the city council in October 2013. At that time council provided a comment period. It would have been nice to know that I would have been able to comment if it weren’t for the fact that this ordinance was about smoking and “second hand smoke” based on the complaints received by the city from residents of an apartment complex. I would have loved to provide some comments which would have hopefully allowed the city council and Mr. Galstan to not put themselves on display as “advocates of ignorance”. Unfortunately, the smoking part would have not provided me the kind of information required to provide comments since I am not a smoker and while I have something to say on the subject it is not the subject of electronic cigarettes or (advanced) personal vaporizers. Had it been made clear it would have been a different matter.

As such I would say the city council failed to make clear what they were allowing comments on. And this lack of clarity is certainly having its repercussions including but not limited to the propagation of ignorance, misleading comments, and blatantly false and misunderstood facts. In short, slipping in the electronic vapor part at a later time is an underhanded act that deserves no positive note whatsoever.

At 15:00 in the video, Mr. Galstan makes a footnote saying that last week he “received a call from an attorney representing the electronic cigarette interests” but fails to mention which “interest” that was. I will be checkin in with CASAA to determine if it was them or not. If not, can we, the public be provided with the name of the “interest” being mentioned here?

Update Feb 11, 2014: I was just contacted by CASAA to inform me that they were not the ones contacting the Oakley City Council or Mr. Galstan.

This attorney raised some objections about the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the ordinance text, and rightfully so because vapor emitted from electronic cigarettes are clearly not the same as the material emitted from combustable materials. Mr. Galstan says the attorney would be providing some material and information but that such was never received. Well, Mr. Galstan, please find some information below that should occupy you for a little while. I will be taking the bet that the material and information provided below is a lot more than anything the County Health Department and by proxy the American Lung Association has provided you with. Especially since what they have provided you with has led you to not only embarrass yourself but the entire city with the foolish and ignorant statements you’ve repeated.

I’m not entirely surprised that Mr. Galstan did not undertake ANY research on his own other than accepting a bunch of canned statements from the County Health Department and the American Lung Association because if someone is told there might be something not entirely fair about the inclusion of electronic cigarettes and you don’t receive any information (for whatever reason) then certainly you should not spend a single moment trying to understand the matter at hand that you’re dealing with and making statements about, right? Trying to actually understand something one knows nothing about is not something actively practiced any longer in this modern day and age, is it?

Luckily Mr. Galstan does also say that if new information comes to light or is provided at a later date they can always consider revising the ordinance. Well, I guess we will now have to see about that because clearly, if this first step ordinance, most of which would be agreeable if it didn’t include electronic cigarettes is any indication, some of the things mentioned during the council meeting clearly indicate that more of this might be coming in the future and may include “bans” and ordinances that include electronic cigarettes in categories and legislation in which they clearly do not belong, and all because of ignorance and fear that is being perpetrated by outdated “research” and organizations with ulterior motives. And that deserves our attention!

At 19:45 Mr Galstan comments that they have received a letter from the American Lung Association endorsing this ordinance and urging the city council to consider it. Well, of course they would. They are on top of this game and absolutely hate to see people moving away from smoking, the very thing that allows for the existence of the ALA and has a huge multi-faceted impact on many big money interests of which the ALA is mostly nothing more than a parasite.

At 21:45 Mayor Randy Pope states the city council received a letter from the American Lung Association. So clearly we once again are provided with clear evidence what organization has been instrumental in pushing for the demonization of electronic cigarettes and its users, based on their usual “dirty tactics” that do not hold up to the standards of ethics they claim to adhere to as an organization.

At 22:00 we get to move to an even more infuriating display of utter ignorance as presented by the one and only speaker on the subject, Oakley resident Wendy Escamilla. You really want to see this portion of the video starting at 22:00, especially if you are well informed about electronic cigarettes, because Mrs. Escamilla’s statements would almost make her a prototype for how ignorance sounds. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like her out there. Not unlike the many people over the past centuries who through the lack of understanding of modern technologies would fear things on which progress was based. Either that or the kind of hysterical individuals during the Salem Witch Trials, pointing their fingers around and yelling “witch! witch!” because that’s pretty much all their limited mental repertoire would allow for.

The amount of uninformed fear and ignorance that Wendy Escamilla managed to cram into her 3 minutes (of fame?) would be highly entertaining if it wasn’t for the fact that her misinformed statements are later repeated by Mr. Galstan, but I’ll get to that in a chronological order.

She starts off by saying she has six kids, four of which are at home, and that electronic cigarettes are of particular importance to her because they recently were at the Black Bear Diner (a small restaurant chain of which we have one here in Oakley) and “someone was smoking there”. Her daughter remarked that they can’t do that there and Mrs. Escamilla had a hard time explaining to her daughter that it was an electronic cigarette and not a real cigarette. It is interesting that Mrs. Escamilla continues to refer to the smoking of electronic cigarettes when in fact it’s not smoke (the result of a combustable process).

Mrs. Escamilla claims that the health effects of electronic cigarettes are unknown but that in “five years from now we’re going to find out there are health effects”. Well, yes, the positive health effects that MILLIONS of people have already discovered after they quit smoking in favor of an alternative that is tremendously safer and allows for enormous reduction in harm otherwise done by combustable tobacco. In fact, we don’t even have to wait five years for that, or for the negative health effects that I am sure she was implying. It is once again a massive display of utter ignorance because Mrs. Escamilla is clearly not aware that lots of people have been using e-cigs and “vaping” for many years already. As far back as 2002 and in a massively fast growing number since 2007. How many of these people does she personally know? Probably none, I would guess. If she did she would have noticed that people who vape and have quit smoking feel better, have none of the ill effects of smoking, regain their sense of smell and taste (which may not always be a good thing, I agree) and suddenly find themselves walking uphill without being out of breath. But it seems Mrs. Escamilla is basing her entire tirade of fear on the assumption that electronic cigarettes are this “totally new thing” that sprouted up overnight in the past few months.

Mrs. Escamilla continues “there is a lot of stuff in there we don’t even know”. I don’t know which “we” she is referring to but I am assuming that this group of “we” includes her. In which case she needs to be informed that we know very well what’s in there, actually, thank you very much. In fact, lots of vendors take great pride in providing all the details of exactly what’s in their products. We as vapers actually demand that of them because we too don’t want to inhale things “we don’t know”. And for those of us who create our own e-liquid (with or without nicotine, which really isn’t rocket science) you can bet we know exactly what’s in there. But I suspect she doesn’t actually know much about any of that or she might have been a bit more nuanced in her comments.

She basically concludes by saying that her misinformed fears should mean that electronic cigarettes need to be included in the ordinance because she just doesn’t know enough about them. What a wonderful situation! Let’s put stuff into ordinances and let’s mess with people’s enjoyment that doesn’t do harm to others simply because some lady “does not know”. I bet that if we put everything else she might not know about into various ordinances there would be not much left on the planet or in the entire universe.

She also says that just the other day “someone across the street had one” and “explaining the difference to a child is hard”. So it’s not just because she doesn’t know what’s in them but also because she’s got a difficult time being a parent? Or just because she personally dislikes the sight of someone who decided to stop doing harm to themselves by using a much safer alternative? Would Mrs. Escamilla also feel this way about people drinking water in public? Because for all we know it might be vodka and do we really know what’s in the water? (here’s a clue; a lot more than what’s in electronic cigarettes!). I think Mrs. Escamilla would have an even more difficult time explaining what they’re seeing to her daughter if she would see me across the street holding my iTaste 134 with an Ithaca RBA because it sure as hell doesn’t look like a cigarette. Based on her comments I guess the closest she might come is “that man is creating some sort of magical smoke out from what looks like some musical instrument, a flute perhaps”. 🙂

She looked up the American Lung Association and says that “we received an F”. She’s referring to this irrelevant pressure system game the ALA plays with states and cities whereby they give them scores on how well they demonize smokers (which by the ALA standards now includes vapers). I wonder why she’s so concerned about this F score from the ALA because that score is only a pressure system to enforce a certain flow of money and has very little actual relevance to most people’s day to day lives. Unless you are one of those people that the ALA hates; namely smokers (without whom the ALA’s source of income would have dried up and rendered them obsolte) or vapers. And because of that totally irrelevant score she feels “we need to do more”. At this point it is starting to be clear to me that Mrs. Escamilla might have not provided enough disclosure that might very well explain her persistence on this subject. Especially after she also referred to “third hand smoke”.

Well, Mrs. Escamilla, if you find it uncomfortable that “we” received an F from the ALA I may have some bad news for you, I am giving you an F for being so uninformed and displaying your ignorance as if it was something to be proud of. I’m glad Mrs. Escamilla ended her comments by saying “I DON’T KNOW TOO MUCH” because there’s something we can fully agree on.

I’m not just someone who quit smoking and knows “a little” about electronic cigarettes. In fact, I think I might be one of only a few in and around Oakley who might be considered experts on the subject, with personal experience to boot. Part of my work involves pattern recognition and being acutely aware of more than just the things that look simple on the surface. I find it highly suspicious that Mrs. Escamilla managed to hit several interesting topics at a rapid pace that are 100% identical to the propaganda instructions the ALA continually provides to its staff and volunteers. In general, if you are part of this community in any capacity that goes beyond just “a user” you would immediately recognize that the exact points being hit on (including the hilarious and absolute scam “science” of “third hand smoke”) then you’re either a vaper that is fully aware on a day to day basis of what’s going on or you’re actually a staff member of volunteer of an organization such as the ALA. We know lots of people and lots of parents and none would have been able to hit the points in the exact sequence with the same misinformation as Mrs. Escamilla managed to do.

We know the ALA will often fly people (much like Mrs. Escamilla) out to places in order to get some comments in before a city council. They recently did so in really obvious ways in New York and surprisingly enough they all sounded like Mrs. Escamilla. Of course, we know that the people the ALA sends out to cities all get their list of talking points and they stick to them all in the same fashion. We know the ALA often pretends it has nothing to do with those people that come to speak and that disclosure of such information is generally regarded as not being in their best interest. I’m not saying Mrs. Escamilla is one of those people but if she’s not she might consider becoming one because she already follows their exact plan and execution of spreading fear and ignorance because without that fear and ignorance the ALA would have an even harder time trying to combat the “financial harm” being done by electronic cigarettes.

After Mrs. Escamilla is done displaying her ignorance in public Mr. Galstan brings up the fact that the city might not have the strictest or clearest ordinances when it comes to smoking and that these are things that may need to be brought up in the future to be looked at. This is clearly the warning signal that more of this “let’s include electronic cigarettes” may not be very far off. Which would not be a bad thing if it wasn’t for the fact that having ignorance dictate decisions should not be the way things are done in Oakley, or anywhere else for that matter.

Just before 27:00 Mayor Randy Pope (who is fairly well balanced when it comes to not wishing to intrude on people’s lives as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others) brings up the enforcement issue and how one would determine the difference (I gather, visually from a certain distance) whether someone is using an electronic cigarette or an actual tobacco cigarette. Given Mr. Pope’s work in law enforcement that’s a good point and one that’s been brought up a lot of times by other people in other cities.

Mr. Pope, next time we run into each other I will be delighted to show you my “electronic cigarette”, which is more commonly referred to as an APV (advanced personal vaporizer) and you will have no doubt that nobody would ever mistake it for a cigarette of any kind. There is no doubt in my mind that you would immediately agree there is absolutely no possible difficulty in determining the difference. 🙂

Which brings up a more interesting point. It appears to me that comments made in the council session pertain to “what something LOOKS like”. In that case what you probably want to define is “looks like a cigarette as we know it” in which case APV’s and our vaporizers that don’t look like cigarettes should not be part of ordinances whereby the determination of smoke vs. vapor are an issue, right? Personally I would not care if electronic cigarette that look like the real thing (we call then “cigalikes”) are completely banned off the face of the earth because they are often somewhat inferior products for which much better alternatives have exited for many years. It would pull the rug out from under the game “big tobacco” is playing and we all already know that those cigalikes usually lead people to better vaporizers that really get them off the cigarettes. Unfortunately, for many these cigalikes are their first encounter with the reduced harm alternative and as such should be supported and commended by those who claim their mission is to get people off of smoking.

The other interesting thing we can learn from all this is that it is clearly not too difficult to fool a city council and that all it takes is a little misinformation combined with a display of fear of the unknown, whether or not the unknown is really unknown or not. The ALA is really good at manipulation of city councils, I have to give them that.

The ordinance itself also seems a shoddy piece of work since it fails to actually accomplish the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the way it was likely envisioned when the text was crafted. The definition of “smoke” in the ordinance reads:

“Smoke” means the gases, particles or vapors released into the air as a result of  combustion, when the apparent or usual purpose of the combustion is human inhalation of the byproducts, but not including smoke from incense where no tobacco, nicotine or marijuana is present. The term “smoke” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, electronic cigarette vapors, marijuana smoke, and crack cocaine smoke. ·

So human inhalation of this “smoke” (or vapors) does not include “smoke” from incense where no tobacco, nicotine, or marijuana is present. Clearly the ordinance allows for the vaping of “0-nic” e-juice as it contains none of those elements mentioned there. Glad to see that the ordinance allows for that even though I am sure that is not what was intended when it was written. But that’s what you end up with when ordinances and legal documents are drafted by people who are so ignorant about the subject matter because vaping 0-nic is then no different from inhaling incense where no tobacco, nicotine or marijuana is present. 🙂

E-Cig and E-Juice Safety: Are They Safe?

• Scientific Errors in the Tobacco Products Directive: A letter sent by the very scientists whose research was cited by the EU Commission to draft legislation geared towards ecigarettes and their usage. The letter details the many ways in which their research was wrongly used and misinterpreted.
• Ecigs Do Not Stiffen Arteries (PDF): Researchers from Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center in Greece have found that while smoking just 2 tobacco cigarettes caused significant stiffening of the aorta, no difference was observed after the use of an e-cigarette by smokers AND vapers. Published December 2013.
• Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulation: Gilbert Ross MD, is a medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health. In this special report on The American, he states “simple common sense would dictate that inhaling the fewer, less harmful ingredients of e-cigarettes as compared to inhaling the thousands of chemicals in the smoke from burnt tobacco, many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic, is highly likely to be healthier.” Published November, 2013.
• Research on Safety of Electronic Cigarettes (PDF): Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos’ comprehensive presentation on existing data relating to the safety of ecigarettes. Presented at The E-Cigarette Summit, Royal Society, London in November 2013.
• Nicotine Safety in the Context of E-Cigarette Use (PDF): Contrary to popular belief, the fatal overdose level for nicotine may be far higher than the generally accepted 50 to 60 mg (adult) says Dr. Jacques Le Houezec. This research was presented at the The E-Cigarette Summit, Royal Society, London in November 2013.
• E-Liquids Shown To Have Low Cytotoxicity (PDF): The results of testing of 20 e-liquids, has revealed the majority of the vapor samples were found to have no adverse effects on cardiac cells. Even on the several that did have some effect (two of which were tobacco derived), the worst was 3 times less toxic compared to cigarette smoke. Published October 2013 in the International Journal of Environmental Research And Public Health.
• Nicotine Levels Selection and Patterns of Electronic Cigarette Use: Study from Dr. Konstantinos E. Farsalinos that concludes nicotine levels seem to play a crucial role in achieving and maintaining smoking cessation in a group of motivated subjects. The study involved 111 participants who completely substituted smoking with electronic cigarette use for at least 1 month. Published September 2013.
• Vaping: coronary circulation and oxygen supply (PDF): Recent research indicates that electronic cigarette use does not affect the oxygenation of the heart. Lead by principle investigator Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos; results of the research were presented at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in Amsterdam in August, 2013.
• Eliquids: No Health Concerns: A study by Professor Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on a review available data has confirmed chemicals generally found in ecig eliquids pose no health concerns. Published August 2013 (PDF).
• MHRA Ecigarette Research: The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) carried out extensive research on ecigarettes, arriving at the conclusion there was little concern that e-cigarettes can harm users by delivering toxic nicotine levels and little evidence of non-smokers taking up electronic cigarettes. Published in June 2013.
• Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Use And Liquid Consumption: This 2013 study challenges an EU proposal that would result in eliquids containing more than 4 milligrams of nicotine per milliliter being banned unless approved as medicinal products.
• Electronic Cigarettes Do Not Damage The Heart: Electronic cigarettes appear to have no acute adverse effects on cardiac function according to research by cardiologist Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos.  He says based on currently available data, ecigs are safer and that substituting tobacco with electronic cigarettes could be beneficial to health.
• Principles to Guide AAPHP Tobacco Policy: The American Association of Public Health Physicians recommends electronic cigarettes as a safer smoke-free tobacco/nicotine product.
• Athens University Ecig Study Challenged: Dr. Michael Siegel questions a University of Athens study claiming e-cigarettes can cause lung damage.
• Regulation: When Less Is More (PDF): Presentation slides from Clive Bates (of the Counter-factual) concerning the dangers of over-regulating ecigarettes. Mr Bates urges positively about the vast potential about e cigs, to put the (minor) risks in perspective and regulate as though the 1 billion who are predicted to die from tobacco related illnesses in the 21st century matter most. Presented at The E-Cigarette Summit, Royal Society, London in November 2013.
• Vaping profiles and preferences: 1,347 vapers were surveyed in an effort to characterize e-cigarette use, users and effects. Results generally showed respondents found ecigarettes to be satisfying to use; cause few side effects; considered healthier than smoking, resulted in improve cough/breathing and lowered levels of craving. The survey was hosted at the University of East London. Published March 2013.

Second-Hand Vapor Safety: Is Vapor Safe for Others?

• Peering Through the Mist: Systematic Review of what the Chemistry of Contaminants in Electronic Cigarettes Tells Us about Health Risks: A comprehensive review, by a Drexel University professor, based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor. He found “no apparent concern” for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor – even under “worst case” assumptions about exposure.
• Contaminants In Ecig Eliquids And Workplace Health Risks (PDF): A study that reviewed available data on chemistry of e cig aerosols and e liquids. This study found no evidence supporting the claims of e cigarette vapor exposure negatively effecting the health, and safety, of  the workplace. Published January 2014.
• Cytotoxicity evaluation of ecig vapor extract: A 2013 study designed to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of 21 eliquids compared to the effects of cigarette smoke found ecig vapor is significantly less cytotoxic compared to tobacco.
• Ecigarette toxicants study: Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes have been found to be 9 to 450 times less than tobacco cigarettes in 12 brands studied; leading the researchers to conclude “substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants”. The study was first published online on March 6, 2013.
• Is Passive Vaping A Reality?: This study sought to identify and quantify the chemicals released on a closed environment from the use of e-cigarettes – the findings? There’s little to be concerned about with regard safety. This research again confirms the type and quantity of chemicals released are by far less harmful to human health compared to regular tobacco cigarettes. In fact, it “could be more unhealthy to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping.”
• Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study: Data at Clarkson University’s Center for Air Resources and reviewed by an independent toxicologist indicates electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures to byproducts relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study has been peer reviewed and will appear the Journal of Inhalation Toxicology.
• E-cigarettes: harmless inhaled or exhaled: Report from Health New Zealand stating e-cigarette vapors do not contain substances known to cause death in the quantities found.
• Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (PDF): This research acknowledges that no drug is safe, but the emissions associated with the e-cigarette brand tested appear to be “several magnitudes safer” than tobacco smoke emissions.
• E-cigarette Vapor And Cigarette Smoke Comparison: High nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in a series of experiments and the emissions compared to tobacco smoke. The study results indicate “no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed”.
• Propylene Glycol Safe: Monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of propylene glycol, a common component of e liquids for periods of 12 to 18 months. Results of the research state “air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless”.

E-Cigs as Smoking Cessation Devices: Does the Research Show That They Work?

• A Longitudinal Study Of Ecig Users: This study concludes that electronic cigarettes may hep with preventing the relapses of former smokers and may even help current smokers to quit cigarettes. It also found that dual users, who were still smoking at the point of follow-up, had decreased their tobacco cigarette consumption by 5.3 cigarettes a day. Published January 2014.
• The Importance Of Flavours In Eliquids: A study, headed by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, finds that flavors play a major role in the overall experience of dedicated vapers which supports the hypothesis that flavored e liquids are important contributors in reducing or eliminating the smoking of tobacco cigarettes. Published December 2013.
• Second Hand Vapor Study (PDF): A new study shows that even-though e-cigarettes are a source of second-hand exposure to nicotine; it’s far, far less than that associated with second hand cigarette smoke. Additionally, when tested, e-cigarette second-hand vapor did not contain combustion related toxicants. Lead author was Maciej Goniewic from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. Published in Oxford Journal, December 2013.
• A Longitudinal Study Of Electronic Cigarette Users: A study of 477 e cigarette users by researchers from the University of Auckland and University of Geneva has arrived at the conclusion that “E-cigarettes may contribute to relapse prevention in former smokers and smoking cessation in current smokers” Published October 2013.
• Ecigs Not A Gateway To Smoking: The study is yet to be published, but according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (October 2013), the use of e cigarettes by teens does not lead to smoking tobacco in the vast majority of cases.
• Efficiency and Safety of an Electronic Cigarette as Tobacco Cigarettes Substitute: In a 12-month trial of ecigarettes to evaluate smoking reduction/abstinence in 300 smokers not intending to quit; complete abstinence from tobacco smoking was documented in 10.7% and 8.7% at week-12 and after a year respectively. For the group receiving the higher dose nicotine cartridges, the tobacco cigarette cessation rate was 13% after a year. The study was published on PLOS One on June 24, 2013.
• Impact of ecigarettes on schizophrenic smokers: Researchers from the CTA-Villa Chiara Psychiatric Rehabilitation Clinic and Research center in Italy determined the use of ecigs decreased tobacco cigarette consumption in schizophrenia sufferers who were smokers – and without significant side effects. Published January 2013.
• Effect of ecigs on smoking reduction and cessation: A study showing the use of e cigarettes substantially decreased cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers who had no intention to quit. Published in 2011.
• Electronic Cigarettes As a Smoking-Cessation Tool: The findings of this study indicate “e-cigarettes may hold promise as a smoking-cessation method” and that further research should be carried out.
• Electronic cigarettes: achieving a balanced perspective: This 2012 paper argues that while more research is needed on the cost–benefit of ecigs and appropriate regulation, the harms so far have been overstated relative to the potential benefits. The paper mentions a study that found of more than 2000 former smokers in this survey, 96% reported that the e-cigarette helped them to stop smoking.

Studies of Toxicity Levels

• 2013 Tobacco Control Study – Substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants.
• 2013 Drexel University Study – Chemicals found in e-cigarette liquids pose no health concerns.
• 2013 ClearStream-LIFE Study – Study indicated that electronic cigarette vapor is significantly less cytotoxic than cigarette / tobacco smoke.
• 2012 Indoor Air Study – Compared electronic cigarette vapor to tobacco smoke and found significantly less volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• 2010 Journal of Public Health Study – Lab studies showed that carcinogen levels in e-cigarettes are much lower than traditional cigarettes.

Studies of Second-Hand Vapor

• 2013 Oxford University Press Study – Using an e-cig in indoor environments may expose nonusers to trace amounts of nicotine but not to toxic combustion products.
• 2012 CleanStream-Air Study – Evaluated the effect of second-hand vapor and found no detectable amounts of toxic substances or carcinogens.
• 2012 Inhalation Toxicology Study – Determined there was no apparent risk to human health from electronic cigarette vapor emissions.

Effectiveness for Smoking Cessation

• 2013 Addictive Behaviors Study – E-cigarettes may contribute to relapse prevention in former smokers and smoking cessation in current smokers.
• 2013 Lancent Medical Journal Study – Determined that e-cigarettes were modestly effective at helping smokers to quit, equivalent to nicotine patches.
• 2013 PLoS ONE Study – E-cigarettes decreased cigarette consumption and elicited enduring tobacco abstinence without causing significant side effects.
• 2012 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco – E-cigs deliver similar levels of nicotine and reduce exposure to combustion toxicants after switching from tobacco.
• 2011 BioMed Central Public Health Study – Concluded that smokers substantially decreased their cigarette consumption (without significant side effects) with e-cigs.
• 2010 Tobacco Control Study – Found that e-cigarettes alleviated users desire to smoke and had a ‘pharmacokinetic profile’ more like the Nicorette inhalator than tobacco.

Other E-Cigarette Studies

• 2013 Study by Dr. Andreas D. Flouris – While lung function was impaired by traditional cigarettes, e-cigs appeared to have no impact and delivered similar levels of nicotine.
• 2012 Study by Dr. Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos (Greece) – Based on current available data, e-cigarettes appear to have no acute adverse effects on cardiac function.

Negative E-Cig Studies / Reports

• 2013 University of Athens Study – Claims that electronic cigarettes could ‘damage your lungs’ as they cause less oxygen to be absorbed by the blood. Limited research!
• 2012 Society of Research on Nicotine and Tobocco – E-cigarettes contain nicotine, but brands and models differ in their efficacy and consistency of nicotine vaporization.
• 2012 Chest Journal Study – Short term e-cig use was found to cause an increase in impedance, airway flow resistance, and oxidative stress, but long-term benefits may outweigh risks.
• 2009 Tobacco Control Study – Considered e-cigs ineffective for nicotine delivery and craving suppression since samples (from just two companies) had less nicotine than tobacco.
• 2009 FDA Study of E-Cig Cartridges – Although this study was ultimately proven inconclusive, it’s widely mentioned in many news stories. It evaluated samples from just two companies and found low levels of tobacco-specific carcinogens. It failed to disclose the actual amounts of carcinogens, which were later proved to be insignificant, far below that of tobacco cigarettes.

Other E-Cigarette Research

• 2013 CDC Report on Teen E-Cig Use – Showed a doubling of teen e-cigarette use from 2011 to 2012. It’s important to note that 75% of those teens currently smoked tobacco.
• 2013 CDC Report on Adult E-Cigarette Use – Among adult smokers, report showed a doubling of adults who had tried e-cigarettes from 2010 to 2011.