This is the comment that I submitted to the FDA, with two small edits (changed liquid to e-liquid and two years to almost three years). The only thing I would add is that when I started vaping, I used 24mg e-liquid, and lowered that to 18 mg rather quickly. My blood pressure was slightly elevated at my last physical, so I stepped down to 12mg. My blood pressure is now normal. I did want to include that fact, even though I can’t really attribute that to nicotine, since I had also gained weight which I have since lost. Like many of my contemporaries, I started smoking when I was barely 13. I failed at numerous attempts to quit. I tried cold turkey, the patch, the gum, Chantix, hypnosis, you name it, I tried it. Short term success always turned into long term failure, which I now know is the typical experience most long-term smokers have with FDA-approved NRT. After 36 years I had given up on quitting. I resolved myself to the fact that I would always be a smoker. In August 2010 I saw an article in a local newspaper about an electronic cigarette store that had opened in my town. I was curious, so I bought a kit. I was amazed at how easily I was able to transition to this device. I quickly went from the familiar menthol flavor to cinnamon, vanilla and fruit-flavored e-liquid. As my taste buds improved, I no longer wanted anything that remotely tasted like a cigarette. I was no longer smoking, and unlike any of the times I had quit previously, I had absolutely no desire to smoke. This was something no pharmaceutical product had been able to accomplish, and almost three years later, I still have no cravings for tobacco. This still amazes me because my husband still smokes the same brand that I used to smoke. Once I started vaping, I wanted to know more about it, so I spent hours online, reading everything I could about this invention. I learned that the inventor set out to find a safer way of using nicotine while removing the harmful chemicals found in burning tobacco. By vaporizing liquid he was able to mimic the sensation of smoking (down to the hand-to-mouth movement so ingrained in long-term smokers) in a small device that virtually eliminates risk to bystanders. But then I discovered that the FDA was trying to ban this life-saving invention. I couldn’t understand this. I had been exposed to anti-smoking campaigns most of my life, yet the very invention that could fulfill the goal of anti-tobacco and smoke-free associations was being vilified by my own government. Surely this couldn’t be possible! The more I researched, the more I learned about the actual dangers of tobacco cigarettes in comparison to this product, the more disgusted I became. Electronic cigarettes contain an equivalent, miniscule amount of tobacco-specific nitrosamines as a nicotine patch. How could the FDA not bother to make that clear? Pharmaceutical nicotine in FDA-approved pharmaceutical NRTs is no different than pharmaceutical nicotine in electronic cigarettes. The only difference is that pharmaceutical NRTs have a much lower chance of actually helping a smoker to stop smoking. One of the few people I have met that was successful at quitting smoking continued to chew nicotine gum for eight years before she was able to finally stop. When I learned that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act actually prohibits vendors and manufacturers from telling the truth, that using this product can help smokers by enabling them to replace tobacco cigarettes with a safer method of using nicotine, it became clear that something was horribly wrong. It seems that the FDA isn’t concerned with helping smokers to quit and stay quit, but intent only to allow pharmaceutical solutions to smokers, even when those solutions have discouragingly dismal success rates. The comment I’ve heard most often from smokers is Don’t you know that it contains anti-freeze? This misconception comes directly from the FDA’s unfortunate 2009 press release, which is preventing many smokers from seeking out this safer alternative. Smoke-free Pennsylvaniaƒ??s Bill Godshall has submitted requests to have the information on the FDA website updated to reflect some of the newer scientific evidence that confirms the safety of electronic cigarettes, but the outdated information remains. When I have the opportunity to explain to people what Tobacco Harm Reduction is, and that the FDA not only doesn’t endorse it, but is actively working to prohibit it, people aren’t even surprised. It would be refreshing to see the FDA take a step towards actually helping smokers. Not by lying, not by omitting important facts, not by banning, but by telling the truth about reduced-harm alternatives. Tell the public that Sweden has lowered their adult lung cancer rate to about half of the U.S. rate because their government endorses the use of Swedish snus, which is proven much safer than smoking. Tell the public that electronic cigarettes do eliminate over 90% of the risks associated with smoking tobacco. Stop telling the public that there is no SAFE tobacco product, and start using a more rational approach by talking about relative risk and what is SAFER. My greatest fear is that the FDA will continue to endorse only pharmaceutical NRT products, while restricting or prohibiting the sale of reduced harm alternatives like electronic cigarettes. Telling a smoker who has not had success with a nicotine patch that they will have better success by using both the patch and gum may help increase pharmaceutical revenues, but telling smokers the truth about tobacco harm reduction may actually save lives. Please do not impose unreasonable bans on electronic cigarettes. The continued availability of e-liquid and the many devices that are now on the market will ensure that smokers will have access to options that work for them. For my sake, and the sake of the thousands of other ex-smokers who may return to smoking if these safer alternatives are no longer readily available, do nothing to risk our health. For the sake of the approximately 20% of the population that continues to smoke, please, I urge you, tell the truth about harm reduction. Anything less is truly unconscionable.