Cities Struggle to Classify E-Cigs as They Grow in Popularity

By: Joy Lim Nakrin
A growing trend is taking hold in the Twin Cities: electronic cigarettes.
Minnesota’s recent tobacco tax hike seems to have given the business a boost. “Smokeless Smoking” opened its first store in 2009. Now, four years later there are four locations.
Since the new tobacco taxes took effect this month, sales spiked 50 percent, says co-owner Tim Koester. He explains, “Certainly our typical customers are former smokers or people who want to transition off traditional cigarettes.”
E-cigarettes contain vapor with nicotine, not tobacco. Since stores that sell them aren’t tobacco shops, some cities are struggling with how to classify them under city codes.
Though they sell nicotine, the stores are not tobacco shops. Though they feature lounges, they are not food and beverage establishments.
Bloomington City Councilwoman Karen Nordstrom says, “It seems very strange to have this under recreation, but its not going fit anywhere else.”
Smokeless Smoking plans to expand its Bloomington location, which opened in January.
Watch the American Cancer Society weigh in on the smokeless option by clicking here.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3110950.shtml

Letter to the Editor: North Dakota should take lesson from Minnesota on cigarette tax

Minnesota just raised its cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack, leaving me in envy of our neighbor’s efforts to help people quit smoking.
High cigarette prices and noticeable price hikes like Minnesota’s recent increase prevent young people from getting hooked and help current smokers to kick the habit. That’s good. One in three who try cigarettes get addicted and a majority of those who smoke want to quit. A high tobacco tax is an effective health policy; kudos to Minnesota’s elected leadership for recognizing that and investing in this prevention strategy.
By contrast, North Dakota ranks as one of the “best” states for cheap tobacco. North Dakota’s tobacco tax is outrageously low at a mere $0.44 per pack — the 46th lowest cigarette tax in the nation. Across the river, Minnesota’s cigarette tax is the sixth highest at $2.83 per pack. Is “cheap tobacco” the policy North Dakota wants for its children? From my perspective as a public health advocate and mom, no. North Dakota needs to take action to significantly increase the price of tobacco here. It’d be the first time since 1993.
I love North Dakota, but not the current price of our cigarettes. In addition to its tobacco tax, sometimes I also envy Minnesota for its trees — when the wind blows and we have few to stop it. But we’re proactive and plant trees for the immediate and long-term benefits they provide. For the same reasons, raise North Dakota’s tobacco tax — and the sooner the better.
Valerie Schoepf,
Bismarck
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/article/id/70212/group/Opinion/
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/envying-sister-state-s-high-tax/article_df913772-ee8a-11e2-ad6c-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/406373/

Letter: NDQuits wins a commendation

By: Jessie Azure, West Fargo, INFORUM
I would like to commend those with NDQuits on finding a creative way to reach a “tobacco at risk community!”
Clearly, representatives from the North Dakota Policy Council need to sit down and read the 2007 Best Practices manual issued by the CDC on Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy before commenting. Maybe then they’d understand the importance of reaching target populations with education and support.
Their comments make me ask a far more important question: What if the parade had been for an organization raising awareness for mental health (as this is another community with a high rate of tobacco use)? Would Zach Tiggelaar still be compelled to question such actions? I bet he’d agree that we shouldn’t dismiss one community over another; rather, look to find ways to reach all of our citizens, just as the folks at NDQuits did. After all, as Rep. Josh Boschee, D-Fargo, reminds us, the cost of tobacco is far more staggering to treat than prevent.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/406374/

R.I. Governor Chafee vetoes e-cigarette ban for those under 18

BY PHILIP MARCELO, KATHERINE GREGG AND RANDAL EDGAR
PROVIDENCE — Governor Chafee has vetoed legislation prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing e-cigarettes and other “vapor products” that heat liquid nicotine into a smokable vapor.
The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and other health advocacy groups, had called on Chafee to veto the measure.
They said the bill represented a “stalking horse” for tobacco and e-cigarette companies that want to exempt the growing industry from the regulations and taxes imposed on traditional tobacco-based products.
They also warned that federal regulators are still studying the potential health risks of the relatively new technology .
Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio, D-North Providence, the bill would have defined e-cigarettes and other related products as “vapor products.”
Nine states, including Vermont and New Hampshire, have simply included them in their definition of “tobacco products.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, which is set to roll out its own e-cigarette line, VUSE, later this year, had strongly advocated for the bill and dozens like it in other states.
In his veto message, Chafee said, “The sale of electronic cigarettes to children should be prohibited, but it is counter-productive to prohibit sales to children while simultaneously exempting electronic cigarettes from laws concerning regulation, enforcement, licensing or taxation.
“As a matter of public policy, electronic cigarette laws should mirror tobacco product laws, not circumvent them,” Chafee said.
Other bills vetoed by Chafee on Wednesday would have let municipalities raise taxes on low-income, government-subsidized housing, and increased required public-reporting by the state’s quasi-public agencies.
Chafee did not heed all calls for a veto.
For example, he rejected pleas from the state’s auto insurers to veto a bill telling them when they can — and cannot — declare a damaged vehicle a total loss, that was a priority of the state’s politically connected auto-body shop industry. (Leading the industry’s fight again this year was the sister/law partner of the former senior deputy majority leader in the House.)
Sponsored by Rep. Arthur Corvese, D-North Providence, the new law prohibits an insurer from declaring a motor vehicle a total loss if the cost to restore the vehicle is less than 75 percent of its “fair market value” before it was damaged. The only exception would be if the owner gives the OK to say the vehicle is totaled.
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130717-r.i.-governor-chafee-vetoes-e-cigarette-ban-for-those-under-18.ece

Are e-cigarettes healthier?

By 
John Sweet once smoked two packs of cigarettes per day until a chance visit to a Clearwater flea market in early May led him to the latest nicotine alternative.
For $50 he purchased a battery-powered electronic cigarette — a device that comes in many shapes and sizes and in different price ranges.
With the push of a button, the e-cigarette heats a nicotine-infused propylene glycol fluid, turning it into a vapor that’s inhaled. E-cigarette users call the act “vaping,” not smoking.
These e-cigarettes, or e-cigs for short, often look like real cigarettes, but without the lingering smoky odor. Other devices — invented and manufactured in China — look like large ink pens.
“On the spot (after seeing the e-cigarette), I decided to quit,” Sweet said.
Sweet, 44, last week upgraded his cheaper realistic-looking e-cig at Johnny Vapenhiemer E-Cigs, a Paddock Mall kiosk. He said the cheaper e-cig had a short battery life and he wanted something better.
Sweet loves vaping because it is one-fifth the cost of smoking. And despite health warnings, it’s healthier than smoking traditional cigarettes, he said.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration in the Philippines issued an advisory, warning that e-cigs have not been tested and second-hand emissions could be harmful.
“E-cigarettes contain volatile substances, including popylene glycol, flavors and nicotine, and are emitted as (a) mist or aerosol into indoor air,” according to the June 26 advisory.
The advisory stated the FDA in that country cannot exclude adverse health risks from second-hand emission exposure. However, that agency conceded that e-cig devices produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes.
In the United States, the FDA is moving to release for public comment a proposed rule to regulate additional categories of tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes. FDA officials said they cannot comment on the contents of the proposed rule. Official noted in a statement that “further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes and other novel tobacco products.”
At the e-cig kiosk in Paddock Mall, owner Johnny Mays — who calls himself Johnny Vapor, master vaporologist — defended the world’s fastest-growing tobacco trend.
Mays held a 48-page e-cigarette study commissioned by the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA).
He inhaled an e-cig, one of two that comes in a kit with a battery charger and bottle of fluid, called e-juice, for $64.95. Mays carries e-juice in 60-plus flavors, from tobacco to strawberry.
Users squirt a few drops of fluid into a small tank. The battery heats the e-juice to 92 degrees. With a push of a button, users inhale vapor through a mouthpiece.
Mays says the industry is misunderstood and that e-cigs are much safer than traditional cigarettes.
“Cigarettes have thousands of harmful chemicals; e-juice has one chemical,” Mays said as he helped Sweet pick a red e-cigarette kit.
June’s advisory came three years after the agency attempted to block the sale of e-cigarettes all together in the United States. The FDA claimed that an e-cigarette was a drug device and should be regulated as a heavily scrutinized medicine, not a tobacco product.
The federal court ruled e-cigarettes do fall under the FDA’s tobacco regulations. After all, nicotine comes from the leaf and stems of tobacco.
Tom Kiklas, co-founder of TVECA, maintains that e-cigarettes are not being touted as a cessation product, like nicotine lozenges, patches and gum. Therefore, e-cigs can be marketed like any other tobacco product.
The American Lung Association doesn’t buy Kiklas’ claims. Erika Sward, American Lung Association’s vice president of national advocacy, said e-cigs have not been thoroughly studied and no one really knows the chemical content in the e-juice. She also criticized the FDA and the Obama Administration for not moving fast enough in regulating e-cigarettes.
“The American Lung Association is very concerned about the potential health impacts of e-cigarettes,” said Sward, adding another big concern is the product is being marketed to children. “When I see a product with a cotton candy flavor, I don’t think that is for adults.”
Sward said there is also ample proof that e-cigarette companies are marketing the products as a tobacco cessation aide.
Kiklas said manufacturers of cessation products, not the tobacco industry, is leading the charge against e-cigarettes. Most tobacco manufacturers are — or soon will be — joining the e-cigarette market after tobacco sales declined by 5 percent last year.
Kiklas said regular tobacco cigarettes have 7,000 chemicals, 600 of which become carcinogens when ignited. E-cigarettes only have five basic ingredients: nicotine, flavoring, water, glycerol and propylene glycol — less than one half of 1 percent of the harmful chemicals, he said. Propylene glycol has caused concern among e-cig opponents because it is an ingredient in anti-freeze. Kiklas said the ingredient, which has long been approved by the FDA, is in many products, including asthma inhalers and food since the 1930s.
Health officials said since the product is not regulated — or even properly studied — then who knows officially what e-juice contains from one manufacturer to another. The Florida Department of Health’s Tobacco Free Florida agency stated it “is wary of any perceived benefits.” The agency noted there is no credible medical or scientific research to support the safety of e-cigs.
“Preliminary research from the FDA revealed that some e-cigarettes contain toxic substances and carcinogens, which are known to cause cancer,” the state health department noted.
The group Americans for Nonsmoker’ Rights (ANR) cited the Indoor Air journal study. The study showed nicotine causes the formation of carcinogens — including formaldehyde — when exhaled indoors, and could remain on surfaces for weeks. Users could then absorb the carcinogens.
“The authors (of the study) concluded the e-cigarettes are a new source of chemical and aerosol exposure and their potential impact is a concern that should be investigated,” the statement noted.
ANR’s immediate concern is the use of e-cigs at smokefree locations, like the workplaces and restaurants.
Evelyn James, health education specialist with the Florida Department of Health in Marion County (once called the Marion County Health Department), said e-cigarettes have not been studied.
James urged potential users not to “replace one product that has been proven to be bad for you” for another that has not even been tested.
The FDA’s June advisory comes as the popularity of e-cigarettes is starting to gain worldwide momentum.
E-cigarettes is a $500 million industry, a minute share of the annual $80 billion U.S. tobacco market. The e-cigarette market has grown globally by 30 percent in the past three consecutive years.
Marion County resident Jan Spagnol, an opiate user who has been clean for one year, said during her recovery, she has relied heavily on cigarettes. Last week, she purchased an e-cig kit from Mays to ratchet down her nicotine intake.
E-juice comes in different strengths, ranging from 24 milligrams of nicotine per milliliter down to zero. One 12 milliliter bottle, which costs $8.99 at the Paddock Mall kiosk, will last a one-pack-per-day light cigarette smoker about two weeks.
The e-cigarette device itself can be reused. The consumer will also have to buy a replacement tank for $6.99 about once a month, depending on usage.
In the end, a one-pack-per-day light cigarette smoker will spend about $25 per month vaporing, compared to about $150 per month smoking.
“I wanted a way to wean myself off cigarettes,” she said, adding that nicotine patches was one option.
She decided against patches because e-cigarettes allow her to still inhale and exhale, retaining that oral fixation associated with cigarettes.
“After I quit smoking, I really will be clean and sober,” she noted.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20130717/ARTICLES/130719745/-1/entertainment02?p=5&tc=pg

Tobacco tax: Myth vs. facts

To the editor:
We were disappointed to read the opinions expressed in the July 6 editorial. We would like to provide your readers with accurate information based on fact (references readily available).
The following points address several myths presented by Mr. Peterson:
Myth: The new tobacco tax will help pay for the Vikings Stadium. Fact: The revenue from the tobacco tax will go into the general fund. Some of the money from a one-time tax on cigarette inventory in stores may go to the stadium.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax is unfair to smokers. Fact: The cost of treating tobacco-related disease far exceeds the amount of tobacco tax collected by smokers. Every man, woman and child in Minnesota pays $554 in excess health care costs due to smoking whether they smoke or not.
Myth: Smokers won’t quit even if the price increases. Fact: Research shows that a $1.60 per pack tax increase will help more than 36,600 current Minnesota smokers quit. In our state, we are fortunate that all smokers have access to free cessation services through QUITPLAN. In addition, low-income smokers suffer disproportionately from the health effects of smoking, and are 70 percent more responsive to price increases.
Myth: Tobacco tax revenue isn’t reliable. Fact: Every state that has significantly raised its tobacco tax has seen an increase in state revenue and health benefits for residents.
The new tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products is estimated to generate approximately $400 million over the next two years and will save our state more than $1.65 billion in long-term health care costs.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax will force people over the border. Fact: In most places, the price difference isn’t substantial enough to cause people to cross the border to buy cigarettes. Some may cross occasionally, but the number of individuals who do this is statistically very low. Most smokers will continue to buy their cigarettes in Minnesota.
Research has consistently shown that raising the price of tobacco is one of the most effective ways to help smokers quit and prevent kids from starting. Saving Minnesota lives and our kids from a lifetime of addiction is “fair” and a great idea in our book (of facts).
Southwest Community Health Improvement Program (C.H.I.P) members
Paula Bloemendaal
Val Dallenbach
Judy Pitzl
Kris Wegner
http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/540688/Tobacco-tax–Myth-vs–facts.html?nav=5072

Higher cigarette prices do save lives

These findings are a result of a World Health Organization (WHO) study of 41 countries where smoking policies have been in place since 2007.
From their MPOWER model – which stands for Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies, Protecting people from tobacco smoke, Offering help to quit tobacco use,Warning people about the dangers of tobacco, Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, and Raising taxes on tobacco – the WHO was able to predict that 7.4 million deaths could be prevented by 2050.
The research has shown that increasing taxes on cigarettes by up to 75% had the greatest impact on smoking, even more so than anti-smoking policies. While smoke-free air laws in 20 of the focus countries had averted 2.5 million premature deaths, tax rises prevented 3.5 million smoking-related deaths.
“Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death in the world, with six million smoking-attributable deaths per year today, and these deaths are projected to rise to eight million a year by 2030, if current trends continue,” said Douglas Bettcher, WHO director of the department of non-communicable diseases.
However, even with greater scientific evidence that smoking kills, some people are still resistant to change. And South Africans are no exception.
An uphill battle
Readers’ responses to an article on Heath24 earlier this year, titled ‘SA set to go 100% smoke-free’, are redolent of the resistance faced by advocates for a smoke-free society.
The article covered the announcement by the South African government that new legislation would make all indoors and some outdoor areas 100% smoke-free.
According to the proposed legislation, smoking will be prohibited in:

  • Stadiums, arenas, schools and childcare facilities
  • Health facilities
  • Outdoor eating or drinking areas
  • Places where outdoor events take place
  • Covered walkways and covered parking areas
  • Outdoor service areas and queues
  • Beaches, within 50 metres of a demarcated swimming area
  • Five to 10 metres of entrances, doorways, windows and ventilation inlets

What some of our readers have to say:
Martin said: “I shall continue to smoke in my office, and people needing to see me will continue to wait outside… I’m sorry, cigarettes contribute so little to general air pollution. Look at cars, industries etc. – there are your culprits… my guys suck up welding fumes all day, but smoking is banned, WTF?!?”
Dieter asked: “Is he [the minister of health] that bored with life that they would do something like that? What about overweight people, are they gonna make them stop eating as well? Get a job you’re good at!”
Raven said: “So, my freedom of choice is removed. Where do I sign to have this law scrapped?”
Charmain Nel said: “People give me the sh*ts when all they talk about is smoking. First do something about the DRINKERS WHO KILL PEOPLE. I have never KILLED WHEN SMOKING. The ones that are having a fit are all DRINKERS, which is why nothing gets done. LEAVE US SMOKERS ALONE!”
But with more studies concretely pointing to the dangers of smoking, both for smoker and non-smokers, it’s clear that researchers are not ready to leave the matter alone.
Scientifically speaking
Scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in the USA, recently proved that third-hand smoke can also kill over time.
They proved that the smelly residue (third-hand smoke), which sticks to almost all surfaces long after the second-hand smoke has cleared out, can actually cause significant long-term genetic damage to human cells.
The researchers said that chemical compounds found in third-hand smoke are among the most potent carcinogens around and are capable of causing most cancers in humans.
And estimated 30% of South Africans are smokers, and about 60% of all lung cancer deaths in South Africa are due to tobacco smoking, according to the national Lung Cancer Association.
“By taking the right measures, this tobacco epidemic can be entirely prevented,” concluded WHO’s Douglas Bettcher.
Hayden Horner
http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Stop-smoking/News/Higher-cigarette-prices-do-save-lives-20130717

E-cigarette regulation and taxes once again on the front burner at the Capitol

By WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY – Three lawmakers are renewing the fight over an issue that lit up the state House last year – electronic cigarettes.
Last week, Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon approved so-called “e-cigarette” study proposals by Speaker Pro Tem Mike Jackson, Rep. Mike Turner and Rep. David Derby.
Jackson, R-Enid, is the second-ranking member of the House leadership. Derby, R-Owasso, is chairman of the House Public Health Committee and will oversee the studies.
An e-cigarette is an electronic inhaler that vaporizes a liquid nicotine solution, simulating the act of tobacco smoking. Like cigarettes, users get a nicotine fix. Unlike cigarettes, there is no smoke.
During the final days of the Legislature’s last session, the House rejected a bill backed by Jackson to deal with the same issue on a 66-29 vote after nearly three hours of questioning and debate.
At issue in the interim studies is how the devices are taxed and how their sales are regulated.
Derby’s study would investigate “regulation of vapor and other emerging nicotine products.”
The Jackson-Turner study would look into “taxation, tobacco harm reduction, and youth access to electronic cigarettes.”
Currently, state law doesn’t adequately address sales of e-cigarettes to minors, and “youth access is definitely something we need to address,” Jackson said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering classifying the devices as tobacco products, a move that could result in a significant tax burden on people using them, he said.
If FDA action made the devices subject to the state’s tobacco tax, it could make the e-cigarette equivalent of a pack of cigarettes taxed at $8.50 to $9, Jackson said.
“What we don’t want to do is put a higher tax on a less-harmful product,” he said.
Jackson said his brother has used an e-cigarette to gradually reduce his nicotine dependency. He hasn’t used a cigarette in three or four months, Jackson said.
“I have seen first-hand how they can help,” he said.
The American Cancer Society opposed Jackson’s efforts last year and will continue to fight against efforts to reduce taxes on e-cigarettes, said James Gray, director of government relations for the Cancer Action Network.
There is no scientific evidence to back claims that e-cigarettes are an effective means of weening smokers from their habit.
No other state has taken the actions Jackson has proposed for Oklahoma, Gray said.
“I think this is a new direction of Big Tobacco, and (legislators are) really cautious about doing anything that provides a new market to Big Tobacco,” he said.
Doug Matheny of tobaccomoney.com said the claim that an FDA regulation could lead to a dramatic state tax hike is a “scare tactic.”
“It’s one of those classic examples of the tobacco industry – and I do believe the tobacco industry is behind this – to make legislators feel like they have to do something – they have to act,” Matheny said. “And actually they don’t need to at all in Oklahoma.”
A simple bill to restrict youth access to e-cigarettes should take less than one page, but the design here is about expanding markets for nicotine, not reducing smoking, Matheny said.
“These companies don’t really care what you buy from them as long as you continue to buy from them. They’re selling an addictive product that contains nicotine. As long as you don’t quit altogether, they’re happy.”
Tobacco lobbyists are a powerful force at the state Capitol, Matheny said.
According to Oklahoma Ethics Commission reports, contributions to Oklahoma state legislative campaigns from the Reynolds American Inc. political action committee increased by 70 percent in the 2012 election cycle. Meals purchased by lobbyists on behalf of Reynolds American Inc. increased by more than 50 percent, Matheny said.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/E_cigarette_regulation_and_taxes_once_again_on_the/20130716_11_A1_CUTLIN990334?subj=1

Forum editorial: Take deep breath and relax

Some folks in North Dakota are in a snit because anti-smoking funds are being used to promote the cause at specific events, such as the Fargo-Moorhead gay pride festival. They should take a deep breath, preferably at a nearby smoke-free bar, and calm down.
ND Quits and the state health department are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They are using funds, some state and federal, some from the multi-year settlement with tobacco companies, to get smokers to quit or others to never start. They are developing and implementing strategies to educate about the known dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke. The efforts can include targeting groups with high rates of tobacco use, such as the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population, which is 70 percent more likely to smoke than the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since the federal dollars for state smoking-cessation programs come from the CDC, it logically follows that the state effort should include the at-risk LGBT community. It’s no different than spending a portion of the budget for information and education programs aimed at youth, women or oil workers – groups, by the way, that are in the anti-smoking agencies’ sights. ND Quits operates under a clear mandate from the people of North Dakota, who overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that set up an agency to manage and spend tobacco settlement dollars. That came a few years ago after an intransigent Legislature refused to act responsibly, even as anti-smoking sentiment took hold in the state.
More silliness about the application of anti-smoking money came from the North Dakota Policy Council’s Zack Tiggelaar. He said that while he supports efforts to encourage smokers to quit, “… is it something the public and taxpayers should be funding?” The answer, as made crystal clear by North Dakota voters, is “yes.”
He added: “The government shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to support specific causes.”
Where has he been? North Dakota has special state tax that goes to research sponsored by the Lignite Energy Council. That’s pretty specific. The state funds loans and grants for beginning farmers. That’s specific. The Renaissance Zone program for cities uses tax incentives (public money) to stimulate private development. Yet another specific cause.
Purists of the council’s ilk might wag a finger, but such programs evolved from long-standing public policy, and ND Quits is operating within the same ethic.
Oh, and by the way, those partnerships – whether associated with lignite research, farm and city investment or smoking cessation – work. The money is well spent.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Sherman man's e-cigarette explodes while charging

SHERMAN, TX — They’ve been touted as the 21st-century cigarette. But, one Texoma man has a warning for e-cigarette users after he says simply charging his caused it to blow up.
Sherman resident, Wes Sloan, says when he decided to kick the habit he made the switch to an electronic cigarette thinking it would be safer.
But, he says the device literally blew up in his hand, and he wants you to know just how dangerous they may actually be.
“The battery was into about a two hour charge and it exploded and shot across the room like a Roman candle,” Wes Sloan said.
These are Wes Sloan’s fingers after he says his electronic cigarette caught on fire, eight months ago.
“I still now today have numbness in both of those fingers,” he said.
Sloan says he suffered second and third degree burns, and both he and his wife Cathy say they had to be treated for smoke inhalation
He claims he was charging his e-cig in the USB port of their Macbook. This isn’t the only incident that’s been reported. Just last month, a Tulsa man charging his e-cigarette the same way, says the device started a fire.
One dealer says he discourages people from using anything but the wall charger.
“A lot of people do it, a lot of people have zero problems, but do you want to take that chance?” Jeff Barnard said.
“There wasn’t anything that said how long to charge it. There wasn’t any warnings. It’s marketed as a safe, good product. And the reason we bought the one we did is it was one of the best ones on the market and it was U.S. made,” Sloan said.
Sloan contacted the retailer who sold him the device, and manufacturer, but says he’s had no luck.
News 12 called the company Sloan says made this e-cigarette. They told us their legal team is looking into the matter. They say they’re aware of knock-off versions of their cigarettes roaming around, and won’t comment until they investigate further.
“We want to recover our losses. Most of all, we want the consumer to know that this isn’t as safe a product as they market it to be,” Sloan said.
Texoma Pulmonologist Dr. Don Wynn, says he and doctors around the world recommend e-cigarettes to smokers as a last resort to quit smoking. But, the FDA does not regulate e-cigs. Dr. Wynn says that’s concerning, not only because of the potential injuries they could inflict, but because you may not always know what’s in them.
“We don’t know what the industry put in the electronic cigarettes,” Dr. Wynn said. “I believe we need more research to determine whether the electronic cigarettes are harmful or helpful for patients.”
As for the Sloans, they say they’ll never try another.
“Every time I see someone buying one at a gas station or anywhere, I let them know that you know, be careful because they can explode,” Sloan said.
Dr. Wynn wants to study the long-term effects of the e-cigs, to find out whether they actually do improve smokers’ health. He needs 200 participants for the study.
If you would like more information regarding the study, contact Dr. Wynn’s office at (903) 463-0003.
http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/E-cigarette-explodes-in-Texoma-mans-home-215771641.html  (Video included)