Electronic, or e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices that generally contain cartridges filled with nicotine, flavor and carrier chemicals. The contents of the cartridge are heated to a vapor, which the user inhales.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided in April not to challenge a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that e-cigarettes are not drugs or devices unless marketed as such, but can be regulated as tobacco products. That means the devices aren’t subject to the testing requirements of pharmaceuticals.

The FDA has done no formal, large-scale tests on the products, but did release a statement in 2009 saying it had analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands.
The analysis detected diethylene glycol in one sample – a chemical used in antifreeze that is considered toxic to humans – and detectable levels of carcinogens in several others.

“Because these products have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, at this time the agency has no way of knowing, except for the limited testing it has performed, the levels of nicotine or the amounts or kinds of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user,” the statement says.

The Electronic Cigarette Association, a group of private companies involved in the production and sale of the product, disputes the finding, saying in a statement on its website that the FDA’s analysis is “too narrow to reach any valid and reliable conclusions” and ignores efforts by member companies to ensure the products include health warnings and are marketed only as an alternative to smoking by current tobacco users over 18.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tobacco smoke from regular cigarettes contains more than 7,000 chemicals and chemical compounds, including more than 70 that are known carcinogens.

Smoking in New York City’s public parks, beaches and promenades will now be punishable by a $50 fine. The NYC smoking community has reacted to this public ban with a variety of responses, some understand the need to keep public places clean and smoke free, while others believe this is an overreaching attack on civil liberties. Many smokers simply say they will break the law and continue smoking in these newly banned areas. One NYC smoker went as far as to say, “Sometimes, paying $50 is worth that one drag of a cigarette”.

Since the ban was enacted, there were questions among law enforcement as to whether the NYPD would handle this regulation or the Parks Department. It turns out the NYPD will be giving this responsibility to the Parks Department which has openly stated, “We’re counting on all New Yorkers to comply just as they do with other quality-of-life rules”. The Parks Department does not appear adamant on cracking down on public smoking, but we’ll see how they handle it in the coming months.

Of course, these new laws have sparked debate on whether or not New Yorkers should switch to e-cigarettes to adjust to the unfriendly smoking laws in their city. E-cigarettes can be used not only in the newly banned smoking areas of the city but also places like restaurants, malls and the workplace that have had smoking bans for years.

New York smokers are coming together in an effort to adapt to these new laws. They’re spreading the word about smoke friendly parks in the New York area (mostly around Brooklyn). Here is the list:

Roberto Clemente State Park
Riverbank State Park
Gantry Plaza State Park
Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park (Brooklyn Bridge Park)
East River State Park
Bayswater Point State Park
Clay Pit Ponds State Park Preserve

What do you think of the newly enacted NYC smoking ban?

eCigs Today recently came across an article that provided this information for e-smokers. We thought we’d pass it on to our customers. We’re not life insurance providers but are always trying to find more ways to help.

A recent ruling by the FDA to treat e-cigarettes as a tobacco product came as a big victory for e-cigarette fans everywhere. However, it means that some things will change for e-cigarette smokers. If you’re looking for life insurance, some companies will treat e-cigarettes the same as cigarettes now. That can mean getting a life insurance policy that is three times that of a normal policy. However, being an e-cigarette smoker may save money on life insurance with some companies.

On a case-by-case basis companies may give you favorable ratings if you sign up as a (non-cigarette) nicotine user, which is in the same category as people who use nicotine gum, or patches. There is a variety of options life insurance companies will provide under the category of Smoking. Some providers don’t even ask if their customers have smoking habits. It’s advised by all to not lie when these questions are asked. If you answer that you’re not a smoker it could negatively impact your policy.

The best way to ensure the safety of your life insurance policy as an e-smoker, get a multi-provider life insurance broker who can more aptly discern the best policy for an electronic cigarette smoker.

We hope this information helps and encourage our customers to look further into this matter.

States and major metropolitan areas are considering regulation for e-cigarettes which are growing in popularity immensely. Some regulations like the restriction on sale of the product to minors are extremely important, while some seem a bit over-reaching. New York City and San Francisco are both considering bans on electronic cigarettes public use. E-cigarettes are used in public places where cigarettes cannot be used like restaurants and malls because they are odorless and do not produce smoke.

San Francisco is known for its tough smoking laws. San Francisco had standard smoking bans like city buildings, hospitals, businesses, schools and public transportation. However, in March 2010, San Francisco unanimously passed an anti-smoking ordinance that prohibits smoking in restaurant areas, enclosed common areas, homeless shelters, bingo games, service waiting areas (like ATM lines), concerts, movie theaters, sporting events, taxis, bus stop shelters and 15 feet from a business’ doorway entry.

Their current plan is to extend that over-reaching ban for traditional cigarettes and e-cigarette starter kits. Their way of doing this, as is common with e-cigarette regulations, is to redefine the definition of cigarette. They want to change the ordinance from “cigarette” to “anything that looks, feels or functions like a cigarette” will be banned from public places.

Public officials who support this ban argue that since it looks and acts like a cigarette, it too should be banned; however, e-cigarette users “beg to differ” and comment that any government regulation should come with a strong reason backed up by hard facts. Many e-cigarette users feel their product is too readily associated with cigarettes without lawmakers taking the time to see the same potential in these product that e-cigarette smokers see.

What do you think of the latest e-cigarette ban plan in San Francisco?

The Springfield City Council located in Springfield, Illinois banned the sale of ecigarettes to minors this week. The vote was passed 8 to 1 and will be enacted immediately. Electronic cigarette companies expected and support laws like this being made and enforced around the country. A similar bill was passed in Boulder, Colorado several weeks ago as formal regulation on electronic cigarettes occurs around the country.

Regulations have been taking place since e-cigarettes won a case in the appellate courts in January allowing them to be sold in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration tried to have electronic cigarette banned altogether in the US, but a judge upheld an appeal from the lower courts allowing the product to continue to be sold.

We expect to see regulation in the form of laws against selling e-cigarettes to minors. This form of regulation is supported by e-cigarette companies. Other types of regulation like smoking bans created in New York City and the banning of e-cigarettes on airplanes are not supported by e-cigarette companies or their customers.