For an "educational" website, the lack of research in this article is stunning. The author has simply plugged the phrase "electronic cigarette" into Google and expressed a poorly formed, reactionist opinion to vaping and judged it completely on its aesthetic resemblance to traditional tobacco smoking.

Further, the author's alarmist scaremongering and outrage about "e-cigarettes" (actually known to vapers as "personal vaporisers" or "PVs") and how they are trying to "make smoking cool again" is completely undue, because plain and simply, vaping is *not* the same as smoking.

This article is a classic case of an uninformed person speaking out against something they do not understand. Patches and gum have, according to the author, been subject to "rigorous safety testing". I personally would love to see similar studies applied to vaping before it is denounced completely by people whose rational sensibilities have been shaken by its mere aesthetic similarity to smoking.

Only after such testing will consumers and policy makers be able to speak fairly and rationally about the issue. For all intents and purposes, the research presented so far indicates that levels of toxins present in "e-cigarette" vapor are thousands of times lower than those in tobacco smoke. There is no combustion process, thus certain toxic smoke bi-products like carbon monoxide or tar are neither produced nor inhaled. Epidemiological studies into the liquids that are vaporised - the same ones used in the fog machines at your children's dance recitals - show that there is no correlation between exposure to these vapours and disease. There are studies out there if you wish to search for them.

Dr Freeman: I recently had the good fortune of attending one of your guest lectures at UTS. I hadn't connected the dots until I finished writing this response. I very much respected what you had to say about tobacco, but on this issue it seems you may be jumping the gun. Are you completely open to the possibility that electronic cigarettes may one day be proven completely safe and be a potential key to saving millions of lives around the world? Or would you sooner prefer see the things banned, because the action of vaping appears too upsettingly similar to tobacco smoking for your taste?

This article is lacking in academic and intellectual rigour. I do not care how the author feels about the issue, or what the author’s moral judgements on nicotine use are. Moreover, as the author has failed to establish her premise and made false statements regarding the efficacy of her morally sanctioned alternatives and of the safety and efficacy of vaping, the author merely reminds us of the reason for peer review prior to publication.

The author has at best failed to adequately research the literature, at worst ignored that which does not conform to her personal desire to intrude on others freedom; unlike tobacco smoking, where the case is easily made that one’s use effects others, there is no such argument to be made of vaping. Indeed, evidence suggests that there is very little if any harm done to the vaper (certainly orders of magnitude less than smoking) and absolutely none whatsoever to others. To seek to ban vaping is nothing short of wowserism taken to the level of dictatorship. It astounds me that a worker in public health does not appear to have any understanding of the concept of harm minimisation, but It simply defies all reason that one could take the position that e-cigarettes should be banned whilst tobacco remains a legal product.

Agree entirely with all the above responses, in fact its difficult to find anything factual or logical in this article at all.

For example:

"Proponents of e-cigarettes argue that they are “safer” than real cigarettes and therefore should be permitted for sale".

WRONG: In the sense that if inhaling propylene glycol is NOT safer than inhaling cigarette smoke then why is PG approved and widely used in processed foods, as a misting agent in athsma sprays, air purification in hospitals, fog machines etc...would it really be safer to use tobacco smoke instead...?

"Determined e-cigarettes buyers can easily go online and make a purchase from hundreds of websites and eBay sellers. But they don’t come cheap and can cost upwards of $120, plus the nicotine cartridges must be continually reordered."

WRONG. The average pack a day smoker in Australia now spends in excess of $120 in a single week! The e-cigarette market is now saturated with hundreds of different manufacturers, online retailers, thousand of devices (many look nothing like a cigarette) and nicotene liquid to the extent that, depending on the type of device used, vaping nicotene can now cost less than 1% of the cost of smoking cigarettes for an average australian pack a day smoker.

"Because nicotine is a scheduled poison in Australia, e-cigarettes are banned for sale within Australian retail outlets. Scheduled poisons are tightly controlled and can’t simply be sold in any retail outlet to anyone who wants them."

WRONG: Anyone CAN walk into any supermarket in Australia and purchase a kilo of mint flavoured nicotine if they wish. Despite the 'tight controls', nicotine in the form of Nicotene Replacement Therapies (NRTs) can be sold by ANY retail outlet in Australia to ANYONE. Australian legislation is almost identical to that of the much derided US state of Kentucky, meaning if it were enforced Coles and Wollies would be prosecuted for selling potatoes and tomatoes since they both contain nicotine!

"E-cigarettes have not been submitted to the same rigorous safety testing as medical nicotine products and their efficacy in helping smokers quit is almost entirely anecdotal."

WRONG: If you dont have access to any peer reviewed research regarding the presence of carcinogens in NRTs and health risks associated with nicotene use, pop down to your local supermarket and have a quiet little read of the fine print included with NRT's regarding the known and unknown health risks associated with NRT use. Not exactly what I'd describe as rigourous safety testing.

There is a growing body of published research showing e-cigarettes maybe safer than smoking tobacco and do aid smoking cessation. In contrast, there are very few population level studies showing NRTs are effective in smoking cessation. For example, see the major Harvard study published by leading researchers 3 months prior to the article above (doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050129), showing NRTs are no more effective than attempting to give up smoking without them!

For adequately informed public policy this kind of research should be ringing alarms bells...but not the Australian Government, who will spend 100's of millions of tax payers dollars this year on the recently PBS scheduled NRTs that may be no more effective in smoking cessation than.... eating potatoes!

Certainly banning the sale of e-cigarettes and not tobacco or NRTs does seems a little paradoxical to me too, but perhaps not all that surpising given the massive revenues these products generate for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma... and the Australian Government of course.

E-cigarettes have mainly been an online cottage industry until recently, and so have been off the radar as far as multinational corporation profits and government taxation have been concerned. I doubt it will take very long for this to change quite dramatically though. In fact the very first sale of an e-cigarette company to a tobacco giant (Imperial Tobacco) took place last year, immediately followed by similar investments by Japan Tobacco and British American Tobacco. The political influence of the average Australian mining magnate pales in comparison with the lobbying power of these guys. For example, asbestos mining was immediately banned when it was found to cause lung disease...not so for tobacco!. So I would expect the Aussie e-cigarette ban to vaporise faster than an elected Prime Minister as the e-cigarette profits and tax revenues start to flow into the right pockets.

Giddy public health researchers may even start singing the praises of e-cigarettes as an amazing new smoking cessation product. Only difference is that they could actually be right this time!

Seriously though, I should point out that I am not suggesting that there are no known health risks associated with nicotine consumption or addiction, its just that nicotine vaporisers are obviously safer than smoking tobacco. For that overwhelming majority of smokers who do not want to continue smoking but just cannot quit, nicotine vaporisers may therefore save lives. The failure to appreciate this simple fact by many who should know better seems a far greater risk to public health.

I believe in order to solve a complicated social problem such as smoking, there has to be a holistic approach to it. Yes, e-cigarettes (made popular by Green Smoke) are not a comprehensive solution for heavy smokers, nor does it help to deter others from taking up smoking. I don’t believe e-cigarettes have ever been touted as the solution, but it is tar and carbon monoxide free, which are still huge benefits compared to traditional cigarettes.

I am actually quite shocked at the author's attitude towards electronic cigarettes. It is typical of a lot of the anti smoking lobby with their extremist views. I suppose in order to get a median & happy public outcome to any product, we have to have the oddball uninformed dipsticks at both end of the equation.
For the education of the author, nicotine cigarettes have been available in pharmacies for years. They are sold along side patches & gum etc, as an aid to stop smoking. I have always carried one for use on planes & airports etc..
These pharmacy supplied cigarettes have a nicotine capsule which you insert inside. The only difference is that they are not electronic, & therefore you do not get any vapor.
Nicotine is assimilated and disposed of by the body in a matter of minutes. In small doses as in a few cigarettes, it is completely harmless. You only have to look up medical information to see this.
A person would have to bundle & smoke 20 cigarettes simultaneously to get anywhere near poisoning themselves with nicotine, and that is assuming they could get their mouth around the bundle to do it.
I would venture that the main reason governments will be against E Cigs, is because there is no tobacco revenue in it. Everyone smoking an E cig is one less person contributing to the tobacco tax.
If it wasn't for that beautiful Cash Cow, governments would have outlawed cigarettes years ago, so stop knocking something that is harmless, & devoid of toxins. Especially when it may help someone to stop completely.
Also, if you are going to join the ranks of the Anti Fun Police, then please get your facts straight, with some good scientific evidence before you knock the electronic cigarettes.