1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




PhotoEvery year people stop smoking. This months millions of consumers will resolve to kick the habit and many will succeed. Bad news for tobacco companies, right?

Not necessarily. Big tobacco can see which way the wind is blowing and has found a way to cash in on the anti-smoking campaign. Increasingly, tobacco companies are taking interest in the e-cigarette phenomenon.

E-cigarettes are electronic devices that look just like a tobacco cigarette. Instead of burning tobacco, however, they vaporize a substance containing nicotine. The smoker inhales the vapor, just as he would smoke. It reportedly provides the same satisfaction as smoking and allows smokers to give up cigarettes.

Tobacco companies offering e-cigarettes

In 2012 Lorillard Tobacco purchased the Blu brand of e-cigarettes and RJ Reynolds is said to be producing its own brand of e-cigarette. The strategy is simple; as tobacco companies lose cigarette smokers they gain new e-cigarette customers.

In an interview with CNBC, Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog said e-cigarettes produced as much as a half-billion dollars last year and will likely double this year.

Ironically, government could end up the big losers as smokers abandon cigarettes and move to e-cigarettes. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, to discourage people from smoking. Much of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to state and federal governments.

Untaxed and unregulated

But e-cigarettes are currently untaxed and unregulated. As more consumers stop buying cigarettes and start smoking e-cigarettes, tax revenue will fall. Minnesota is currently the only state to have taken action to tax e-cigarettes but other states are likely eying a similar move.

Meanwhile, anti-smoking groups and health advocates have turned their attention to e-cigarettes, warning they are not without harm. In 2010 researchers at the University of California, Riverside evaluated five e-cigarette brands and found design flaws, lack of adequate labeling and several concerns about quality control and health issues.

They conclude that e-cigarettes are potentially harmful and urge regulators to consider removing e-cigarettes from the market until their safety is adequately evaluated. Last year Greek researchers at the University of Athens said consumers switching to e-cigarettes may still be harming their lungs.

Marketing claims

Meanwhile, marketers of e-cigarettes have also drawn the attention of officials in California and Oregon. In 2010, California sued the Florida-based electronic-cigarette retailer Smoking Everywhere for making what officials said were "misleading and irresponsible" claims that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking. The state also claimed the company has targeted minors with its marketing.

A year earlier the state of Oregon filed two settlements that prevented two national travel store chains from selling "electronic cigarettes" in Oregon.

But for now e-cigarettes remain unregulated, thanks to a federal appeals court ruling that said the U.S. government may not block the sale or import of electronic cigarettes, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls dangerous, unregulated products.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the FDA doesn't have the authority to outlaw the product if it is not being sold for therapeutic purposes.


Share your Comments

Please enable javascript to comment on this page
Jason Knoblauch
Another biased article. You paint the whole industry in a negative light. design flaws? Inadequate labeling? QA concerns? You are digging deep. Why is there nothing in your article about the great benefits of these products. 2.5 million people in the US that are using these are not smoking cigarettes anymore! You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that even with the study you quote about possibly harming your lungs (slight/short lived rise in airway resistance) and inadequate labeling (really?) it is still way healthier than smoking. You can find more studies and information at CASAA.org. Always double check the facts when reading a story from this site. The facts may be accurate , but a lot of the time they are not the complete facts.
David Atherton
That research you refer to from Athens is no more than biased junk science. "Dr. Gratziou was lead author of a study that was funded by, and conducted in part by Pfizer, maker of Chantix, a drug which stands to lose considerable sales if electronic cigarettes become popular." "Not only has the author been funded by Pfizer, but she has worked directly with Pfizer on the research. Thus, she has a substantial financial interest in a company whose products are a direct competitor of the product this study examines." "The results and conclusions of the study were released to the media and the public via press release, apparently prior to peer review and publication of the study. In fact, there is no actual written study available, merely the abstract as this was an abstract presented at a scientific conference: the 2012 meeting of the European Respiratory Society." The person who wrote this post is Dr. Michael Siegel whose resume says "He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry." http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/experts-from-university-of-athens-tell.html
Kat Marchitto
I've been smoking blu for almost a year now...nothing else ever worked for me when it came to a substitute for cigarettes. I think they are the best invention since sliced bread. I am very disappointed to hear they may become taxed though! Maybe I'll stock up now before Uncle Sam starts grabbing profits....
Tasia Romani
I have been using and not using e cigarettes for 4 years, I am just recently actually selling the best product now on the market after 4 years, of using and selling it for every other e cigarette dealer, with 0 return, it is kinda like working for the government! Ha ha. I can actually now be very proud of the product I am now selling, because, none of it is MADE IN CHINA, like the rest of them are. It has tons more smoke, flavor, battery life, etc. If anyone would like to contact me regarding these cigarettes, please feel free, as I have been working with these since first introduced to the United States, and would be happy to help anyone get into these. Why let walmart, china, and the cigarette corporates big heads and stockholders, make all the money, we to have to live in the United States, and live eat and take care of our own families, friends, etc. Thank You, T. Romani
Izia Electricman
The only people claiming this drug addiction is safe are the ecigger addicts who like any other addictions meth, coke,heroin, nicotine look for any little meaningless bits of information on why their drug addiction is safe. The only acceptable safety standard for a non-essential recreational drug with not being exposed to it at all.” NOT some junk posted by casa(Consumer Addicts Should Advocate Addiction) who profit from your addiction and would like to addict your family and children to this dangerous addiction And e-cigarette proponents alone bear the entire burden of proving their product safe for use around others by this standard. The public does NOT owe it to them.
Alexa Van Klemp
It's a logical step forward, and it makes sense. I say the same thing in my december article: "The only reason tobacco is legal as of right now is because it makes more than enough money to shut up those who could shut down the industry." You can read my whole speel here: http://e-cigarette-review.net/what-are-electronic-cigarettes/. Thanks and all the best!
Jim Rothenberger
"Ironically, government could end up the big losers as smokers abandon cigarettes and move to e-cigarettes. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, to discourage people from smoking. Much of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to state and federal governments. But e-cigarettes are currently untaxed and unregulated. As more consumers stop buying cigarettes and start smoking e-cigarettes, tax revenue will fall. Minnesota is currently the only state to have taken action to tax e-cigarettes but other states are likely eying a similar move." How could the government become "big losers"? The taxes supposedly were put in place to cover the costs smoking had placed on society in terms of health and productivity. If smoking is eliminated, any lost tax revenue should be recouped by reductions in those health and productivity costs. That's of course assuming the government was being honest in the first place. It is like placing a tax on auto seat belts because people are using them too often to eliminate the costs of injury in an accident and a reduction in the amount of fines collected by police against those that don't use them. Just another faux argument for in-equitable taxation.
Jim Rothenberger
"But for now e-cigarettes remain unregulated, thanks to a federal appeals court ruling that said the U.S. government may not block the sale or import of electronic cigarettes, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls dangerous, unregulated products. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the FDA doesn't have the authority to outlaw the product if it is not being sold for therapeutic purposes." More false logic. They don't remain unregulated due to the Federal Court ruling, that took place nearly three years ago. They remain unregulated because the FDA is left in a very dubious position. There are years of actual use with no serious complications. They have approved drugs (NRT) that use nicotine for quitting smoking and want to approve Big Pharma to market them for long term use. Is the only good nicotine Pharma sold nicotine? Finally, today they have a much more powerful industry to combat in court if they try to pass to stringent regulations against the product. Quality standards could have been set years ago but the FDA spent so much time trying to protect their client's (the Pharma industry) interests, they have not done so. The whole e cig debate is not about health, it is about money. Pharma stands to lose big if E cigs are successful in replacing smoking. The market for quit smoking products could dwindle to nothing and the big market for drugs to treat smoking related diseases could dry up. How about that large contingent of? non-profit?"health" associations that get subsidized by the government and Big Pharma? I suppose they'll have to get on the pandemic obesity bandwagon to keep? profits? coming. Of course, I've already mentioned the tax fraud.
Cali Kim
I smoked for 42 years & all the NRT failed me & I tried them time & time again. I decided to try the ecig & started out with a Joye ego ecig, it was unbelievable, I switched over in one day & have now been free from smoking for 19 months, big accomplishment for me. I've never gone longer that 3 months without smoking. I love these & have shared them with many friends who have also had the same success. The only reason the FDA wants to make them illegal is because of lobbyists for the big cigarette companies & Pharmaceutical companies!
Genecigs
Sadly this is not the first dubious study aimed at discrediting e-cigarettes. http://genecigs.com.au/scientific-method-not-up-to-scratch-in-new-e-cigarette-study/ Doubtless there will be more to come as Big Pharma fights to keep consumers afraid of trying a competing NRT product.
Quantcast