* I just received an e-mail from a tobacco company exec about a meeting this week of the Illinois Consumer Protection Committee. It’s a subject matter hearing on “Tobacco Harm Reduction.” The exec explained the phrase this way…
At its core, tobacco harm reduction recognizes ways in which smokers can reduce their health risks from cigarettes without quitting tobacco products altogether.
And from a link he provided…
While no tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco believes significant reductions in the harm associated with the use of cigarettes can be achieved by providing accurate information regarding the comparative risks of tobacco products to adult tobacco consumers, thereby encouraging smokers to migrate to the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.
We believe adult tobacco consumers have a right to be fully and accurately informed about the risks of serious diseases, the significant differences in the comparative risks of different tobacco and nicotine-based products, and the benefits of quitting. This information should be based on sound science.
* Indiana took a look at this and the American Lung Association was opposed. From the ALA’s website…
Tobacco Harm Reduction strategies are being promoted by tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds one of the nation’s leading purveyors of cigarettes and other tobacco products to bolster sales of their smokeless products by marketing them as “safer” alternatives to smoking. According to Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, tobacco companies spend $10.5 billion annually marketing tobacco products. In Indiana alone, $307.5 million was spent. The tobacco industry has tripled smokeless tobacco advertising and promotion from 1996-2006.
The State of Indiana and our elected officials should be in the position of deterring the use of ALL tobacco products and NOT be in the business of condoning any sort of tobacco use. State and local governments can reduce tobacco use, save lives and save money by implementing effective, proven solutions to the problem. These include higher tobacco taxes, strong smoke-free laws that apply to all workplaces and public places, and well-funded, sustained tobacco prevention and cessation programs.
There are those who believe the tobacco industry is using this campaign to promote the use of e-cigarettes and get kids starting to smoke…
In 2012, the e-cigarette brand Blu was purchased by Lorillard Tobacco Company and started airing television commercials featuring celebrities using e-cigarettes. The limited published research about the safety, efficacy, or public health impact of e-cigarettes raises concerns about the product’s lack of regulation, safety/quality assurances, and its appeal to youth or nonsmokers
* The Question: Should the Illinois House be holding this hearing? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
customer surveys
*** UPDATE *** From a press release…
Illinois legislators will hear public testimony, April 11 at 8:30 a.m. on new tobacco products the industry is deceivingly promoting as “reduced risk” or “reduced harm”.
In advance of this hearing, Heather Eagleton, Illinois Director of Public Policy and Government Relations for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) released the following statement:
“This is the latest effort by the tobacco industry to confuse and mislead the public about the dangers and addictive nature of tobacco products. This is a new twist on the old tobacco marketing campaigns of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s that falsely promised health benefits to be derived from filtered, “light”, and “less tar” tobacco product alternatives that were “more safe” versus “less safe.” These “harm reduction” messages were false then and are false now.
“The tobacco industry has marketed this new generation of smokeless tobacco products as a temporary way to deal with increasing cigarette taxes and smoke-free policies in public places. Despite the risks, these products, which include snus and dissolvables such as strips, orbs, and sticks, are being promoted by the tobacco industry as less harmful, more convenient, and more socially acceptable alternatives to traditional cigarettes. There is no scientific evidence that these products are safe, may be considered a safe substitute for, or are an effective means of quitting tobacco use.
“There is research, however, to show these products cause cancer of the mouth, pancreas and esophagus, as well as other serious health conditions.
“So long as tobacco products continue to be responsible for nearly one out of every five deaths in America today, tobacco product manufacturers cannot pose as being the solution.
“The FDA – not tobacco companies – should remain the final arbiter of what tobacco cessation therapies are proven to be truly safe and effective. Any claims of modified risk or reduced harm must be substantiated by extensive, long-term research that shows health benefits, and no hidden side effects, not just for certain individuals, but also for entire populations at large.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:25 pm:
Yes becausse Capt Fa likes to smoke and his puppy is sooooooooooooooooooooo cute
- Champaign - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
My fear is Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are trying to monopolize the smokeless tobacco alternatives like e-cigarettes, lozenges, etc. E-Cigarettes are projected to be a $1 billion dollar business this year. Most e-cigarette products are imported from China and sold through small businesses throughout the U.S. States are losing on tobacco taxes as a result.
My personal experience after 15 years smoking a pack to 1.5 packs a day and trying the patch, gum, and refusing to take the quit smoking drugs led me to try the electronic cigarettes. Quit regular cigarettes in a week and haven’t had one since last October. I’m gradually decreasing my nicotine intake through the different strengths of liquid available.
- LisleMike - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
The risks of smoking ar e well known, in my opinion. I suppose it is possible that Big Tabacco wants foothold in smokeless market, or whatever, but is their goal, then they pursue because that is their market. Using state to help even with good intents is not proper use of legislative time.
- soccermom - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:49 pm:
I think this is a great opportunity to talk about how dangerous these products are. There is no safe use.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
No. Just a question of priorities and use of time at this point.
- BMAN - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:12 pm:
The Lung Association’s point is valid; anybody entertaining a request for a hearing should have their motives questioned. Of course, isn’t that how politics works in Illinois?
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:15 pm:
This is wasting time better spent on more important things than listening to Big Tobacco.
- Mongo - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:19 pm:
Yes, and I like SoccerMom’s reason…this is a great opportunity to talk about how bad all of these products are.
Wait a minute…will the IGOLD people show up at this too???
- MrJM - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:27 pm:
It’s a great idea according to
this celebrated public health expert!
– MrJM
- Elirl - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:45 pm:
It’s absolutely true that all tobacco products are harmful to health and are addictive by any measure of addiction. But the current anti-smoking campaigns may be reaching the limits of their usefulness—the rate of smoking has stopped declining and lots of people can’t seem to shake nicotine addictions. Most of the expensive drugs being marketed to help people quite have VERY high failure rates.
So long as it doesn’t promote violence or hatred—and I don’t think that anybody suggests that this hearing does either—it’s hard to come up with a reason why a topic should be outside of the bounds of discussion. If the arguments for harm reduction are bad, then exposing them will only make that clear. Here’s an article with a lot more about the idea of harm reduction:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/smoking-no-nicotine-maybe_630042.html
- James the Intolerant - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:49 pm:
I think the only safe use of tobacco would be the same as the safe use of alcohol by an alcoholic, none.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:08 pm:
waste of time either way. 1) it’s bad….we know, move on. 2) “science” as a commercial, um, NO. move on to things that really need discussion.
- 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:01 pm:
I appreciate the fact that Illinois is smoke free in public places. When you go to other states and there is smoking in a restaurant…., you appreciate Illinois for this even more
- Brad - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:28 pm:
I smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years 2 years ago i quit smoking and started using e-cigs. I feel great now! and my doctor agrees, Chantix almost killed me with side effects and nic gum made me dizzy. E-Cigs had no side effects. harm reduction works!
- Castello - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:39 pm:
I smoked for 40 years and tried to quit for the last 20 years. Once I found a good e-cig my smoking stopped and I am not looking back. The vapor will keep me off cigarettes for good and I may live longer.
- Happy Vaper - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:46 pm:
Using e-cigarettes, or “vaping”, has saved me. I’ve tried the traditional cessation aids repeatedly and they just don’t work. I stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes immediately in favor of vaping. I know this method will finally work after 2 decades of feeling like a leper because I just could not shake the habit of smoking. After making the switch to e-cigarettes, I no longer have even the slightest desire for tobacco cigarettes and I feel this switch is exponentially safer. The notion of not disscussing THR methods such as e-cigarettes is simply ludicrous.
- Juliette - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:48 pm:
As a tobacco user I have the right to now what the varying relative risks are with regards to all tobacco products.
Tobacco Harm Reduction will soon prove to be the only effective strategy for reducing tobacco-related mortality and illness(s) for those of us who refuse (or don’t want) to quit.
The amount of taxation that is levied upon tobacco users is more than sufficient to cover the cost(s) of any additional (and independent) research into such reduced harm products that may be required in order to satisfy any need for transparency.
It is time for a sea-change in thinking when it comes to this issue. In many states we have needle exchange programs for heroin addicts and anti-AIDS campaigns that advocate for the use of condoms, both of which aim to reduce harm rather than the complete eradication of a behavior. We can no longer ignore the prejudice that surrounds this issue at the expense of millions of smokers.
It’s time to replace the ideals of prohibition with an approach that is more humanistic and caring in its nature.
50+ million Americans who will continue (and who will most likely continue to well into the foreseeable future) to use tobacco products are depending on their elected representatives to do the right thing, even if it does not appear (on the surface) to be the politically expedient thing.
It’s time to progress into the 21st century by utilizing the available tools of science rather than resorting to the old 20th century view which advocates prejudice and blind-sighted dogma when it comes to tobacco use in any form. No one deserves to die, not even smokers who refuse to quit.
- Echo - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:08 pm:
I used to smoke a pack plus per day. I switched to e-cigs and have not gone back to burning tobacco since. I feel 1000 times better, I can breathe, I don’t cough at all any more, I have more energy. I could go on and on. Harm Reduction really does work!!
- Myk - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:16 pm:
Anyone who is actually about saving lives should be willing to embrace THR not just listen to it. The fact is there are some people who will not quit.
Or in my situation, it would be detrimental to my health to quit nicotine again. Nicotine helps ulcerative colitis stay in remission. The people who will not embrace THR are the same ones who got up in arms about a nicotine pill for ulcerative colitis and blocked it. To them “quit or die” is a wish, they would rather I die than use nicotine to live longer. When I quit nicotine using an ecig my UC flared enough to go to the ER. Once I was diagnosed I stepped it back up, between that and meds I’ve been doing good. If they change the diagnosis to Crohn’s I’ll gladly get back off nicotine since that was my original goal. My doctors couldn’t be happier that I stopped smoking and they agree with the National Institute of Health’s findings that nicotine could be helping the colitis. I’ll listen to them instead of Soccermom.
There is absolutely no evidence that kids are drawn to ecigs any more than they are drawn to cigarettes. In fact for those trying to be “cool” being different with an ecig is the last thing they want. The thought that flavors are to attract kids is ludicrous. I haven’t smoked in a year, the last thing I want is tobacco flavor. In fact my first day without a cigarette was by accident because the ecig tasted so much better than a cigarette.
- John Davidson - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:27 pm:
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
- Shemp - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:43 pm:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-welcome-electronic-cigarette-no-smoke-why-fire
- Julie Woessner - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:05 pm:
I do understand those who feel that Illinois has other priorities right now . . . what taxpayer doesn’t get frustrated hearing about yet another ridiculous time-waster type event when there are so many pressing issues?
But I think that those who are opposed to a Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) hearing might not fully appreciate that THR quite literally saves lives. When the public is told that smokeless products are not a “safe” alternative to smoking, they quite understandably believe that these products are as risky as smoking. However, the truth is that the risk from smokeless products is estimated to be about 1/100th that from smoking.
With so much legislative time, effort, and money going towards addressing issues involving smoking, it’s almost criminal that more attention isn’t paid to THR.
- david starrett - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:07 pm:
The only way that tobacco abolitionists have avoided the State paternalism argument against their efforts to prohibit all tobacco use everywhere and at all times, has been with the claim that second-hand smoke places innocents (and some employees) at risk.
OK, that argument could be used against the consumption of Big Macs in front of children, but nevermind.
Now we have what are essentially nicotine inhalers (foolishly) shaped as cigarettes, and the prohibitionists find them objectionable even though they present no health threat to anyone not using them. If you look at the comments on proposed FAA regulations seeking to prohibit these devices on domestic air flights, you find objections to the prospect of known noxious gasses including methane. Would they also like to prohibit anyone boarding an aircraft from consuming beans 24 hours before a flight?
Sure. Have the hearing. We need to finally decide whether I can marshal State authority to tell you what you can buy and consume, and how to live your life.
- debbie - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:07 pm:
I have using an electronic cigarette for two years now and have cut my nicotine intake in half AT MY OWN PACE, not one dictated to me. I tried the gum, patches, Wellbutrin and cold turkey. My doctor refused to prescribe Chantix due to my medical history and the side effects. Tobacco Harm Reduction should be discussed as a way for the millions of smokers who either can’t or won’t quit. Raising taxes my force some to stop but not many. May I also point out that RJ Reynolds is fairly new to the electronic cigarette scene as these products have been around for years-theirs is not the only one available to consumers. Also Swedish Snus has lowered the smoking and lung cancer rate in Sweden. Any way to help a person quit smoking-which is the most dangerous form of tobacco use should be seriously considered.
- John Davidson - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:08 pm:
It appears after 70 years of daily junk science tossed in our faces we find out they havent proven one claim against smoking………..NO PROOF EXISTS OF ANY SMOKING RELATED DISEASE AT ALL!
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:15 pm:
@Juliette
While I sympathize with your plight I’m not quite sure what the point of this is. Not smoking = good. Smoking = bad. I’m not sure there’s a real distinction on the bad scale.
@John Davidson:
I hope that was snark. Because if it wasn’t you need help
- John Davidson - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:24 pm:
I guess you didnt read the above comment on the COT meeting where they state there is no proof of smoking related diseases at all!
- John Davidson - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:25 pm:
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Pretty well destroys the claims ehh!
- david starrett - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:52 pm:
Your UK “inconclusive” study doesn’t impress me at all.
Any study seeking to measure the effects of known carcinogens must know what it is measuring, and the US tobacco companies are shielded from reveling the toxic additives I inhale daily. Their effects cannot be measured, but the effects on the smoking population can be, and they are pretty grim.
The question presented here is whether there should be a hearing on the regulation (and probable prohibition of) smokeless nicotine inhalers, of whatever shape. I say bring on the hearing and reject the paternalistic prohibition.
- Juliette - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:55 pm:
@Demoralized-
“While I sympathize with your plight I’m not quite sure what the point of this is. Not smoking = good. Smoking = bad. I’m not sure there’s a real distinction on the bad scale.”
1) You have missed the whole point of my argument.
2) It’s not for you to decide when it comes to the fate of someone else.
- Juliette - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:58 pm:
@ Demoralized-
One more thing per your comment:
“Not smoking = good. Smoking = bad.”
…and your solution for those who will not quit is what exactly?
- John Davidson - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:02 pm:
david starrett - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:52 pm:
Your UK “inconclusive” study doesn’t impress me at all.
Any study seeking to measure the effects of known carcinogens must know what it is measuring.
Dose makes the poison and when only about 6% of life long smokers if ever develop LC then obviously something else is going on and its not smoking! Proof means having an end point study via toxicology that prooves disease causation. Statistical sampling is as bogus as palm reading! Thats all the tobacco control people ever had Statistics and how to lie with them,but NO PROOF!
- Junican - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:33 pm:
I’m not at all sure what this hearing is for. Does it have some purpose?
May I state A FACT? Richard Doll followed 34,000 male doctors in the UK for 50 years. In that time, 25,000 of them died. At the start of the study, about 75% of the doctors smoked. After 50 years, of the 25,000 deaths, only 1,052 died from lung cancer. About 24,000 did not.
It is true, however, that smokers accounted for far more of the LC deaths than did non-smokers, and, indeed, non-smokers lived a few years longer than smokers. BUT, almost all the smokers lived a long life, even if a less long life than non-smokers.
What I find troublesome is that so many people believe what they have been told, without actually checking the facts for themselves. That is sad.
If individual smokers want to stop, then they can do. It requires an act of will. Ecigs are probably the easiest ‘aid’ - certainly, gum and patches are hopeless.
I still do not understand what this hearing is for. Is it so that the Tobacco Control Industry can spread more propaganda?
- Janet Bringfield - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:38 pm:
Electronic Cigarettes helped my husband quit smoking. He was a pack a day smoker for 30 years and he hasn’t had one in a year now. He can breathe better, his doctor is happy, and best of all he smells better! From what I understand, the research shows these are 1,000 times safer than regular cigarettes.
- david starrett - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:52 pm:
This is becoming just a bit tiresome, John. The question Rich invited us to discuss was whether or not a House hearing on the State regulation of smokeless nicotine inhalers is a good idea. He took no initial position as I usually don’t either. It’s always more instructive to see what others have to say first. I say, have the hearing and reject State paternalism or at least draw a limit on its reach.
We agree that covariance is not the same as causation, but that’s another discussion.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:04 pm:
Seems like a lot of first time posters on here with similar stories. Not sure if legitimate commenters or just freeping.
- law abiding citizen - Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:07 pm:
I’m amazed how many readers of this blog use e-cigarettes. I don’t know anyone personally who uses them. My main concern is this ridiculous idea being spread that they are somehow safe. Keep them away from my kids please.
- Myk - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:00 am:
thechampaignlife, This came across the radar of a THR group (mainly ecigs). I assure you the stories are legit, I’ve been seeing similar stories for four years.
Possibly freeping but without our real experience on the topic it’s worse and the antis are freeping with no experience or knowledge other than repeating lies they’ve been fed.
- CyZane - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 3:45 am:
So the ALA is against products that are far less damaging to one’s health than others unless of course they are manufactured by Big Pharma. Wonder if their prohibitionist views have anything to do with the hefty grants they get from Big Pharma to do their marketing for them.
Here’s what they got from Pfizer (maker of Chantix) alone and in 2009 alone:
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION Smoking Cessation Program $ 900,000
From RWJohnson Foundation (philanthropic tentacle of Johnson & Johnson makers of NRT)and for Illinois alone in 2005 alone:
$148,737 awarded to American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest dba American Lung Association of Illinois in 2005 — Springfield, IL
They are also listed for receiving funding from Glaxo Smith Kline another maker of nicotine cessation products. And they get ongoing Big Pharma funding year in year out. Unless of course you think that Big Pharma are just generous philanthropists and that these ‘’investments'’ aren’t expected to yield back any dividends for them
$900,000
- South of Sherman - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 5:30 am:
I can’t help but be amused by the notion that if lawmakers weren’t wasting their time today with this hearing, they’d get the pension crisis fixed and the budget balanced.
This hearing, or any of the dozens other like it, is not the reason why those big issues aren’t being tackled.
- Leo - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 5:54 am:
Big tobbacco are now trying to take over the e-cig business because it is so successful in keeping us from buying cigarettes. I have not smoked a cigarette in almost 3 yrs and that has happened only thru the use of e-cigs, after smoking for 40 yrs e-cigs has saved my life and I am thankful for all the e-cig industry has done for me.
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 7:37 am:
It’s impossible to quit smoking if you don’t want to. I tried for years. Then one day I realized I actually wanted to quit. After 34 years, cold turkey. I felt like I had the flu for a year, but I knew what it was and it didn’t bother me. 14 years later, I have never had the least inclination to ever have a puff again. Just embarrassed to have ever done something so stupid for so long. The so-called addiction is over rated - it’s just a filthy habit - and e-cigs are plain ridiculous.
- Rod Stryker - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 7:59 am:
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2012/02/sweet-deal-between-big-pharma-and-big.html
- Matt - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 8:34 am:
I smoked cigarettes for 18 years, and never was able to quit using snus, Chantix, nicotine gum, or cold turkey. I started vaping ecigs, now mods, over a year ago and have been analog smoke-free ever since. I believe that ecigs saved my life. There is ample research and evidence that I am not harming anyone through second-hand vaping. Also, the evidence proves that ecigs are much less harmful to myself, with no cancer causing toxins (1000’s of toxins in each lit cigarette). I would even say that I am not hurting myself at all anymore, after reading the latest studies going on today by credible scientists across the world. Inform yourself before condemning a product like ecigs, which are saving lives from real tobacco products.
- Matt - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 8:39 am:
The problem is that ecigarettes are classified as “tobacco products”, even though there is no actual combustion of tobacco involved when vaping the ejuice.
When people quit smoking for a New Years resolution, they start the patch or Chantix, and the majority are right back to smoking after a short time. The vicious cycle, going back and forth between tobacco and pharmaceutical products, is something that almost every smoker has been through. Those smoking cessation products have been proven not to work to help people quit smoking, but they sure do make certain companies like RJ Reynolds and nicotine patch manufacturers richer, while people using their products are getting sicker everyday. Ecigs pose a threat to Tobacco and Pharm companies, due to their hundreds of millions addicted to cancer causing tobacco products, and with the help of ecigs, those people can break the cycle of dependence on tobacco.
- Matt - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 8:52 am:
Please have the hearing and listen to the people using ecigs. They have an amazing story to tell.