Let’s examine the argument in question and try to pick out the difference. If you ask an electronic cigarette vendor if their product is safe you will hear, “Yes, these devices contain only nicotine to satisfy your cravings and propylene glycol to give you the sensation of smoking.” When the media reporter gives you their take, it will sound something like, “These devices are not FDA Approved and may carry health risks.” Seems like a fair conflict of interest doesn’t it? But did you examine the context of each statement?
This is a classic case of “lost in translation”. Both sources are simply reporting from their stance of “safety”. Reporters give the news from a non-smoking stance while distributors sell to smokers who are comparing the product to an already existing tobacco smoking habit. It may not be safer than not smoking at all, but that is yet to be proven.
A lot of folks don’t realize that tobacco is not the biggest health risk in a traditional cigarette. By themselves, they are fairly safe. But put a flame to any organic substance, even lettuce, and you have started a combustion process that gives life to over 4,000 chemicals. It is the flame that ignites the health risk.
Now consider what eliminating the flame from smoking would do. Not only are you removing the chemical plant but you’re also removing the creation of the cancer causing agents (carcinogens). When you pit this against the fact that there is only one unproven health risk in electronic cigarettes, the scales seem to tip to favor the argument by the distributors, doesn’t it?
Users of the e-cigarette have rabidly taken to the internet to tell their success stories. Countless testimonials and petitions to keep them on the market can be found in forums, on blogs, and on virtually every vendors’ website. It’s a well known fact that your sense of smell and taste as well as your overall health can return shortly after you quit smoking and these are the kind of results that people are seeing with e-cigs.
The media seems to be biased against them as much as distributors seem to be bias for them, but it is ultimately up to the smoker to decide how serious they are about a smoke-free alternative that may hold the key to helping them kick the smoking habit.