argumentative essay on e cigarettes

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Smoking

Expertly Written Argumentative Essay On Smoking E-Cigarettes To Follow

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Smoking , Teenagers , Cigarettes , Health , Students , Teen , Teens , Cigarette

Published: 03/08/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

[Health care]

Introduction

Though smoking has only negative effects, especially when it can cause different cancers in the body, nevertheless, the mass media try to make smoking look acceptable and cool, which helps tobacco firms enlarge their revenues (Services, Health and First).

In recent years, separated from traditional cigarette smoking, which comparatively went down, we can observe a significant increase in using electronic cigarettes. The amount of students who are studying in high school or even middle school, continue smoking e-cigarettes and what is terrible to state that the number of such occasions doubled from 2012 and kept increasing (Gonchar). Teenagers think that it is cool to smoke e-cigarette, however, they do not care about health problems that may occur in the elderly. Entirely in 2012 year, up to 1.8 million both high and middle school students in total told that they had already tried e-cigarettes, which anyway cannot be good, according to the national survey, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("Notes From The Field: Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle And High School Students — United States"). Moreover, respondents said that they had tried single cigarettes before. Despite the fact that traditional cigarette smoking in high and middle schools has declined to record lows, the use of e-cigarettes tripled from 2013 to 2014 (Steinmetz).

Some facts about smoking

Here is some valid data about smoking: 90% of all smokers began this activity before 19 years old; approximately 30% of all teenagers will keep on smoking and die early because of a smoking-related illness; youngsters smokers are more inclined to get panic attacks, have mental health problems, nervous disorders or suffer from depression; researchers found that very first cigarette to be smoked by a teenager usually occurs before the graduation from the high school; commonly smokers live 13-14 years less than non-smokers; annually up to 1.5 million packs are bought by minors; some investigations proved that hookah smoke has a higher level of a combination of tar, nicotine or heavy metals, rather than smoke of typical cigarettes ("11 Facts About Teen Smoking”).

Health risks

Smoking tobacco is very harmful to your health in the short and long haul. In a short period of time, it can cause serious difficulties to your breath and can result in diminished lung function. Moreover, it can lead to respiratory diseases and coughing. In addition, smoking can decrease physical activity of a teenager engaged in some sports or gym. Long haul smoking can be very fatal to your health: it may cause serious health issues, constant lung troubles, heart attacks or even problems with vision (Boehlke).

Addiction to tobacco use

People became addicted to smoking because of nicotine concentration in tobacco. Here are several symptoms of addiction: you feel anxious without a cigarette; you want to smoke and cannot even wait a minute without a puff; one day you decided to abandon smoking but later continue doing that, etc. What should be added here, that other forms of tobacco, such as e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, menthol cigarettes or cigars are threatening to your health as well, because they accommodate deadly chemicals/ingredients that can damage your feeling ("For Teens: Straight Talk About Smoking").

On the whole, smoking is not only a problem for teenagers, but also a threat to their health. Parents should control their kids, explain how serious this issue is, and tell them that the longer children wait to stop smoking the harder it will be for them to quit. Is quitting possible? Yes, certainly, there is always a way out! However, not for everybody it is that easy to stop smoking. Just give it a try and that is all! Even you fail to quit smoking, do your best to make the second attempt. Practice make excellent!

Works cited

Services, A, 1st Health, and Recovery First. "Teens And Smoking – Nicotine Addiction – Teen Smoking – Problems With Teen Smoking". Projectknow.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.projectknow.com/research/teens-and-smoking/ Gonchar, Michael. "Is Smoking Still A Problem Among Teenagers?". The Learning Network. N.p., 2013. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/is-smoking-still-a-problem-among-teenagers/?_r=0 "Notes From The Field: Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle And High School Students — United States, 2011–2012". Cdc.gov. N.p., 2016. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6235a6.htm?s_cid=mm6235a6_w "11 Facts About Teen Smoking | Dosomething.Org | Volunteer For Social Change". Dosomething.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-teen-smoking Boehlke, Julie. "Teen Smoking Problems". LIVESTRONG.COM. N.p., 2015. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.livestrong.com/article/108848-teen-smoking-problems/ "For Teens: Straight Talk About Smoking". HealthyChildren.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/substance-abuse/Pages/Teens-and-Smoking.aspx Steinmetz, Krystal. "Smoking Is Down Among Teens, But There’S This Other Problem ". Money Talks News. N.p., 2015. Web. 14 May 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.moneytalksnews.com/smoking-down-among-teens-but-theres-this-other-problem/

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2459

This paper is created by writer with

ID 257210361

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Headmaster essays, overstatement essays, policy change essays, interval essays, knitter essays, horsepower essays, backer essays, carnivore essays, banana republic essays, renal failure essays, hearse essays, desalinized essays, research paper on john jackson has suffered a spinal cord injury after a motorcycle accident and, example of essay on jesus and mohammad, finance should there be a quantitative easing 3 qe3 critical thinking examples, saudi national day 2011 essay examples, irony in charlotte perkins gilmans the yellow wallpaper essay examples, science critical thinking, the resurrection of jesus christ essay sample, jesuit relations in south america term paper examples, theory and criticism about theory in landscape architecture critical thinking examples, tax avoidance research paper examples, birth establishment and an emperor and early years biography sample, good education prospectus1 thesis proposal example, good essay about custom database for cancer navigation, javascript course work, complexity principles essay samples, good course work about statistics discussion questions, ice catheterization lab observations essays examples, situation analysis for starbucks coffee course works examples, good example of essay on when harry met sally, free essay on listening critique 5, free essay on causes and effect on why students drop out of high school, women against violence essay, the sample size is large enough course works example, wine reports, novel reports, engineering reports, communism reports, treasure research papers, discretionary research papers.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More Harm Than Good

Only a strong public health system can conquer nicotine addiction.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values . It is separate from the newsroom.

The nation is facing two distinct vaping-related health crises: surging e-cigarette use among teenagers and a lung-injury outbreak that has sickened more than 2,000 people and killed at least 40 . Both have exposed yawning gaps in the nation’s public health apparatus. But instead of closing those gaps, policymakers have turned to a much more straightforward fix: banning products.

A federal ban on flavored e-cigarettes is reportedly in the offing. Several states have already enacted their own flavor bans. And Massachusetts and several California cities have taken steps to outlaw e-cigarettes altogether.

The impulse to remove e-cigarettes from the market is understandable. The Food and Drug Administration’s hands-off approach to vaping and e-cigarette regulation has backfired badly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and state and local health departments around the country — are struggling to pick up the slack. And after more than a decade, neither federal agency has a clear sense of the overall risks and benefits of these products.

But prohibition is not a good long-term solution, for a number of reasons. Such measures are not guaranteed to prevent teenagers from getting e-cigarettes. And they would almost certainly force people who already use these products , including roughly 11 million adults, to choose between traditional cigarettes (which remain widely available, despite being deadlier than e-cigarettes ) and black-market vaping products.

Because these black market products are a leading suspect in the lung-injury outbreak, product bans are more likely to exacerbate this crisis than to mitigate it.

The better, if more complicated, option would be to build a public health system that’s strong enough to combat all nicotine addiction in the long term. That, in turn, could help drive a cultural shift for e-cigarettes akin to the shift that took place for traditional cigarettes. Policy changes and growing public awareness — not product bans — helped turn what was considered a chic, stress-relieving diet tool into what is now more commonly viewed as a smelly, overpriced cancer stick.

With sustained and careful investment, e-cigarettes might become nothing more than a harm-reduction option for adult smokers — no more appealing to teenagers than a nicotine patch or a piece of nicotine gum. Here are some ideas for making that vision a reality.

Treat e-cigarettes like cigarettes. Traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products are already bound by a number of rules — including special taxes, advertising restrictions and age-verification requirements — that helped sharply lower both youth and adult smoking rates in recent decades. E-cigarette makers have evaded similar regulations, through a combination of lawsuits and intensive lobbying. (Among other things, the vaping industry has argued that e-cigarettes are not tobacco products because they contain only nicotine — but nicotine comes exclusively from the tobacco plant.) Congress could stop such antics with new legislation. A recently passed House bill that would mandate age verification for all online e-cigarette purchases is a welcome step in the right direction. Additional laws are needed to ensure that any rules applying to tobacco products also apply to e-cigarettes.

Learn from Britain. So far, the country has managed to make e-cigarettes available for adults who want to quit using regular cigarettes without triggering an epidemic of nicotine dependence among its youth. Public health experts say at least part of that success is due to the way these products are regulated in Britain. Packaging and advertising are tightly restricted — no bright, colorful labels or kid-friendly media campaigns allowed. And the nicotine content is capped. In America, where there are no such limits, e-cigarettes often contain more than twice as much nicotine as they do in Britain and are still being sold in ways designed to appeal to young children.

Invest in public health. The C.D.C. and state and local health departments across the country are struggling to hold the line on public health gains made over the past century. For tobacco control, that means educating the public about the risks of nicotine addiction and countering the tobacco industry’s efforts to lure young users. It also means detecting outbreaks of vaping-related illness or injury, pinpointing the causes of those outbreaks and advising governments on how to respond. This crucial work is in desperate need of a funding boost. The House has approved $40 million to increase the C.D.C.’s tobacco control efforts and $100 million to upgrade the agency’s data system , which is currently so antiquated it relies on fax machines and CD-ROMs. The Senate should follow suit.

Invest in research. There remains much we don’t know about e-cigarettes. Are these products truly effective at helping people quit smoking, and is there a way to maximize that effectiveness? For example, do flavors that attract children also help adults quit? Would adults be more likely to quit if e-cigarettes were paired with other supports, like counseling? How safe is long-term e-cigarette use, and are some products safer than others? What are the risks to people who end up using both electronic and traditional cigarettes? What about those who switch completely to e-cigarettes but end up smoking much more because vaping is easier to get away with indoors? Health officials need answers to these questions to set effective policies.

Maintain pressure. Scientists and universities have refused to take “research” money from companies that make e-cigarettes; advertising agencies and health and wellness companies are pledging to do the same. These movements reflect a growing public wariness that is itself a powerful check on the industry. For example, it was after a tsunami of bad press — investigations , congressional hearings, lawsuits — that Juul, the nation’s leading e-cigarette maker, closed some of its social media accounts, put in place an age-verification system and stopped selling many of its flavored pods .

Critics are right to be skeptical of such voluntary measures — the tobacco industry has a terrible track record of self-policing. But the fact that the company took these steps at all, after fighting them so aggressively for so long, is proof that even while regulatory efforts falter, public sentiment can still hold sway.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

• Human Editing
• Free AI Essay Writer
• AI Outline Generator
• AI Paragraph Generator
• Paragraph Expander
• Essay Expander
• Literature Review Generator
• Research Paper Generator
• Thesis Generator
• Paraphrasing tool
• AI Rewording Tool
• AI Sentence Rewriter
• AI Rephraser
• AI Paragraph Rewriter
• Summarizing Tool
• AI Content Shortener
• Plagiarism Checker
• AI Detector
• AI Essay Checker
• Citation Generator
• Reference Finder
• Book Citation Generator
• Legal Citation Generator
• Journal Citation Generator
• Reference Citation Generator
• Scientific Citation Generator
• Source Citation Generator
• Website Citation Generator
• URL Citation Generator
• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• AI Writing Guides
• AI Detection Guides
• Citation Guides
• Grammar Guides
• Paraphrasing Guides
• Plagiarism Guides
• Summary Writing Guides
• STEM Guides
• Humanities Guides
• Language Learning Guides
• Coding Guides
• Top Lists and Recommendations
• AI Detectors
• AI Writing Services
• Coding Homework Help
• Citation Generators
• Editing Websites
• Essay Writing Websites
• Language Learning Websites
• Math Solvers
• Paraphrasers
• Plagiarism Checkers
• Reference Finders
• Spell Checkers
• Summarizers
• Tutoring Websites

Most Popular

Typely review.

12 days ago

Consensus Review

Have you fallen in the trap of compromised ai learning, clark county schools introduce cell phone pouches to enhance learning focus, science.gov review, why e-cigarettes are better for smokers than regular ones essay sample, example.

Smoking tobacco is probably one of the worst habits humankind has developed. Originating as a tradition of the Native Americans, practiced mostly on special occasions, smoking has gradually become a kind of mass addiction. Due to the efforts of tobacco companies seeking to increase their sales, people started smoking more and more often; the evolution of a more traditional pipe to a cigarette took some time, but eventually tobacco became more affordable and easier to use (you now simply need to light it up, instead of having to always carry a tobacco pouch, stuff a pipe, puff it, and so on). As a result, deaths and health issues connected to tobacco consumption became a worldwide concern.

A popular belief is that it is nicotine that kills. It is only partially true: although nicotine does harm one’s health (mostly affecting the cardiovascular system), it is the tar, carbon monoxide, hard particles contained in cigarette smoke, and a bunch of toxic emissions and heavy metals that deal the most damage. Nicotine causes addiction, and the smoke does the rest.

Nowadays, there are alternatives to analogue tobacco smoking: the widely popular electronic cigarettes. Although it is hotly debated whether e-cigarettes are harmful to smokers’ health or not, it is hard to argue that substituting cigarettes with these devices does more good than bad, since they possess a number of advantages that cannot be neglected easily. And whereas smoking still remains a dangerous and unacceptable addiction, e-cigarettes might be a decent way to break free of it.

Electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine to a smoker not through burning (which obviously implies inhaling harmful and toxic smoke), but through the evaporation of nicotine-containing liquids. An e-cigarette heats up the liquid in a special container called an atomizer; the liquid evaporates, and through this vapor a smoker receives their dose of nicotine. Thus, the process of nicotine consumption in this case should be called “vaping,” not “smoking.” These liquids usually comprise glycerol, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propanediol, and some other components ( NCBI ). Although some of them are not completely harmless, the chemical composure of e-cigarette liquids is definitely safer than the one of a regular cigarette. However, thorough control over the composure of these liquids should be established, and the usage of such components as ethylene glycol and propanediol should probably be banned. Still, if a smoker does not plan to quit, he or she might want to consider using e-cigarettes instead of real tobacco.

Another good reason for a smoker to start using e-cigarettes is that the aforementioned liquids can contain different amounts of nicotine. A heavy smoker might want to start vaping using liquids containing up to 24 milligrams of nicotine, and the good news for them is that it is possible to gradually decrease the dose until zero milligrams are present.

Although some smokers might experience physical symptoms when trying to quit smoking tobacco, in the majority of cases, it is a strong psychological component that does not let a smoker give up their addiction. It can be assumed that there are five main components of this psychological addiction: 1) believing in the relaxing/stimulating effect of nicotine that helps a smoker deal with stressful situations; 2) a smoker’s need to “keep hands busy” when bored, waiting for something, feeling nervous, and so on; 3) socializing with “fellow smokers”; 4) unconsciously and “automatically” following the habit; 5) the fear that if a smoker quits, he or she will lose something valuable, a source of psychological support or pleasure. In addition, some smokers find it aesthetic to inhale/exhale smoke, or have other reasons to continue tobacco consumption. Generally speaking, smoking is a behavioral pattern consisting of repeating situations and reactions. Without neglecting or challenging these reasons, it can be said that an e-cigarette is probably a safer alternative for a person who does not want to give up nicotine. They still deliver nicotine to a smoker’s body (thus fulfilling the reasons 1 and 5); they disrupt automatic smoking described in points 2 and 4 (since e-cigarettes function differently from their traditional analogues); they allow a person to continue socializing with other smokers during breaks at work, or on other occasions, as mentioned in point 3. But, while performing the same functions as regular cigarettes, electronic devices are safer and more socially acceptable.

In addition, a purely aesthetic reason to prefer e-cigarettes over their analogues: when evaporated, the liquids taste and smell better than tobacco. They are sold in a variety of flavors: melons, apples, cherry, tropical fruit, mint, blueberry, and so on. At the same time, regular tobacco smells and tastes awful not only for the non-smokers, but for a smoking person as well. So, why not stop poisoning oneself with toxic smoke, and at least substitute it with pleasantly smelling vapor?

Nicotine addiction in any of its forms, regardless of whether it is smoking or vaping, is a huge problem for addicts. It leads to a number of severe, chronic diseases and even to death. At the same time, there might be a healthier alternative for those smokers who realize the harm they cause to themselves, but who cannot yet give up their addiction. Electronic cigarettes are nowadays considered to be safer than regular cigarettes. Liquids used in these e-cigarettes contain fewer toxic elements, and do not include the products that are commonly burned in cigarettes. Vapor from e-cigarettes is mostly harmless to non-smokers; it tastes and smells better, which makes smoking e-cigarettes a less reproached habit. Finally, many smokers might discover that e-cigarettes do not obstruct their reasons to continue smoking, while making it possible to decrease the amounts of consumed nicotine and to eventually break the habit. Therefore, without praising or advertising e-cigarettes, it can still be stated that they are a more preferable alternative for smokers.

Works Cited

• “Electronic Cigarettes: Overview of Chemical Composition and Exposure Estimation.” NCBI . BioMed Central, 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (1)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Who is the original author of this article?

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Related writing guides, writing a persuasive essay.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Argumentative Essay Sample E-Cigarette

Related Papers

Therapeutic advances in chronic disease

Riccardo Polosa

A growing body of scientific studies show that e-cigarettes may serve as an acceptable substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes, thereby reducing or eliminating exposure to harmful elements in smoke. The success of e-cigarettes is such that sales of these products are rapidly gaining on traditional cigarettes. The rapidly evolving phenomenon is raising concerns for the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments. Obviously, these products need to be adequately regulated, primarily to protect users. Depending on the form and intended scope, certain regulatory decisions may have diverse unintended consequences on public health and may face many different challenges. Ideally, before any regulations are enacted, the regulatory body will require sufficient scientific research to verify that a problem does exist, quantify the problem, explore all potential solutions including making no change at all, determine the possible consequences of each, and ...

Joy K Chakma

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarettes are battery-powered devices used to smoke or 'vape', a flavoured solution containing a varying concentration of nicotine, an addictive chemical found in cigarettes and other forms of tobacco products. There are various types of ENDS devices. The most common type is an e-cigarette that produces an aerosolized mixture of the flavoured liquids and nicotine, which is inhaled by the user. Nicotine is considered as one of the most addictive substances. The rapidity at which it is introduced into the body, age of first exposure and the dosage administered all add to determine the potential risk of a person being addicted to it throughout life. The various flavours and attractive designs also add to the allure of these products to the young population. ENDS or e-cigarettes are manufactured in such a way to resemble conventional tobacco products such as cigarettes, pipes and cigars and common gadgets such as flash drives, flashlights or pens. Currently, there are more than 460 different e-cigarette brands with varied configuration of nicotine delivery available in the market, for example, cigar-likes (first generation), tank systems (second generation) and personal vaporizers (third generation) with over 7700 flavours. This makes collation of data on health effects more difficult for the generation of scientific evidence. Increasing use by youth and adolescents There is an increasing trend for the use of ENDS or e-cigarettes amongst the youth and adolescents in many countries where these products were introduced. E-cigarettes are the most commonly used nicotine products in the [Downloaded free from http://www.ijmr.org.in on Friday, May 31, 2019, IP: 49.248.114.2]

Hannah Farrimond

Background and aims The rapid increase in use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has created an international policy dilemma concerning how to use these products. This study assesses the types of beliefs that e-cigarette users in the UK may hold concerning regulation. Design Qualitative thematic analysis of written answers to open-ended questions. Setting UK, questionnaire conducted by post, 44% recruited from online forums/56% non-online. Participants Fifty-five UK vapers, 55% male, mean age 46, 84% sole users of e-cigarettes, 95% vaping daily. Measurements Open-ended questions on regulatory and policy options. Findings ‘Protecting youth’ was seen as a fundamental regulatory requirement which should be achieved through childproofing, age limits, no advertising aimed at children and health warnings about addictiveness of nicotine, but not the restriction of flavours. There was little support for regulating e-cigarettes as medicines or limiting the strength of nicotine liquids. In terms of public use, participants argued against a blanket ban on public vaping given perceptions of a lack of scientific evidence of harm. However, they supported the principle of autonomy, that individuals and organizations have the right to restrict vaping. Some participants suggested banning vaping in places such as schools, hospitals or around food, in line with current smoking norms. Vapers’ regulatory positions were accompanied by political concerns about the use (and misuse) of scientific evidence. Conclusions With regard to regulation of e-cigarettes, issues that are salient to UK vapers may include the need for youth protection, regulation as medicines, strength of e-liquids, bans on public vaping and concerns about the misuse of scientific evidence.

Addiction (Abingdon, England)

Hayden McRobbie

We reviewed available research on the use, content and safety of electronic cigarettes (EC), and on their effects on users, to assess their potential for harm or benefit and to extract evidence that can guide future policy. Studies were identified by systematic database searches and screening references to February 2014. EC aerosol can contain some of the toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but at levels which are much lower. Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders. EC are increasingly popular among smokers, but to date there is no evidence of regular use by never-smokers or by non-smoking children. EC enable some users to reduce or quit smoking. Allowing EC to compete with cigarettes in the market-place might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Regulating EC as strictly as cigarettes, or even more strictly as some regulators propose, is not warranted on curren...

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Konstantinos Farsalinos , Giorgio Romagna , Αλκέτα Σπύρου

The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

Tara Bam , I. Berezhnova

Eric N Lindblom

International Journal of Drug Policy

Pasquale Caponnetto , Riccardo Polosa , Daniela Saitta , David Sweanor

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to identify and differentiate socially shared accounts of e-cigarette use (vaping) using Q-methodology, combining factor analysis with qualitative comments. Methods: Seventy statements on e-cigarettes, drawn from media, academic and online discussions, were sorted by participants along a continuum of agreement/disagreement, commenting on strongly ranked items. Each participant thus created their own ‘account’ of their vaping. A by-person correlation matrix of the sorts was conducted, then factor analysed, to identify similar accounts (p<0.01). Fifty-five UK vapers participated by post, 55% male, mean age of 46, 84% only vaping/16% vaping and smoking, 95% vaping daily. Results: Three accounts of e-cigarettes were identified. The first two were associated with having quit smoking; the third with ongoing tobacco smoking and vaping. In Factor One, ‘Vaping as Pleasure’, vaping was characterized as enjoyable, with long-term use envisaged and a medical model of vaping rejected. Factor One participants also held a strong vaping identity and were politically motivated to maintain the rights of adults to vape. In Factor Two, ‘Vaping as Medical Treatment’, vaping was understood as a pragmatic choice about how to medicate one’s smoking addiction, with the aim being to treat and ultimately reduce nicotine dependence. In Factor Three, ‘Ambivalent E-Cigarette Use’, participants reported fewer benefits and harboured more negative beliefs about e-cigarettes; they also strongly rejected a vaper identity, having no interest in online forums or being labelled a ‘vaper’ themselves. Conclusion: The UK e-cigarette users in this sample were not a homogeneous group; differing in their beliefs, motivations for use, identity and political interest. In particular they diverged on whether they accepted a medicalized account of vaping and identified as a vaper. Public health messages targeted to one group of e-cigarette users may not resonate with others.

Tobacco Induced Diseases

Muhammad Aziz Rahman

Background Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices that vaporize a liquid solution to deliver a dose of inhaled nicotine to the user. There is ongoing debate regarding their regulation. Objectives This comprehensive narrative review aimed to discuss key issues including usage patterns, health effects, efficacy in smoking cessation and regulatory concerns with a view to informing future regulation and research agendas. Methods PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched using the terms (electronic cigarettes OR e-cigarettes) for articles in English, relevant to humans and published during January 2009-January 2014. Results The literature search revealed 37 relevant articles. Findings suggest that e-cigarettes are mostly used by middle-aged current smokers, particularly males, to help them for quitting or for recreation. E-cigarettes contain very low levels of multiple toxic substances such as formaldehyde and acrolein, but these levels are many times lower than those found in cigarettes. They were found to have effectiveness in aiding smoking cessation to a limited degree. Debate continues regarding regulating their use for cessation versus heavy restrictions to control recreational use on the basis that it perpetuates nicotine addiction. Conclusions The cytotoxicity and long term health effects of e-cigarettes are unknown. Nevertheless the e-cigarette market continues to expand, largely driven by middle-aged smokers who claim to be using e-cigarettes in an attempt to reduce or quit smoking. E-cigarettes may have some potential as smoking cessation aids and, in the researchers? view, should therefore be subject to further research and regulation similar to other nicotine replacement therapies. The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. T

RELATED PAPERS

Tobacco control

Noel Brewer

Food and Drug Law Journal

British dental journal

Zoe Marshman , Devina Worsley

Harm Reduction Journal

Pasquale Caponnetto , Riccardo Polosa

Jacques Le Houezec , Konstantinos Farsalinos

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Lena Gray , Ted Niemiec , Lavaughn Palma-Davis

BMJ Case Reports

Mir Inzamam

Nicotine and Tobacco Research

Elisha R Oliver, PhD

Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine

Pasquale Caponnetto , Gabriella Papale , Davide Campagna

Husnul Khotimah Matoha

Innovative Publication

IP Innovative Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Robert McMillen

Louise cyferman

Lawrence Gostin

Merlyn Griffiths

Tobacco induced diseases

Jaymin Morjaria , Riccardo Polosa , Pasquale Caponnetto , Massimo Caruso , Davide Campagna

Coral Gartner

Judith Dean

Preventive Medicine

Martin Døssing

Journal of Medical Case Reports

Riccardo Polosa , Pasquale Caponnetto , Davide Campagna

Rachel A Barry

Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery

Vani Simmons

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Alayna P Tackett

Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco

Duygu Sarıkaya

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco

Michael Fiore , Kevin Walton

American journal of preventive medicine

Rebecca Bunnell

Arja Rimpelä

Guy Richards

divine macaranas

Open journal of preventive medicine

Cam Escoffery

Journal of Health Inequalities

Lukasz Gruszczynski

Therapeutic advances in drug safety

Konstantinos Farsalinos , Riccardo Polosa

Martin Dockrell , Rosemary Hiscock

Jamien Bontigao

Adele Phillips

Richard Bonnie

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Strong rhetoric on both sides of e-cigarettes debate – but little evidence

E-cigarettes are either going to save millions of lives by helping people to quit smoking or they are going to destroy millions of lives by luring children and young people into the habit. It is very hard for the onlooker to know what to believe, when the rhetoric is flying in both directions from very eminent people who all have a passionate commitment to public health.

The latest letter to Margaret Chan , director general of the World Health Organisation, swings the pendulum firmly back to the position of the opponents of a free market in e-cigarettes.

The language is tough and uncompromising. It is signed by those who fear, based on decades of evidence of bad behaviour, that the tobacco companies are getting involved in the nicotine delivery devices in order to undermine bans on cigarette advertising and smoking in public places.

The letter is a response to one from 53 scientists to Chan, sent on 3 June, which said in no less direct language that treating e-cigarettes like tobacco would deprive smokers of a new and increasingly popular way to quit. E-cigarettes, the scientists say, are a very useful harm reduction tool, allowing smokers to get their nicotine fix without the deadly tar in cigarettes. Among those who signed the earlier letter were Professor Gerry Stimson, of Imperial College, who has been at the forefront of harm reduction advocacy in drugs; the former government drugs adviser David Nutt; and Michel Kazatchkine, ex-head of the Global Fund, whose primary interest is HIV.

The opposing letter has twice the number of signatories, from all over the world. They fear a comeback by Big Tobacco, which is becoming the biggest player in the e-cigarette market. They do not believe claims that the industry wants to diversify. E-cigarettes may prove to be a profitable market, but globally tobacco is enormous, and growing in the developing world. Why would Big Tobacco support e-cigarettes if they are likely to shrink that market, the opponents ask.

The WHO has been moving in their direction. Some smaller European countries, such as Slovenia, have been asking for advice, and there are stories of e-cigarette shops opening outside schools. In October the WHO will meet to discuss whether to bring e-cigarettes into the framework convention on tobacco control, one of the proudest achievements of the WHO, although the man who played the lead role in its development while at the WHO, Derek Yach, now of the Vitality Institute in New York, is one of the 53 signatories opposing that.

There are thought to be two million people using e-cigarettes in the UK, and many of them say they have managed to stop smoking as a result. Many argue passionately that they have been rescued from harm and that everybody should have a right to use them if they want to. Strong feelings have led to outbursts of anger and even vitriol on Twitter, and some public health doctors say they have been threatened. That has increased their own conviction that malign forces – in the shape of the tobacco industry – must be pulling the strings.

In the end, only good scientific evidence will persuade the critics of e-cigarettes that they are not a danger. The studies that have been done, such as a recent one by Professor Robert West, from University College London, which showed that e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in helping people quit smoking, are not enough, opponents say. Their argument is that, until we know, we should opt to be safe rather than sorry.

More on this story

Whether they're called 'e-cigarettes' or 'vaporisers' the market is heating up

Plain cigarette packaging regulations to be announced by ministers

France plans to stub out e-joints

Doctors to vote on cigarette sale ban for those born after 2000

Banning those born after 2000 from smoking wouldn't have worked on me

E-cigarettes: is vaping any safer than old-fashioned smoke?

Government urged to act quickly on plain cigarette packaging

Liver cancer and malignant melanoma rates rise sharply in England

E-cigarettes have not been a gateway to traditional smoking – ONS

Doctors vote for ban on UK cigarette sales to those born after 2000

Comments (…), most viewed.

Jump to navigation

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Bahasa Malaysia

Conclusions about the effects of electronic cigarettes remain the same

An updated Cochrane Review provides an independent, rigorous assessment of the best available evidence to date about electronic cigarettes for quitting smoking.

Scroll to the bottom of this article for a round-up of media coverage

The conclusions of this updated Review are unchanged since the last review was published two years ago: electronic cigarettes may help smokers stop their smoking, and the included studies did not find any serious side effects associated with their use for up to two years.

Many studies are now underway which may help us understand more about their effects in the future.

The first Cochrane Review, published in the Cochrane Library in December 2014, showed that electronic cigarettes may be an aid to smokers in stopping their smoking. The updated Review did not find any new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term outcomes looking at the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes in helping people to stop smoking. However, this is an active area of research, with a large number of ongoing studies that will add to the evidence in the next few years.   

Smoking is a significant global health problem. Despite many smokers wanting to stop, they often find it difficult to succeed in the long term. One of the most effective and widely used strategies to help combat the cravings associated with nicotine addiction is to deliver nicotine by patches and chewing gum.

Electronic cigarettes have been around in some form for a number of years, but over the past few years their popularity has increased significantly, and they have begun to look and feel less like conventional cigarettes. Unlike chewing gum and patches, they mimic the experience of cigarette smoking because they are hand-held and generate a smoke-like vapour when used.  They help to recreate similar sensations of smoking without exposing users or others to the smoke from conventional cigarettes, and can be used to provide smokers with nicotine. Though they are used by many smokers, little is still known about how effective they are at helping people stop smoking.

This version of the updated Cochrane Review includes no new RCTs. The original Review included two RCTs involving more than 600 participants, and found that electronic cigarettes containing nicotine may increase the chances of stopping smoking within six to 12 months, compared to using an electronic cigarette without nicotine. The researchers could not determine whether using electronic cigarettes was better than a nicotine patch in helping people stop smoking, because there were not enough people taking part in the study.

This updated Review now includes observational data from an additional 11 studies.  Of the studies which measured side effects, none found any serious side effects of using electronic cigarettes for up to two years. The studies showed that throat and mouth irritation are the most commonly reported side effects in the short to medium term (up to two years).

The lead author of this Cochrane Review, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce from the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, said, “The randomized evidence on smoking cessation is unchanged since the last version of the Review. We are encouraged to find many studies are now underway, particularly as electronic cigarettes are an evolving technology. Since the last version of the Review, 11 new observational and uncontrolled studies have been published. In terms of quitting, these can’t provide the same information we get from randomized controlled trials, but they contribute further information on the side effects of using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking. None detected any serious side effects, but longer term data are needed.”

Read this Press Release in French, Spanish or Polish .

Editor’s notes Full citation: Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Stead LF, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD010216. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3.

Cochrane Review Author contact details : [email protected]

For all media enquiries, please contact:

Jo Anthony Senior Media and Communications Officer, Cochrane M +44(0) 7582 726 634 E  [email protected] or [email protected]

About Cochrane Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers, and people interested in health. Cochrane produces reviews which study all of the best available evidence generated through research and make it easier to inform decisions about health. These are called systematic reviews. Cochrane is a not-for-profit organization with collaborators from more than 130 countries working together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest. Our work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.

Find out more at cochrane.org  |  Follow us on twitter @cochranecollab

If you are a journalist or member of the press and wish to receive news alerts before their online publication or if you wish to arrange an interview with an author, please contact the Cochrane press office:  [email protected]

About Wiley Wiley is a global provider of knowledge and knowledge-enabled services that improve outcomes in areas of research, professional practice, and education. Through the Research segment, the Company provides digital and print scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising. The Professional Development segment provides digital and print books, online assessment and training services, and test prep and certification. In Education, Wiley provides education solutions including online program management services for higher education institutions and course management tools for instructors and students, as well as print and digital content. The Company's website can be accessed at http://www.wiley.com .

Selected Media Coverage:

E-cigarettes can help smokers quit, says study in The Guardian . Why can't scientists agree on e-cigarettes? blog post in The Guardian . E-Cigs Might Help Some Quit Smoking, New Study Reveals on Consumer Reports .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2016.

E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet].

Chapter 1 introduction, conclusions, and historical background relative to e-cigarettes.

• Introduction

Although conventional cigarette smoking has declined markedly over the past several decades among youth and young adults in the United States ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 2012 ), there have been substantial increases in the use of emerging tobacco products among these populations in recent years ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2015c ). Among these increases has been a dramatic rise in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among youth and young adults. It is crucial that the progress made in reducing cigarette smoking among youth and young adults not be compromised by the initiation and use of e-cigarettes. This Surgeon General’s report focuses on the history, epidemiology, and health effects of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults; the companies involved with marketing and promoting these products; and existing and proposed public health policies regarding the use of these products by youth and young adults.

E-cigarettes include a diverse group of devices that allow users to inhale an aerosol, which typically contains nicotine, flavorings, and other additives. E-cigarettes vary widely in design and appearance, but generally operate in a similar manner and are composed of similar components ( Figure 1.1 ). A key challenge for surveillance of the products and understanding their patterns of use is the diverse and nonstandard nomenclature for the devices ( Alexander et al. 2016 ). These devices are referred to, by the companies themselves, and by consumers, as “e-cigarettes,” “e-cigs,” “cigalikes,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.” In this report, the term “e-cigarette” is used to represent all of the various products in this rapidly diversifying product category. The terms may differ by geographic region or simply by the prevailing preferences among young users. For example, some refer to all cigarette-shaped products as “e-cigarettes” or as “cigalikes,” and some may refer to the pen-style e-cigarettes as “hookah pens” or “vape pens” ( Richtel 2014 ; Lempert et al. 2016 ).

Diversity of e-cigarette products. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

This report focuses on research conducted among youth and young adults because of the implications of e-cigarette use in this population, particularly the potential for future public health problems. Understanding e-cigarette use among young persons is critical because previous research suggests that about 9 in 10 adult smokers first try conventional cigarettes during adolescence ( USDHHS 2012 ). Similarly, youth e-cigarette experimentation and use could also extend into adulthood; however, e-cigarette use in this population has not been examined in previous reports of the Surgeon General. The first Surgeon General’s report on the health consequences of smoking was published in 1964; of the subsequent reports, those published in 1994 and 2012 focused solely on youth and young adults ( USDHHS 1994 , 2012 ). More recently, the 2012 report documented the evidence regarding tobacco use among youth and young adults, concluding that declines in cigarette smoking had slowed and that decreases in the use of smokeless tobacco had stalled. That report also found that the tobacco industry’s advertising and promotional activities are causal to the onset of smoking in youth and young adults and the continuation of such use as adults ( USDHHS 2012 ). However, the 2012 report was prepared before e-cigarettes were as widely promoted and used in the United States as they are now. Therefore, this 2016 report documents the scientific literature on these new products and their marketing, within the context of youth and young adults. This report also looks to the future by examining the potential impact of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, while also summarizing the research on current use, health consequences, and marketing as it applies to youth and young adults.

Evidence for this report was gathered from studies that included one or more of three age groups. We defined these age groups to be young adolescents (11–13 years of age), adolescents (14–17 years of age), and young adults (18–24 years of age). Some studies refer to the younger groups more generally as youth. Despite important issues related to e-cigarette use in adult populations, clinical and otherwise (e. g ., their potential for use in conventional smoking cessation), that literature will generally not be included in this report unless it also discusses youth and young adults ( Farsalinos and Polosa 2014 ; Franck et al. 2014 ; Grana et al. 2014 ).

Given the recency of the research that pertains to e-cigarettes, compared with the decades of research on cigarette smoking, the “precautionary principle” is used to guide actions to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults. This principle supports intervention to avoid possible health risks when the potential risks remain uncertain and have been as yet partially undefined ( Bialous and Sarma 2014 ; Saitta et al. 2014 ; Hagopian et al. 2015 ). Still, the report underscores and draws its conclusions from the known health risks of e-cigarette use in this age group.

Organization of the Report

This chapter presents a brief introduction to this report and includes its major conclusions followed by the conclusions of the chapters, the historical background of e-cigarettes, descriptions of the products, a review of the marketing and promotional activities of e-cigarette companies, and the current status of regulations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ). Chapter 2 (“Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults”) describes the epidemiology of e-cigarette use, including current use (i.e., past 30 day); ever use; co-occurrence of using e-cigarettes with other tobacco products, like cigarettes; and psychosocial factors associated with using e-cigarettes, relying on data from the most recent nationally representative studies available at the time this report was prepared. Chapter 3 (“Health Effects of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults”) documents the evidence related to the health effects of e-cigarette use, including those that are associated with direct aerosol inhalation by users, the indirect health effects of e-cigarette use, other non-aerosol health effects of e-cigarette use, and secondhand exposure to constituents of the aerosol. Chapter 4 (“Activities of the E-Cigarette Companies”) describes e-cigarette companies’ influences on e-cigarette use and considers manufacturing and price; the impact of price on sales and use; the rapid changes in the industry, particularly the e-cigarette companies; and the marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes. Chapter 5 (“E-Cigarette Policy and Practice Implications”) discusses the implications for policy and practice at the national, state, and local levels. The report ends with a Call to Action to stakeholders—including policymakers, public health practitioners and clinicians, researchers, and the public—to work to prevent harms from e-cigarette use and secondhand aerosol exposure among youth and young adults.

Preparation of this Report

This Surgeon General’s report was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC , which is part of USDHHS . The initial drafts of the chapters were written by 27 experts who were selected for their knowledge of the topics addressed. These contributions are summarized in five chapters that were evaluated by approximately 30 peer reviewers. After peer review, the entire manuscript was sent to more than 20 scientists and other experts, who examined it for its scientific integrity. After each review cycle, the drafts were revised by the report’s scientific editors on the basis of reviewers’ comments. Subsequently, the report was reviewed by various institutes and agencies within USDHHS.

Scientific Basis of the Report

The statements and conclusions throughout this report are documented by the citation of studies published in the scientific literature. Publication lags have prevented an up-to-the-minute inclusion of all recently published articles and data. This overall report primarily cites peer-reviewed journal articles, including reviews that integrate findings from numerous studies and books that were published through December 2015. However, selected studies from 2016 have been added during the review process that provide further support for the conclusions in this report. When a cited study has been accepted for publication, but the publication has not yet occurred because of the delay between acceptance and final publication, the study is referred to as “in press.” This report also refers, on occasion, to unpublished research, such as presentations at a professional meeting, personal communications from a researcher, or information available in various media. These references are employed when acknowledged by the editors and reviewers as being from reliable sources, which add to the emerging literature on a topic.

• Major Conclusions
• E-cigarettes are a rapidly emerging and diversified product class. These devices typically deliver nicotine, flavorings, and other additives to users via an inhaled aerosol. These devices are referred to by a variety of names, including “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.”
• E-cigarette use among youth and young adults has become a public health concern. In 2014, current use of e-cigarettes by young adults 18–24 years of age surpassed that of adults 25 years of age and older.
• E-cigarettes are now the most commonly used tobacco product among youth, surpassing conventional cigarettes in 2014. E-cigarette use is strongly associated with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, including combustible tobacco products.
• The use of products containing nicotine poses dangers to youth, pregnant women, and fetuses. The use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth, including in e-cigarettes, is unsafe.
• E-cigarette aerosol is not harmless. It can contain harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including nicotine. Nicotine exposure during adolescence can cause addiction and can harm the developing adolescent brain.
• E-cigarettes are marketed by promoting flavors and using a wide variety of media channels and approaches that have been used in the past for marketing conventional tobacco products to youth and young adults.
• Action can be taken at the national, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults. Actions could include incorporating e-cigarettes into smokefree policies, preventing access to e-cigarettes by youth, price and tax policies, retail licensure, regulation of e-cigarette marketing likely to attract youth, and educational initiatives targeting youth and young adults.
• Chapter Conclusions

Chapter 1. Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes

• E-cigarettes are devices that typically deliver nicotine, flavorings, and other additives to users via an inhaled aerosol. These devices are referred to by a variety of names, including “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.”
• E-cigarettes represent an evolution in a long history of tobacco products in the United States, including conventional cigarettes.
• In May 2016, the Food and Drug Administration issued the deeming rule, exercising its regulatory authority over e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.

Chapter 2. Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults

• Among middle and high school students, both ever and past-30-day e-cigarette use have more than tripled since 2011. Among young adults 18–24 years of age, ever e-cigarette use more than doubled from 2013 to 2014 following a period of relative stability from 2011 to 2013.
• The most recent data available show that the prevalence of past-30-day use of e-cigarettes is similar among high school students (16% in 2015, 13.4% in 2014) and young adults 18–24 years of age (13.6% in 2013–2014) compared to middle school students (5.3% in 2015, 3.9% in 2014) and adults 25 years of age and older (5.7% in 2013–2014).
• Exclusive, past-30-day use of e-cigarettes among 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students (6.8%, 10.4%, and 10.4%, respectively) exceeded exclusive, past-30-day use of conventional cigarettes in 2015 (1.4%, 2.2%, and 5.3%, respectively). In contrast—in 2013–2014 among young adults 18–24 years of age—exclusive, past-30-day use of conventional cigarettes (9.6%) exceeded exclusive, past-30-day use of e-cigarettes (6.1%). For both age groups, dual use of these products is common.
• E-cigarette use is strongly associated with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, particularly the use of combustible tobacco products. For example, in 2015, 58.8% of high school students who were current users of combustible tobacco products were also current users of e-cigarettes.
• Among youth—older students, Hispanics, and Whites are more likely to use e-cigarettes than younger students and Blacks. Among young adults—males, Hispanics, Whites, and those with lower levels of education are more likely to use e-cigarettes than females, Blacks, and those with higher levels of education.
• The most commonly cited reasons for using e-cigarettes among both youth and young adults are curiosity, flavoring/taste, and low perceived harm compared to other tobacco products. The use of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit conventional cigarettes is not reported as a primary reason for use among youth and young adults.
• Flavored e-cigarette use among young adult current users (18–24 years of age) exceeds that of older adult current users (25 years of age and older). Moreover, among youth who have ever tried an e-cigarette, a majority used a flavored product the first time they tried an e-cigarette.
• E-cigarette products can be used as a delivery system for cannabinoids and potentially for other illicit drugs. More specific surveillance measures are needed to assess the use of drugs other than nicotine in e-cigarettes.

Chapter 3. Health Effects of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults

• Nicotine exposure during adolescence can cause addiction and can harm the developing adolescent brain.
• Nicotine can cross the placenta and has known effects on fetal and postnatal development. Therefore, nicotine delivered by e-cigarettes during pregnancy can result in multiple adverse consequences, including sudden infant death syndrome, and could result in altered corpus callosum, deficits in auditory processing, and obesity.
• E-cigarettes can expose users to several chemicals, including nicotine, carbonyl compounds, and volatile organic compounds, known to have adverse health effects. The health effects and potentially harmful doses of heated and aerosolized constituents of e-cigarette liquids, including solvents, flavorants, and toxicants, are not completely understood.
• E-cigarette aerosol is not harmless “water vapor,” although it generally contains fewer toxicants than combustible tobacco products.
• Ingestion of e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine can cause acute toxicity and possibly death if the contents of refill cartridges or bottles containing nicotine are consumed.

Chapter 4. Activities of the E-Cigarette Companies

• The e-cigarette market has grown and changed rapidly, with notable increases in total sales of e-cigarette products, types of products, consolidation of companies, marketing expenses, and sales channels.
• Prices of e-cigarette products are inversely related to sales volume: as prices have declined, sales have sharply increased.
• E-cigarette products are marketed in a wide variety of channels that have broad reach among youth and young adults, including television, point-of-sale, magazines, promotional activities, radio, and the Internet.
• Themes in e-cigarette marketing, including sexual content and customer satisfaction, are parallel to themes and techniques that have been found to be appealing to youth and young adults in conventional cigarette advertising and promotion.

Chapter 5. E-Cigarette Policy and Practice Implications

• The dynamic nature of the e-cigarette landscape calls for expansion and enhancement of tobacco-related surveillance to include (a) tracking patterns of use in priority populations; (b) monitoring the characteristics of the retail market; (c) examining policies at the national, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels; (d) examining the channels and messaging for marketing e-cigarettes in order to more fully understand the impact future regulations could have; and (e) searching for sentinel health events in youth and young adult e-cigarette users, while longer-term health consequences are tracked.
• Strategic, comprehensive research is critical to identify and characterize the potential health risks from e-cigarette use, particularly among youth and young adults.
• The adoption of public health strategies that are precautionary to protect youth and young adults from adverse effects related to e-cigarettes is justified.
• A broad program of behavioral, communications, and educational research is crucial to assess how youth perceive e-cigarettes and associated marketing messages, and to determine what kinds of tobacco control communication strategies and channels are most effective.
• Health professionals represent an important channel for education about e-cigarettes, particularly for youth and young adults.
• Diverse actions, modeled after evidence-based tobacco control strategies, can be taken at the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, including incorporating e-cigarettes into smoke-free policies; preventing the access of youth to e-cigarettes; price and tax policies; retail licensure; regulation of e-cigarette marketing that is likely to attract youth and young adults, to the extent feasible under the law; and educational initiatives targeting youth and young adults. Among others, research focused on policy, economics, and the e-cigarette industry will aid in the development and implementation of evidence-based strategies and best practices.
• Historical Background

Understanding the role of e-cigarettes requires understanding the long history of tobacco use in the United States, including the role of nicotine delivery, the multiple examples of “reduced-harm” products and associated health claims, and the impact of using tobacco products on the public’s health. Since the late nineteenth century, when the “modern” cigarette came into use, scientists and public health officials have linked cigarette smoking to a remarkable number of adverse effects, and it is now recognized as the primary cause of premature death in the United States ( USDHHS 2014 ). Correspondingly, for a century, manufacturers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and public health leaders have promoted or recommended product changes that might remove some of the harmful elements in cigarette smoke. E-cigarettes are among the latest products.

E-cigarettes are designed for users to inhale nicotine, flavorings, and other additives through an aerosol. The claims and marketing strategies employed by the e-cigarette companies, and the efforts made by others to develop scientific and regulatory tools to deal with these new products, both contribute to the current discourse on e-cigarettes. Many lessons for assessing the potential (and future) consequences of these products can be learned from examining the relevant experiences of the past century, especially the introduction of novel products (including e-cigarettes as well as other tobacco and nicotine products) and the claims of reduced exposure to toxins made by the industry and elsewhere.

Early Efforts to Modify Cigarettes

In the 1880s and 1890s, entrepreneurs promoted novel products that allegedly blocked nicotine and other constituents of conventional cigarettes believed to be poisonous. Dr. Scott’s Electric Cigarettes, advertised in Harper’s Weekly, claimed not only to light without matches but also to contain a cotton filter that “strains and eliminates the injurious qualities from the smoke,” including nicotine ( Harper’s Weekly 1887 ). Nicotine delivery was essential to the development of the modern cigarette in the twentieth century; early on, this substance was thought to be addicting and thus vital to retaining customers. In 1913, the Camel brand was a new kind of cigarette that introduced high-nicotine content by using burley tobacco, which was generally too harsh to inhale into the lungs, but was made more inhalable through the addition of casings (e. g ., sugars, licorice) ( Tindall 1992 ; Proctor 2011 ). In 1916, American Tobacco introduced its Lucky Strike blended cigarette, and in 1918 Liggett & Myers ( L &M) reformulated its Chesterfield brand to make it more palatable to users. As the market grew, advertisements for major brands routinely included health-related statements and testimonials from physicians. During the 1930s and 1940s, prominent advertising campaigns included claims like “Not a cough in a carload” (Old Gold) ( Federal Trade Commission [FTC] 1964 , p. LBA-5); “We removed from the tobacco harmful corrosive ACRIDS (pungent irritants) present in cigarettes manufactured in the old-fashioned way” (Lucky Strike) ( FTC 1964 , p. LBA-2); and “Smoking Camels stimulates the natural flow of digestive fluids … increases alkalinity” (Camel) ( FTC 1964 , p. LBA-1a). Thus, early modifications to the cigarette were made so that it was more palatable, had a higher nicotine delivery and uptake, and could be marketed as “safe” ( FTC 1964 ; Calfee 1985 ).

Filters, Tar Reduction, and Light and Low-Tar Cigarettes

The landmark 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health concluded that cigarette smoking contributed substantially to mortality from certain specific diseases, including lung cancer ( U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1964 ). Although the 1964 report considered the topic, it found the evidence insufficient to assess the potential health benefits of cigarette filters. Cigarettes with filters became the norm by the 1960s, and marketing them with an overt message about harm reduction became the standard ( National Cancer Institute [NCI] 1996 ). However, the Surgeon General convened another group of experts on June 1, 1966, to review the evidence on the role played by the tar and nicotine content in health. The group concluded that “[t]he preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the lower the ‘tar’ and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful are the effects” ( Horn 1966 , p. 16,168). Subsequent studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate health benefits of smoking light and low-tar cigarettes versus full-flavor cigarettes ( Herning et al. 1981 ; Russell et al. 1982 ; Benowitz et al. 1983 , NCI 2001 ).

Over the years, the tobacco industry used multiple methods to reduce the machine-tested yields of tar and nicotine in cigarettes as a way to claim “healthier” cigarettes. Beginning in the 1970s, tobacco companies advertised the tar and nicotine levels for their cigarettes, which encouraged smokers to believe, without substantiation, they could reduce their risk of exposure to these constituents ( Cummings et al. 2002 ; Pollay and Dewhirst 2002 ). In 1996, the FTC issued a statement that it would allow cigarette companies to include statements about tar and nicotine content in their advertising as long as they used a standardized machine-testing method ( Peeler 1996 ).

The Role of Nicotine and Nicotine Delivery

Although the public health community understood early on that nicotine was the primary psycho-active ingredient in cigarette smoke, before the 1980s, little was known about the importance of nicotine in the addiction process beyond what the cigarette manufacturers had learned from their own research. Some scientists warned that due to nicotine addiction, a reduction in nicotine yields, along with decreases in tar, could lead smokers to change their smoking behavior, such as by smoking a greater number of cigarettes to maintain their nicotine intake or changing their behavior in more subtle ways, such as varying the depth of inhalation or smoking more of the cigarette ( Jarvis et al. 2001 ; National Cancer Institute 2001 ; Thun and Burns 2001 ). Not until the 1970s and 1980s, as researchers studying other forms of drug abuse began to apply their research methods to cigarette smoking, did it become apparent that nicotine was similar in its addictive capability to other drugs of abuse, such as heroin and cocaine ( USDHHS 1981 , 1988 ). As described in the 1988 Surgeon General’s report and in subsequent research, symptoms associated with nicotine addiction include craving, withdrawal, and unconscious behaviors to ensure consistent intake of nicotine ( USDHHS 1988 ; al’Absi et al. 2002 ; Hughes 2007 ).

Although the tobacco industry has long understood the importance of nicotine to maintain long-term cigarette smokers through addiction, public health officials did not fully appreciate this in a broad sense until the 1988 Surgeon General’s report, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction ( USDHHS 1988 ).

FDA and Nicotine Regulation

In 1988 (and again in 1994), the Coalition on Smoking OR Health and other public-interest organizations petitioned FDA to classify low-tar and nicotine products as drugs and to classify Premier, the short-lived “smokeless cigarette product” from R.J. Reynolds, as an alternative nicotine-delivery system ( Stratton et al. 2001 ). The Coalition on Smoking OR Health cited indirect claims made through advertising and marketing as evidence of R. J. Reynolds’s intent to have the product used for the mitigation or prevention of disease ( Slade and Ballin 1993 ). Meanwhile, FDA launched an investigation into the practices of the tobacco industry, including the manipulation of nicotine delivery. FDA asserted its jurisdiction over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and issued certain rules governing access to and promotion of these products ( Federal Register 1996 ). On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress had not yet given FDA the necessary statutory authority to issue any rules pertaining to tobacco products ( Gottleib 2000 ; FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 2000 ). The subsequent debate over control of nicotine products, including their potential impact on youth, ultimately led to the passage of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Thus, discussions about the introduction of novel nicotine-containing tobacco products in the market during the 1980s and 1990s helped shape the current regulation of tobacco and nicotine products.

New products introduced in the 1990s or later included modified tobacco cigarettes (e. g ., Advance, Omni); cigarette-like products, also called cigalikes (e.g., Eclipse, Accord); and smokeless tobacco products (e.g., Ariva, Exalt, Revel, snus). Advance, made by Brown and Williamson, was test-marketed with the slogan “All of the taste … Less of the toxins.” Vector launched a national advertising campaign for its Omni cigarette with the slogan “Reduced carcinogens. Premium taste.” In addition to the question of whether the claims were supported by sufficient evidence, scientists and tobacco control leaders raised concerns about the potential for adverse consequences associated with novel nicotine and tobacco products marketed for harm reduction, such as a reduction in cessation rates or increased experimentation by children ( Warner and Martin 2003 ; Joseph et al. 2004 ; Caraballo et al. 2006 ). Studies have shown that smokers are interested in trying novel “reduced-exposure” products and perceive them to have lower health risks, even when advertising messages do not make explicit health claims ( Hamilton et al. 2004 ; O’Connor et al. 2005 ; Caraballo et al. 2006 ; Choi et al. 2012 ; Pearson et al. 2012 ).

At FDA ’s request, the Institute of Medicine ( IOM [now the National Academy of Medicine]) convened a committee of experts to formulate scientific methods and standards by which potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs), whether the purported reduction was pharmaceutical or tobacco related, could be assessed. The committee concluded that “[f]or many diseases attributable to tobacco use, reducing risk of disease by reducing exposure to tobacco toxicants is feasible” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 232). However, it also cautioned that “PREPs have not yet been evaluated comprehensively enough (including for a sufficient time) to provide a scientific basis for concluding that they are associated with a reduced risk of dis ease compared to conventional tobacco use” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 232). The committee added that “the major concern for public health is that tobacco users who might otherwise quit will use PREPs instead, or others may initiate smoking, feeling that PREPs are safe. That will lead to less harm reduction for a population (as well as less risk reduction for that individual) than would occur without the PREP , and possibly to an adverse effect on the population” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 235). Subsequently, in 2006, Judge Kessler cited these findings in her decision which demanded the removal of light and low-tar labeling due to the misleading nature of these claims ( United States v. Philip Morris 2006 ).

• The E-Cigarette

Invention of the E-Cigarette

An early approximation of the current e-cigarette appeared in a U.S. patent application submitted in 1963 by Herbert A. Gilbert and was patented in August 1965 (U.S. Patent No. 3,200,819) ( Gilbert 1965 ). The application was for a “smokeless nontobacco cigarette,” with the aim of providing “a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking” by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air. A battery-powered heating element would heat the flavor elements without combustion ( Gilbert 1965 ). The Favor cigarette, introduced in 1986, was another early noncombustible product promoted as an alternative nicotine-containing tobacco product ( United Press International 1986 ; Ling and Glantz 2005 ).

The first device in the recent innovation in e-cigarettes was developed in 2003 by the Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik, a former deputy director of the Institute of Chinese Medicine in Liaoning Province. Lik’s patent application described a kind of electronic atomizing cigarette ( Hon 2013 ). With support from Chinese investors, in 2004 the product was introduced on the Chinese market under the company name Ruyan ( Sanford and Goebel 2014 ). The product gained some attention among Chinese smokers early on as a potential cessation device or an alternative cigarette product.

The e-cigarette was part of the U.S. market by the mid-2000s, and by 2010 additional brands started to appear in the nation’s marketplace, including Ruyan and Janty ( Regan et al. 2013 ). Ruyan gained a U.S. patent for its product with the application stating that the product is “an electronic atomization cigarette that functions as substitutes (sic) for quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.” (U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628 B2, 2013). In August 2013, Imperial Tobacco Group purchased the intellectual property behind the Ruyan e-cigarette for $75 million. As of 2014 an estimated 90% of the world’s production of e-cigarette technology and products came from mainland China, mainly Guangdong Province and Zhejiang Province ( Barboza 2014 ).

Sales of e-cigarettes in the United States have risen rapidly since 2007. Widespread advertising via television commercials and through print advertisements for popular brands, often featuring celebrities, has contributed to a large increase in e-cigarette use by both adults and youth since 2010 ( Felberbaum 2013 ; King et al. 2013 ; Regan et al. 2013 ). Additionally, marketing through social media, as well as other forms of Internet marketing, has been employed to market these devices ( Huang et al. 2014 ; Kim et al. 2014 ).

In 2013, an estimated 13.1 million middle school and high school students were aware of e-cigarettes ( Wang et al. 2014 ). According to data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, in 2011 the prevalence of current e-cigarette use (defined as use during at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school students was 1.5%; prevalence increased dramatically, however, to 16% by 2015, surpassing the rate of conventional-cigarette use among high school students ( CDC 2016b ; see Chapter 2 ). This equates to 2.4 million high school students and 620,000 middle school students having used an e-cigarette at least one time in the past 30 days in 2015 ( CDC 2016b ).

These trends have led to substantial concern and discussion within public health communities, including state and national public health agencies, professional organizations, and school administrators and teachers. A primary concern is the potential for nicotine addiction among nonsmokers, especially youth and young adults, and that this exposure to nicotine among youth and young adults is harmful. The diversity and novelty of e-cigarette products on the market and ongoing product innovations make assessments of the biological effects of current e-cigarettes under actual conditions of use—such as their long-term harmfulness—difficult to measure. Unanswered questions remain about the risk profile of these devices, their potential use by young people as a first step to other nicotine products, and their total impact on public health. There are diverging opinions about the potential public health impact of these new products. Some public health scientists have highlighted the potential for alternative nicotine products to serve as a substitute for conventional cigarettes and thus a harm reduction tool ( Henningfield et al. 2003 ; Abrams 2014 ). Others have cautioned that the use of alternative nicotine products might become a bridge that may lead to greater tobacco product use—including dual- or multiple-product use—or initiate nicotine addiction among nonsmokers, especially youth ( Cobb et al. 2010 ; Wagener et al. 2012 ; Benowitz and Goniewicz 2013 ; Britton 2013 ; Chapman 2013 ; Etter 2013 ; USDHHS 2014 ). Current evidence is insufficient to reject either of these hypotheses.

E-Cigarette Products

Components and devices.

E-cigarette devices are composed of a battery, a reservoir for holding a solution that typically contains nicotine, a heating element or an atomizer, and a mouthpiece through which the user puffs ( Figure 1.2 ). The device heats a liquid solution (often called e-liquid or e-juice) into an aerosol that is inhaled by the user. E-liquid typically uses propylene glycol and/or glycerin as a solvent for the nicotine and flavoring chemicals

Parts of an e-cigarette device. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

Flavors and E-Cigarettes

The e-liquids in e-cigarettes are most often flavored; a study estimated that 7,700 unique flavors exist ( Zhu et al. 2014 ) and that most of them are fruit or candy flavors ( Figure 1.3 ). A content analysis of the products available via online retail websites documented that tobacco, mint, coffee, and fruit flavors were most common, followed by candy (e. g ., bubble gum), unique flavors (e.g., Belgian waffle), and alcoholic drink flavors (e.g., strawberry daiquiri) ( Grana and Ling 2014 ). Some retail stores are also manufacturers that create custom flavors, which increases the variety of flavors available.

Examples of e-liquid flavors. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

The widespread availability and popularity of flavored e-cigarettes is a key concern regarding the potential public health implications of the products. The concern, among youth, is that the availability of e-cigarettes with sweet flavors will facilitate nicotine addiction and simulated smoking behavior—which will lead to the use of conventional tobacco products ( Kong et al. 2015 ; Krishnan-Sarin et al. 2015 ). Flavors have been used for decades to attract youth to tobacco products and to mask the flavor and harshness of tobacco ( USDHHS 2012 ). Industry documents show that tobacco companies marketed flavored little cigars and cigarillos to youth and to African Americans to facilitate their uptake of cigarettes ( Kostygina et al. 2014 ). Companies also intended flavored smokeless tobacco products to facilitate “graduation” to unflavored products that more easily deliver more nicotine to the user ( USDHHS 2012 ). Various studies have shown that youth are more likely than adults to choose flavored cigarettes and cigars ( CDC 2015b ). Concern over these findings led Congress to include a ban on characterizing flavors for cigarettes, other than tobacco or menthol, in the Tobacco Control Act. A similar concern exists about e-cigarettes, and this concern is supported by studies indicating that youth and young adults who have ever used e-cigarettes begin their use with sweet flavors rather than tobacco flavors ( Kong et al. 2015 ; Krishnan-Sarin et al. 2015 ). Notably, 81.5% of current youth e-cigarette users said they used e-cigarettes “because they come in flavors I like” ( Ambrose et al. 2015 ).

E-Cigarette Devices

First-generation e-cigarettes were often similar in size and shape to conventional cigarettes, with a design that also simulated a traditional cigarette in terms of the colors used (e. g ., a white body with tan mouthpiece). These devices were often called cigalikes, but there were other products designed to simulate a cigar or pipe. Other cigalikes were slightly longer or narrower than a cigarette; they may combine white with tan or may be black or colored brightly. These newer models use a cartridge design for the part of the device that holds the e-liquid, which is either prefilled with the liquid or empty and ready to be filled. The user then squeezes drops of the e-liquid onto a wick (or bit of cotton or polyfil) connected to the heating element and atomizer ( Figure 1.4 ). As e-cigarettes have become more popular, their designs have become more diverse, as have the types of venues where they are sold ( Noel et al. 2011 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ).

E-liquids being poured into an e-cigarette device. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

Second-generation devices include products that are shaped like pens, are comparatively larger and cylindrical, and are often referred to as “tank systems” in a nod to the transparent reservoir that holds larger amounts of e-liquid than previous cartridge-containing models. Third- and fourth-generation devices represent a diverse set of products and, aesthetically, constitute the greatest departure from the traditional cigarette shape, as many are square or rectangular and feature customizable and rebuildable atomizers and batteries. In addition, since the beginning of the availability of e-cigarettes and their component parts, users have been modifying the devices or building their own devices, which are often referred to as “mods.” The differences in design and engineering of the products are key factors in the size, distribution, and amount of aerosol particles and the variability in levels of chemicals and nicotine present in the e-liquid/aerosol and delivered to the user ( Brown and Cheng 2014 ).

E-Cigarette Product Components and Risks

One of the primary features of the more recent generation of devices is that they contain larger batteries and are capable of heating the liquid to a higher temperature, potentially releasing more nicotine, forming additional toxicants, and creating larger clouds of particulate matter ( Bhatnagar et al. 2014 ; Kosmider et al. 2014 ). For instance, one study demonstrated that, at high temperatures (150°C), exceedingly high levels of formaldehyde—a carcinogen (found to be 10 times higher than at ambient temperatures)—are present that are formed through the heating of the e-liquid solvents (propylene glycol and glycerin), although the level of tolerance of actual users to the taste of the aerosol heated to this temperature is debated ( Kosmider et al. 2014 ; CDC 2015a ; Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States 2015 ; Pankow et al. 2015 ). There is also concern regarding the safety of inhaling e-cigarette flavorings. Although some manufacturers have claimed their flavorants are generally recognized as safe for food additives (i.e., to be used in preparing foods for eating), little is known about the long-term health effects of inhaling these substances into the lungs ( CDC 2015a ).

Many devices can be readily customized by their users, which is also leading to the concern that these devices are often being used to deliver drugs other than nicotine ( Brown and Cheng 2014 ). Most commonly reported in the news media, on blogs, and by user anecdote is the use of certain types of e-cigarette-related products for delivering different forms of marijuana ( Morean et al. 2015 ; Schauer et al. 2016 ). The tank systems, for example, have been used with liquid tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) or hash oil. Some personal vaporizer devices can be used with marijuana plant material or a concentrated resin form of marijuana called “wax.” One study describes the use, in Europe, of e-cigarette devices to smoke marijuana ( Etter 2015 ).

The various e-cigarette products, viewed as a group, lack standardization in terms of design, capacity for safely holding e-liquid, packaging of the e-liquid, and features designed to minimize hazards with use ( Yang et al. 2014 ). All of these design features may have implications for the health impact of e-cigarette use. Notably, from 2010 to 2014, calls to poison control centers in the United States about exposures related to e-cigarettes increased dramatically. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (2015) , 271 cases were reported in 2011, but 3,783 calls were reported in 2014. Among all calls, 51% involved exposure among children younger than 5 years of age ( CDC 2014 ). Most poisonings appear to have been caused by exposure to nicotine-containing liquid ( CDC 2014 ). The lack of a requirement for child-resistant packaging for e-liquid containers may have contributed to these poisonings. Since these data were released, one death in the United States has been confirmed in a child who drank e-liquid containing nicotine ( Mohney 2014 ). Additionally, serious adverse reactions, including at least two deaths, have been reported to FDA in cases that could be attributed to the use of e-cigarettes ( FDA 2013 ). This increase in poisonings prompted the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 (2016) , which was enacted in January 2016. This law requires any container of liquid nicotine that is sold, manufactured, distributed, or imported into the United States to be placed in packaging that is difficult to open by children under 5 years of age.

Secondary risks are also of concern regarding e-cigarettes, including passive exposure to nicotine and other chemicals, and adverse events due to device malfunction. Nicotine is a neuroteratogen, and its use by pregnant women exposes a developing fetus to risks that are well documented in the 50th-anniversary Surgeon General’s report on smoking ( USDHHS 2014 ) and include impaired brain development ( England et al. 2015 ) and other serious consequences. Finally, another consequence of the lack of device regulation is the occurrence of battery failures and subsequent explosions. Explosions have typically occurred during charging, resulting in house and car fires, and sometimes causing injuries to those involved. From 2009 to late 2014, 25 incidents of explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes occurred in the United States ( Chen 2013 ; U.S. Fire Administration 2014 ; FDA 2013 ).

• E-Cigarette Companies

E-cigarette companies include manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, retailers, distributors, and some other groups that overlap with these entities ( Barboza 2014 ; Whelan 2015 ). Currently, most of the products are manufactured in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China ( Cobb et al. 2010 ; Grana et al. 2014 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ). One study placed the number of brands at 466 in January 2014 and found a net increase of 10.5 brands per month ( Zhu et al. 2014 ). All the major tobacco companies (e. g ., Reynolds American, Altria; Table 1.1 ) and many smaller, independent companies are now in the business. When e-cigarettes first entered the U.S. market, they were sold primarily by independent companies via the Internet and in shopping malls at kiosks where those interested could sample the products. A unique feature of the e-cigarette industry, compared to other tobacco and nicotine products, is the recruitment of visitors to their websites as “affiliates” or distributors to help market the products and, in turn, receive commissions on sales ( Grana and Ling 2014 ; Cobb et al. 2015 ). For example, some companies offer a way for users to earn a commission by advertising the products (e.g., a banner ad is placed on one’s website, and when someone clicks on the link and subsequently purchases a product, the website owner gets a percentage commission). Some companies also offer rewards programs for recruiting new customers or for brand loyalty, with web-site users earning points for free or reduced-price products ( Richardson et al. 2015 ).

Multinational tobacco companies with e-cigarette brands.

E-cigarettes are now in widespread national distribution through convenience stores, tobacco stores, pharmacies, “big box” retail chains such as Costco, online retailers, and shops devoted to e-cigarette products (often called “vape shops”) ( Giovenco et al. 2015 ; Public Health Law Center 2015 ). The “vape shops” offer a place to buy customizable devices and e-liquid solutions in many flavors and sometimes include a café or other elements that promote socializing, essentially making such places like a lounge. With the rapid increase in distribution and marketing in the industry, sales have increased rapidly and were projected to reach $2.5 billion in 2014 and $3.5 billion in 2015, including projections for retail and online channels, as well as “vape shops” ( Wells Fargo Securities 2015 ).

The advertising and marketing of e-cigarette products has engendered skepticism among public health professionals and legislators, who have noted many similarities to the advertising claims and promotional tactics used for decades by the tobacco industry to sell conventional tobacco products ( Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 2013 ; CDC 2016a ). Indeed, several of the e-cigarette marketing themes have been reprised from the most memorable cigarette advertising, including those focused on freedom, rebellion, and glamor ( Grana and Ling 2014 ). E-cigarette products are marketed with a variety of unsubstantiated health and cessation messages, with some websites featuring videos of endorsements by physicians (another reprisal of old tobacco industry advertising) ( Grana and Ling 2014 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ). Unlike conventional cigarettes, for which advertising has been prohibited from radio and television since 1971, e-cigarette products are advertised on both radio and television, with many ads featuring celebrities. E-cigarettes also are promoted through sports and music festival sponsorships, in contrast to conventional cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, which have been prohibited from such sponsorships since the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998. E-cigarettes also appear as product placements in television shows and movies ( Grana et al. 2011 ; Grana and Ling 2014 ).

Another key avenue for e-cigarette promotion is social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. As is true in the tobacco industry, the e-cigarette industry organizes users through advocacy groups ( Noel et al. 2011 ; Harris et al. 2014 ; Saitta et al. 2014 ; Caponnetto et al. 2015 ). The extensive marketing and advocacy through various channels broadens exposure to e-cigarette marketing messages and products; such activity may encourage nonsmokers, particularly youth and young adults, to perceive e-cigarette use as socially normative. The plethora of unregulated advertising is of particular concern, as exposure to advertising for tobacco products among youth is associated with cigarette smoking in a dose-response fashion ( USDHHS 2012 ).

• Federal Regulation of E-Cigarettes

A “Two-Pronged” Approach to Comprehensive Tobacco Control

Since the passage of the Tobacco Control Act in 2009, FDA has had the authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products sold in the United States. FDA had immediate jurisdiction over cigarettes, roll-your-own cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. In May 2016, FDA asserted jurisdiction over products that meet the statutory definition of a tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, except accessories of these products ( Federal Register 2016 ). That regulation is currently under litigation.

The IOM ’s 2007 report, Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation, established a “two-pronged” strategy for comprehensive tobacco control: (1) full implementation of proven, traditional tobacco control measures such as clean indoor air laws, taxation, and countermarketing campaigns; and (2) “strong federal regulation of tobacco products and their marketing and distribution” ( Bonnie et al. 2007 , p. 1).

Included in FDA ’s broad authority are the restriction of marketing and sales to youth, requiring disclosure of ingredients and harmful and potentially harmful constituents, setting product standards (e. g ., requiring the reduction or elimination of ingredients or constituents), requiring premarket approval of new tobacco products and review of modified-risk tobacco products, and requiring health warnings. The standard for FDA to use many of its regulatory authorities is whether such an action is appropriate for the protection of public health ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 907(a)(3)(A)). The public health standard in the Tobacco Control Act also requires FDA to consider the health impact of certain regulatory actions at both the individual and population levels, including their impact on nonusers, and on initiation and cessation ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 907(a)(3)(B)).

Importantly, the Tobacco Control Act preserves the authority of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to enact any policy “in addition to, or more stringent than” requirements established under the Tobacco Control Act “relating to or prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, exposure to, access to, advertising and promotion of, or use of tobacco products by individuals of any age” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(1)). This preservation of state and local authority ensures the continuation of more local-level, comprehensive tobacco control. However, the statute expressly preempts states and localities from establishing or continuing requirements that are different from or in addition to FDA requirements regarding standards for tobacco products, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing practices, or modified-risk tobacco products ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(2)(A)). But this express preemption provision does not apply to state and local authority to impose requirements relating to the “sale, distribution, possession, information reporting to the State, exposure to, access to, the advertising and promotion of, or use of, tobacco products by individuals of any age …” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(2)(b)). The interaction of these complex provisions related to federal preemption of state law has been the subject of challenges by the tobacco industry to state and local laws. Thus far, courts have upheld certain local ordinances restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products ( National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence 2013 ; U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. City of New York 2013 ).

Legal Basis for Regulating E-Cigarettes as Tobacco Products

In the United States, e-cigarettes can be regulated either as products marketed for therapeutic purposes or as tobacco products. Since the advent of e-cigarettes in the United States around 2007, manufacturers have had the option to apply to FDA ’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ( CDER ) or Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) for approval to market e-cigarettes for therapeutic purposes; as of August 2016, no e-cigarette manufacturers have received approval through this avenue.

In 2008 and early 2009, FDA detained multiple shipments of e-cigarettes from overseas manufacturers and denied them entry into the United States on the grounds that e-cigarettes were unapproved drug-device combination products ( FDA 2011 ). Sottera, Inc., which now does business as NJOY, challenged that determination ( Smoking Everywhere, Inc. and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. 2010 ; Bloomberg Business 2015 ). Between the filing of the lawsuit and a decision on the motion for preliminary injunction, Congress passed the Tobacco Control Act and the President signed it into law. The Tobacco Control Act defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product, including component parts or accessories, “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or “combination product” as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)) ( Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 2009 , § 101(a)). The District Court subsequently granted a preliminary injunction relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown and Williamson (1996) and the recently enacted Tobacco Control Act. FDA appealed the decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that e-cigarettes and, therefore, other products “made or derived from tobacco” are not drug/device combinations unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes, but can be regulated by FDA as tobacco products under the Tobacco Control Act ( Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration 2010 ).

On September 25, 2015, FDA proposed regulations to describe the circumstances in which a product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption will be subject to regulation as a drug, device, or a combination product. The comment period for this proposed regulation closed on November 24, 2015.

Most e-cigarettes marketed and sold in the United States today contain nicotine made or derived from tobacco. Although some e-cigarettes claim that they contain nicotine not derived from tobacco, or that they contain no nicotine at all ( Lempert et al. 2016 ), there may be reason to doubt some of these claims. Currently, synthetic nicotine and nicotine derived from genetically modified, nontobacco plants are cost-prohibitive for e-cigarette manufacturers, although technological advances could eventually increase the cost-effectiveness of using nicotine that was not derived from tobacco ( Lempert et al. 2016 ). The health effects of passive exposure to e-cigarettes with no nicotine, as well as their actual use and the extent of exposure to these products, have just begun to be studied ( Hall et al. 2014 ; Marini et al. 2014 ; Schweitzer et al. 2015 ) and some states and localities are taking steps to regulate e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine or tobacco ( Lempert et al. 2016 ).

Deeming Rule

The Tobacco Control Act added a new chapter to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , which provides FDA with authority over tobacco products. The new chapter applied immediately to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco; and the law included “any other tobacco products that the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , §901 (b)). Therefore, to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products, FDA was required to undertake a rulemaking process to extend its regulatory authority to include e-cigarettes.

• Prohibitions on adulterated and misbranded products;
• Required disclosure of existing health information, including lists of ingredients and documents on health effects;
• Required registration of manufacturers;
• Required disclosure of a list of all tobacco products, including information related to labeling and advertising;
• Premarket review of new tobacco products (i.e., those not on the market on February 15, 2007);
• Restrictions on products marketed with claims about modified risk.
• Minimum age restrictions to prevent sales to minors;
• Requirements to include a nicotine warning; and
• Prohibitions on vending machine sales, unless in a facility that never admits youth.

Future Regulatory Options

• Product standards, including restrictions on flavors;
• Restrictions on promotion, marketing, and advertising, and prohibitions on brand-name sponsorship of events;
• Minimum package sizes;
• Prohibitions on self-service displays;
• Child-resistant packaging and the inclusion of health warnings; and
• Regulation of nicotine levels in products.

Despite this broad authority, FDA is prohibited from certain regulatory actions, even if those actions may be appropriate for the protection of public health. Specifically, FDA generally cannot restrict tobacco use in public places, levy taxes on tobacco products, prohibit sales by a specific category of retail outlet (e. g ., pharmacies), completely eliminate nicotine in tobacco products, require prescriptions for tobacco products unless it is marketed for therapeutic purposes, or establish a federal minimum age of sale for tobacco products above 18 years of age. Thus, even if FDA fully exercises all of its existing authority over e-cigarettes, regulation will still need to be complemented at the state and local levels, including efforts previously shown to be effective for conventional tobacco products, such as comprehensive smokefree laws at the state and local levels, pricing strategies, raising the minimum age of sales to minors to 21, and high-impact countermarketing campaigns. In the current context of rising rates of use by youth, localities and states can also implement policies and programs that minimize the individual- and population-level harms of e-cigarettes (see Chapter 5 ).

This chapter presents the major conclusions of this Surgeon General’s report and the conclusions of each chapter. E-cigarettes are presented within their historical context, with an overview of the components of these devices and the types of products. In 2016, FDA announced its final rule to regulate e-cigarettes under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The chapter outlines options for the regulation of e-cigarettes, particularly as they relate to youth and young adults, based on successful smoking policies. The need to protect youth and young adults from initiating or continuing the use of nicotine-containing products forms a strong basis for the need to regulate e-cigarettes at the local, state, and national levels in the future.

• Abrams DB. Promise and peril of e-cigarettes: can disruptive technology make cigarettes obsolete? JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;311(2):135–6. [ PubMed : 24399548 ]
• al’Absi M, Amunrud T, Wittmers LE. Psychophysiological effects of nicotine abstinence and behavioral challenges in habitual smokers. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 2002;72(3):707–16. [ PubMed : 12175468 ]
• Alexander JP, Coleman BN, Johnson SE, Tesseman GK, Tworek C, Dickinson DM. Smoke and vapor: exploring the terminology landscape among electronic cigarette users. Tobacco Regulation Science 2016;2(3):201–13. [ PMC free article : PMC4944844 ] [ PubMed : 27430008 ]
• Ambrose BK, Day HR, Rostron B, Conway KP, Borek N, Hyland A, Villanti AC. Flavored tobacco product use among U.S. youth aged 12–17 years, 2013–2014. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2015;314(17):1871–3. [ PMC free article : PMC6467270 ] [ PubMed : 26502219 ]
• American Association of Poison Control Centers. Electronic Cigarettes and Liquid Nicotine Data, 2015; < https://aapcc ​.s3.amazonaws ​.com/files/library ​/E-cig__Nicotine_Web_Data_through_3 ​.2015.pdf >; accessed: April 30, 2015.
• Barboza D. China’s e-cigarette boom lacks oversight for safety. New York Times, December 13, 2014; < http://nyti ​.ms/1zNA4da >; accessed: October 28, 2015.
• Benowitz NL, Goniewicz ML. The regulatory challenge of electronic cigarettes. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2013;310(7):685–6. [ PubMed : 23856948 ]
• Benowitz NL, Hall SM, Herning RI, Jacob III P, Jones RT, Osman AL. Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. New England Journal of Medicine 1983;309(3):139–42. [ PubMed : 6866013 ]
• Bhatnagar A, Whitsel LP, Ribisl KM, Bullen C, Chaloupka F, Piano MR, Robertson RM, McAuley T, Goff D, Benowitz N. Electronic cigarettes: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;130(16):1418–36. [ PMC free article : PMC7643636 ] [ PubMed : 25156991 ]
• Bialous SA, Sarma L. Electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation: a quandary? Lancet 2014;383(9915):407–8. [ PubMed : 24485576 ]
• Bloomberg Business. Company overview of Sottera, Inc, 2015; < http://www ​.bloomberg ​.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot ​.asp?privcapId=52089038 >; accessed: June 22, 2015.
• Bonnie RJ, Stratton KR, Wallace RB, editors. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation . Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2007.
• Britton J. Electronic cigarettes. Thorax 2013;68(10):904–5. [ PubMed : 23939400 ]
• Brown CJ, Cheng JM. Electronic cigarettes: product characterisation and design considerations. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 2): ii4–ii10. [ PMC free article : PMC3995271 ] [ PubMed : 24732162 ]
• Calfee JE. Cigarette Advertising, Health Information and Regulation Before 1970 . Working Paper No. 134. Washington (DC): Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, 1985.
• Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 7 ways e-cigarette companies are copying big tobacco’s playbook, October 2, 2013; < http://www ​.tobaccofreekids ​.org/tobacco_unfiltered ​/post/2013_10_02_ecigarettes >; accessed: April 20, 2016.
• Caponnetto P, Saitta D, Sweanor D, Polosa R. What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: pros, cons and unintended consequences. International Journal on Drug Policy 2015;26(6):554–9. [ PubMed : 25857204 ]
• Caraballo RS, Pederson LL, Gupta N. New tobacco products: do smokers like them? Tobacco Control 2006;15(1):39–44. [ PMC free article : PMC2563627 ] [ PubMed : 16436404 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes—United States, September 2010–February 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014;63(13):292–3. [ PMC free article : PMC5779356 ] [ PubMed : 24699766 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: Key Facts, 2015a; < http://www ​.cdc.gov/tobacco ​/stateandcommunity ​/pdfs/ends-key-facts2015.pdf >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flavored tobacco product use among middle and high school students—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015b;64(38):1066–70. [ PubMed : 26421418 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015c;64(14):381–5. [ PMC free article : PMC5779546 ] [ PubMed : 25879896 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students, January 5, 2016a; < http://www ​.cdc.gov/media ​/releases/2016/p0105-e-cigarettes ​.html >; accessed: April 20, 2016.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016b;65(14):361–7. [ PubMed : 27077789 ]
• Chapman S. Should electronic cigarettes be as freely available as tobacco cigarettes? BMJ 2013;346:f3840. [ PubMed : 23771038 ]
• Chen IL. FDA summary of adverse events on electronic cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(2):615–6. [ PubMed : 22855883 ]
• Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 , Public Law 114–116, 130 U.S. Statutes at Large 3 (2016).
• Choi K, Fabian L, Mottey N, Corbett A, Forster J. Young adults’ favorable perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes: findings from a focus group study. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(11):2088–93. [ PMC free article : PMC3469759 ] [ PubMed : 22813086 ]
• Cobb NK, Brookover J, Cobb CO. Forensic analysis of online marketing for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tobacco Control 2015;24(2):128–31. [ PubMed : 24038037 ]
• Cobb NK, Byron MJ, Abrams DB, Shields PG. Novel nicotine delivery systems and public health: the rise of the “e-cigarette”. American Journal of Public Health 2010;100(12):2340–2. [ PMC free article : PMC2978165 ] [ PubMed : 21068414 ]
• Cummings KM, Morley CP, Hyland A. Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking. Tobacco Control 2002;11:(Suppl 1):i110–i117. [ PMC free article : PMC1766060 ] [ PubMed : 11893821 ]
• England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, Tong VT, McAfee TA. Nicotine and the developing human: a neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49:286. [ PMC free article : PMC4594223 ] [ PubMed : 25794473 ]
• Etter JF. Commentary on Dawkins et al. (2013): the current legislation on nicotine causes millions of deaths—it has to change. Addiction 2013;108(6):1126. [ PubMed : 23659845 ]
• Etter JF. Electronic cigarettes and cannabis: an exploratory study. European Addiction Research 2015;21(3):124–30. [ PubMed : 25613866 ]
• Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Public Law 111–31, 123 U.S. Statutes at Large 1776 (2009).
• Farsalinos KE, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2014;5(2):67–86. [ PMC free article : PMC4110871 ] [ PubMed : 25083263 ]
• FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp ., 120 S. Ct. 1291 (2000).
• Federal Register . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products. 81 Fed. Reg . 28974 (2016); < https: ​//federalregister.gov/a/2016-10685 >; accessed: May 16, 2016. [ PubMed : 27192730 ]
• Federal Register . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents (21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 804, 807, 820, and 897), 61 Fed. Reg . 44396–5318 (1996).
• Federal Trade Commission. A Report on Cigarette Advertising and Output: Staff Report of the Bureau of Economics. Federal Trade Commission. 1964. RJ Reynolds Collection. Bates No. 515698078–515698370. < http://legacy ​.library ​.ucsf.edu/tid/ywm92d00 >.
• Felberbaum MF. Old tobacco playbook gets new use by e-cigarettes, 2013; < http://bigstory ​.ap.org ​/article/old-tobacco-playbook-gets-new-use-e-cigarettes >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
• Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States. The Safety Assessment and Regulatory Authority to Use Flavors—Focus on E-Cigarettes , 2015; < http://www ​.femaflavor ​.org/sites/default/files ​/FEMAGRAS_Ecig_March_3_2015.pdf >; accessed: May 21, 2015.
• Franck C, Budlovsky T, Windle SB, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Electronic cigarettes in North America: history, use, and implications for smoking cessation. Circulation 2014;129(19):1945–52. [ PubMed : 24821825 ]
• Gilbert AH. U.S. Patent No. 3,200,819. 1965. Brown & Williamson Collection. Bates No. 570328916–570328920. < http: ​//industrydocuments ​.library.ucsf.edu ​/tobacco/docs/hzxb0140 >.
• Giovenco DP, Hammond D, Corey CG, Ambrose BK, Delnevo CD. E-cigarette market trends in traditional U.S. retail channels, 2012–2013. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(10):1279–83. [ PMC free article : PMC4683368 ] [ PubMed : 25542918 ]
• Gottleib S. Supreme Court rules that FDA cannot regulate tobacco industry. BMJ 2000;320(7239):894. [ PubMed : 10787253 ]
• Grana RA, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation 2014;129(19):1972–86. [ PMC free article : PMC4018182 ] [ PubMed : 24821826 ]
• Grana RA, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Electronic nicotine delivery systems in the hands of Hollywood. Tobacco Control 2011;20(6):425–6. [ PMC free article : PMC3184316 ] [ PubMed : 21659450 ]
• Grana RA, Ling PM. “Smoking revolution:” a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;46(4):395–403. [ PMC free article : PMC3989286 ] [ PubMed : 24650842 ]
• Hagopian A, Halperin A, Atwater P, Fradkin N, Gilroy JH, Medeiros E. E-Cigarettes: Evidence and Policy Options for Washington State . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, School of Public Health, Department of Health Services, January 2015; < http://www ​.governor.wa ​.gov/sites/default ​/files/documents/ECigWhitePaper.PDF >; accessed: October 20, 2015.
• Hall BJ, Wells C, Allenby C, Lin MY, Hao I, Marshall L, Rose JE, Levin ED. Differential effects of non-nicotine tobacco constituent compounds on nicotine self-administration in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 2014;120:103–8. [ PMC free article : PMC4000725 ] [ PubMed : 24560911 ]
• Hamilton WL, Norton G, Ouellette TK, Rhodes WM, Kling R, Connolly GN. Smokers’ responses to advertisements for regular and light cigarettes and potential reduced-exposure tobacco products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6:(Suppl 3):S353–S362. [ PubMed : 15799598 ]
• Harper’s Weekly . A remarkable invention! Dr. Scott’s electric cigarettes [advertisement]. Harper’s Weekly , 1887;Sect 48 (col 1–2); < http://tobacco ​.harpweek ​.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage ​.asp?Commentary=References >; accessed: July 7, 2015.
• Harris JK, Moreland-Russell S, Choucair B, Mansour R, Staub M, Simmons K. Tweeting for and against public health policy: response to the Chicago Department of Public Health’s electronic cigarette Twitter campaign. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(10):e238. [ PMC free article : PMC4210950 ] [ PubMed : 25320863 ]
• Henningfield JE, Moolchan ET, Zeller M. Regulatory strategies to reduce tobacco addiction in youth. Tobacco Control 2003;12:(Suppl 1):i14–i24. [ PMC free article : PMC1766091 ] [ PubMed : 12773782 ]
• Herning RI, Jones RT, Bachman J, Mines AH. Puff volume increases when low-nicotine cigarettes are smoked. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1981;283(6285):187–9. [ PMC free article : PMC1506678 ] [ PubMed : 6789957 ]
• Hon L. U.S. Patent 8393331 B2 Electronic Atomization Cigarette, 2013; < https://docs ​.google.com ​/viewer?url=patentimages ​.storage.googleapis ​.com/pdfs/US8393331.pdf >; accessed: November 2, 2015.
• Horn D. [Memo from Daniel Horn to Surgeon General William Stewart regarding meeting of June 1, 1966, on tar-nicotine content of cigarettes]. In: Congressional Record—Senate . 1966. British American Tobacco Collection. Bates No. 105618259–105618266. < http://legacy ​.library ​.ucsf.edu/tid/ajd94a99 >.
• Huang J, Kornfield R, Szczypka G, Emery SL. A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 3):iii26–iii30. [ PMC free article : PMC4078681 ] [ PubMed : 24935894 ]
• Hughes JR. Effects of abstinence from tobacco: valid symptoms and time course. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(3):315–27 [ PubMed : 17365764 ]
• Japan Tobacco Inc. JT acquires leading e-cigarette brand E-Lites, 2014; < http://www ​.jti.com/media ​/news-releases/jt-acquires-leading-e-cigarette-brand-e-lites >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
• Japan Tobacco Inc. JTI acquires “Ploom” intel-lectual property rights from Ploom, Inc., 2015; < http://www ​.jti.com/media ​/news-releases/jti-acquires-ploom-intellectual-property-rights-ploom-inc >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
• Jarvis MJ, Boreham R, Primatesta P, Feyerabend C, Bryant A. Nicotine yield from machine-smoked cigarettes and nicotine intakes in smokers: evidence from a representative population survey. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001;93(2):134–8. [ PubMed : 11208883 ]
• Joseph AM, Hennrikus D, Thoele MJ, Krueger R, Hatsukami D. Community tobacco control leaders’ perceptions of harm reduction. Tobacco Control 2004;13(2):108–13. [ PMC free article : PMC1747850 ] [ PubMed : 15175521 ]
• Kim AE, Arnold KY, Makarenko O. E-cigarette advertising expenditures in the U.S., 2011–2012. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;46(4):409–12. [ PubMed : 24650844 ]
• King BA, Alam S, Promoff G, Arrazola R, Dube SR. Awareness and ever use of electronic cigarettes among U.S. adults, 2010–2011. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(9):1623–7. [ PMC free article : PMC4570561 ] [ PubMed : 23449421 ]
• Kong G, Morean ME, Cavallo DA, Camenga DR, Krishnan-Sarin S. Reasons for electronic cigarette experimentation and discontinuation among adolescents and young adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(7):847–54. [ PMC free article : PMC4674436 ] [ PubMed : 25481917 ]
• Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, Knysak J, Zaciera M, Kurek J, Goniewicz ML. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014;16(10):1319–26. [ PMC free article : PMC4838028 ] [ PubMed : 24832759 ]
• Kostygina G, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Tobacco industry use of flavours to recruit new users of little cigars and cigarillos. Tobacco Control 2014. [ PMC free article : PMC4414663 ] [ PubMed : 25354674 ]
• Krishnan-Sarin S, Morean ME, Camenga DR, Cavallo DA, Kong G. E-cigarette use among high school and middle school adolescents in Connecticut. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(7):810–8. [ PMC free article : PMC4674435 ] [ PubMed : 25385873 ]
• Lempert LK, Grana R, Glantz SA. The importance of product definitions in U.S. e-cigarette laws and regulations. Tobacco Control 2016;25(e1):e44–e51. [ PMC free article : PMC4466213 ] [ PubMed : 25512432 ]
• Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes Tobacco Control 2005;14(5):e3–e3. [ PMC free article : PMC1748101 ] [ PubMed : 16183968 ]
• Marini S, Buonanno G, Stabile L, Ficco G. Short-term effects of electronic and tobacco cigarettes on exhaled nitric oxide. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2014;278(1):9–15. [ PubMed : 24732441 ]
• Mohney G. First child’s death from liquid nicotine reported as “vaping” gains popularity, 2014; < http://abcnews ​.go.com ​/Health/childs-death-liquid-nicotine-reported-vaping-gains-popularity ​/story?id=27563788 >.
• Morean ME, Kong G, Camenga DR, Cavallo DA, Krishnan-Sarin S. High school students’ use of electronic cigarettes to vaporize cannabis. Pediatrics 2015;136(4):611–6. [ PMC free article : PMC4586732 ] [ PubMed : 26347431 ]
• National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence , 731 F.3d 71, 83 (1st Cir. 2013).
• National Cancer Institute. The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes . Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996.
• National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated With Smoking Cigarettes With Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine . Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2001. NIH Publication No. 02-5047.
• Noel JK, Rees VW, Connolly GN. Electronic cigarettes: a new “tobacco” industry? Tobacco Control 2011;20(1):81. [ PubMed : 20930060 ]
• O’Connor RJ, Hyland A, Giovino GA, Fong GT, Cummings KM. Smoker awareness of and beliefs about supposedly less-harmful tobacco products. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005;29(2):85–90. [ PubMed : 16005803 ]
• Pankow JF, Strongin RM, Peyton DH. More on hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;372(16):1576–7. [ PubMed : 25875273 ]
• Pearson JL, Richardson A, Niaura RS, Vallone DM, Abrams DB. e-Cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in U.S. adults. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(9):1758–66. [ PMC free article : PMC3474361 ] [ PubMed : 22813087 ]
• Peeler C. Cigarette testing and the Federal Trade Commission: a historical overview. In: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields for U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee . Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996:1–8.
• Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) hosts investor day: revises 2014 full-year reported diluted EPS forecast for estimated restructuring costs in the Netherlands; announces acquisition of U.K.-based e-vapor company; reviews business outlook and strategies, 2014; < http://investors ​.pmi ​.com/phoenix.zhtml?c ​=146476&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1942860 >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
• Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact. Tobacco Control 2002;11:(Suppl 1):i18–i31. [ PMC free article : PMC1766068 ] [ PubMed : 11893811 ]
• Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition . Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 2011.
• Public Health Law Center. U.S. e-cigarette regulations—50 state review (2015), 2015; < http: ​//publichealthlawcenter ​.org/resources ​/us-e-cigarette-regulations-50-state-review >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
• Regan AK, Promoff G, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the “e-cigarette” in the U.S.A. Tobacco Control 2013;22(1):19–23. [ PubMed : 22034071 ]
• Richardson A, Ganz O, Vallone D. Tobacco on the web: surveillance and characterisation of online tobacco and e-cigarette advertising. Tobacco Control 2015;24(4):341–7. [ PubMed : 24532710 ]
• Richtel M. E-cigarettes, by other names, lure young and worry experts. New York Times , March 4, 2014; < http://www ​.nytimes.com ​/2014/03/05/business ​/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities ​.html?_r=0 >; accessed: July 27, 2015.
• Russell MAH, Sutton SR, Iyer R, Feyerabend C, Vesey CJ. Long-term switching to low-tar low-nicotine cigarettes. British Journal of Addiction 1982;77(2):145–58. [ PubMed : 6810910 ]
• Saitta D, Ferro GA, Polosa R. Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes. Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 2014;5(2):50–61. [ PMC free article : PMC3926346 ] [ PubMed : 24587890 ]
• Sanford Z, Goebel L. E-cigarettes: an up to date review and discussion of the controversy. West Virginia Medical Journal 2014;110(4):10–5. [ PubMed : 25322582 ]
• Schauer GL, King BA, Bunnell RE, Promoff G, McAfee TA. Toking, vaping, and eating for health or fun: marijuana use patterns in adults, U.S., 2014. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;50(1):1–8. [ PubMed : 26277652 ]
• Schweitzer KS, Chen SX, Law S, Van Demark M, Poirier C, Justice MJ, Hubbard WC, Kim ES, Lai X, Wang M, et al. Endothelial disruptive proinflammatory effects of nicotine and e-cigarette vapor exposures. American Journal of Physiology: Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 2015;309(2):L175–87. [ PMC free article : PMC4504977 ] [ PubMed : 25979079 ]
• Slade J, Ballin S. Who’s minding the tobacco store? It’s time to level the regulatory playing field. In: Houston T, editor. Tobacco Use: An American Crisis. Final Conference Report and Recommendations from America’s Health Community . Washington (DC): American Medical Association, 1993:52–8.
• Smoking Everywhere, Inc. and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration , et al., 680 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.C. 2010).
• Sottera, Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration , No. 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
• Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S, editors. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction . Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2001. [ PubMed : 25057541 ]
• Thun MJ, Burns DM. Health impact of “reduced yield” cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence. Tobacco Control 2001;10:(Suppl 1):i4–i11. [ PMC free article : PMC1766045 ] [ PubMed : 11740038 ]
• Tindall JE. Cigarette Market History and Interpretation and Consumer Research . 1992. Philip Morris Collection. Bates No. 2057041153–2057041196. < https://www ​.industrydocumentslibrary ​.ucsf ​.edu/tobacco/docs/glbn0130 >.
• U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service . Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, 1964. PHS Publication No. 1103.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: The Changing Cigarette. A Report of the Surgeon General . Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office on Smoking and Health, 1981. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-50156.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction. A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8406.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. [ PubMed : 22876391 ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.
• U.S. Fire Administration. Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions , 2014; < https://www ​.usfa.fema ​.gov/downloads/pdf/publications ​/electronic_cigarettes.pdf >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Stakeholder letter: regulation of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, 2011; < http://www ​.fda.gov/NewsEvents ​/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360 ​.htm >; accessed: May 5, 2015.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act , 2016; < http://www ​.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts ​/Labeling ​/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm394909 ​.htm >; accessed: May 16, 2016. [ PubMed : 27192730 ]
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. E-cigarette adverse events, 2013; < http://www ​.fda.gov/downloads ​/AboutFDA/CentersOffices ​/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco ​/AbouttheCenterforTobaccoProducts ​/UCM361437.pdf >; accessed: August 23, 2016.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628 B2. Electronic atomization cigarette, 2013; < http://www ​.google.com/patents/US8490628 >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
• U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. City of New York , 708 F.3d 428, 434 (2d Cir. 2013).
• United Press International. Company sniffs profits from a smokeless cigarette. Chicago Tribune , May 27, 1986; < http://articles ​.chicagotribune ​.com/1986-05-27 ​/business/8602070938 ​_1_smokeless-cigarette-tobacco-smoke-nicotine >; accessed: June 22, 2015.
• United States v. Philip Morris , 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006).
• Vape Ranks. Phillip Morris launches new type of smokeless cigarette, 2014; < http://vaperanks ​.com ​/phillip-morris-launches-new-type-of-smokeless-cigarette/ >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
• Wagener TL, Siegel M, Borrelli B. Electronic cigarettes: achieving a balanced perspective. Addiction 2012;107(9):1545–8. [ PubMed : 22471757 ]
• Wang B, King BA, Corey CG, Arrazola RA, Johnson SE. Awareness and use of non-conventional tobacco products among U.S. students, 2012. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;47(2 Suppl 1):S36–S52. [ PMC free article : PMC4519346 ] [ PubMed : 25044194 ]
• Warner KE, Martin EG. The U.S. tobacco control community’s view of the future of tobacco harm reduction. Tobacco Control 2003;12(4):383–90. [ PMC free article : PMC1747785 ] [ PubMed : 14660773 ]
• Wells Fargo Securities. Nielsen: Tobacco “All Channel” Data Cig Pricing Remains Strong; E-Cig $ Sales Growth Re-Accelerates . Equity Research. San Francisco (CA): Wells Fargo Securities, March 31, 2015.
• Whelan R. E-cigarettes maker models supply chain on electronics industry: VMR Products says the Apple Inc. manufacturing strategy will help the company watch its control quality more closely. The Wall Street Journal , June 12, 2015; < http://www ​.wsj.com/articles ​/e-cigarettes-maker-models-supply-chain-on-electronics-industry-1434119233 >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
• Yang L, Rudy SF, Cheng JM, Durmowicz EL. Electronic cigarettes: incorporating human factors engineering into risk assessments. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 2):ii47–ii53. [ PMC free article : PMC3995290 ] [ PubMed : 24732164 ]
• Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, Cummins SE, Gamst A, Yin L, Lee M. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 3):iii3–iii9. [ PMC free article : PMC4078673 ] [ PubMed : 24935895 ]
• Cite this Page National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2016. Chapter 1, Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes.
• PDF version of this title (8.4M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Publications and Reports of the Surgeon General

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes - ... Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes - E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers