While both sides await the shakeout on e-cigarettes, the products are on the market (kits with the e-cigarette and nicotine cartridges generally sell for $70 to $150). And contrary to the old adage, what you don’t know can hurt you. Among the reasons to be wary of what you read on Ecigarettes:

— Most e-cigarettes are made in China, the source of lead-tainted toys and melamine-laced dog food. Need we say more about the need for oversight?

SmokeShop’s comments: Actually, federal “oversight” is the same clan that gave us cigarettes in the first place, right? Moreover, this is the same gang that tried to prevent Americans from having seat belts, collapsible steering columns, unleaded gas, electric cars, the Clean Air Act, child labor laws, Title VII Equal Protection Clause? Is THIS the type of oversight that the author is talking about?

Next, arguing that all  Chinese products are de facto ‘dangerous’ is a de facto WTO violation. But more importantly, painting all of China with such a broad brush has subtle racist and nationalist overtones. American companies have had MORE than their fair share of product recalls as any owner of a GM can can attest.

— When the FDA randomly tested the nicotine cartridges, it discovered carcinogens and a toxic chemical found in anti-freeze. Still, the most worrisome ingredient is nicotine itself. The FDA strictly regulates it in patches, gum and other smoking-cessation products, and it has banned nicotine lollipops and water. E-cigarettes deserve to be treated like other nicotine-delivery devices.

SmokeShop’s POV: the chemical in anti-freeze to which USA TODAY refers is..watch out… ‘propylene glycol’. Curiously, USA TODAY avoids calling it out by name. PG happens to be an very common additive used in many consumer products, including makeup, shampoo, soap, Nicotine Replacement Therapies transdermal patch and – even the awful, horrible SNOW CONES!

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s see what the FDA says about Propylene glycol:

“… used in food, medicines, and cosmetics, often as a binding agent. Propylene glycol is “generally recognized as safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in food.”

Here’s what Tom’s of Maine Toothpastes and Deodorants has to say:

http://www.tomsofmaine.com/products/ingredient-detail.aspx?id=17&name=Propylene%20glycol

“Propylene glycol is considered a safe and appropriate ingredient not just for cosmetic products, but also for ingested products like food and pharmaceuticals. It is on the US Food and Drug Administration’s list of ingredients which are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and is recognized by the World Health Organization as safe for use. There have been claims made that propylene glycol is an inappropriate ingredient for cosmetics and foods because it can also be used in products (such as antifreeze) which one would not want to consume. Such observations are well-intended but ultimately not very informative. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) actually recommends the use of propylene glycol-based antifreeze because it is safer than ethylene glycol should pets accidentally ingest it.”

Tom’s goes on to say:

“For the record, the MSDS for the propylene glycol we use contains no indications of carcinogenicity or chronic exposure effects. We feel confident that research and a long history of safe usage have shown propylene glycol to be a safe and appropriate ingredient…”

— E-cigarettes come in flavors — from traditional menthol to chocolate and strawberry — that might lure curious youngsters and prompt them to move on to the real thing. Distributors say their product is for adults only, but who’s to stop young people from buying it? Only a few locales have banned sales to minors.

SmokeShop’s POV: Wait a minute. What’s the argument? That it tastes like strawberries OR that strawberry flavors lead to cigarette usage OR that eCigs might be sold to minors? It would seem that USA TODAY should pick an argument and stick with it, not shotgun half baked nonsense at its readers. Let’s take the first idiotic argument first – namely, that strawberry flavors induce cigarette usage. Hmm. Do I really have to argue that this is the most pathetically inane argument yet levied at eCigs? Let’s see – so should Lemon-flavored Vodka’s be banned because the smell of lemons? Is it the LEMON FLAVOR that induces people to become alcoholics? Was it that lemon wedge in your beer that turned you into a drunk? Come on people, this is the flimsiest flim flam I’ve heard yet. What next, cotton candy flavored lip gloss gets 13 year olds pregnant b/c men can’t help themselves when they see girls with glistening lips?

Next, flavored vapor will induce ‘kids’ to move on to the real thing. Well first, let’s take a step back. Who said anything about selling this to kids? And if that’s an issue, a far more Constitutionally reasonable alternative would be to regulate its consumption by minors. But that’s already the case with nicotine so we don’t need more legislation since there already exists laws governing this subject.

Next, who’s to stop minors from buying it? Parents. Parents are to stop kinds from buying all sorts of things. Manufacturers cannot warrant against children stealing money from or defrauding their parents. However, they can put reasonable measures in place to prohibit sales to minors from occurring. And this is done everyday by retailers all around the world on all sorts of products. eCigs are no different. In fact, eCigs are better able to control the sales process b/c they can track to a unique card holder. Thus, unlike alcohol and cigarette sales in convenient stores, eCigs have a unique transaction ID which can be traced by local and federal authorities. No such tracking mechanism is in place for supermarkets and convenience stores around the country when the buyer pays with cash. Therefore, collectively online ecig sales are a more effective means to monitor product distribution to minors than by any current tool for in-store cash sales on the market today.

— Despite protests from the Electronic Cigarette Association that its members don’t make claims about helping smokers quit, plenty of sellers make far more outrageous health claims. In recent weeks, one marketer claimed e-cigarettes reduce the risk of heart disease and touted an endorsement by a physician-and-nurses group. Another website, which says it reviews e-cigarettes, went them one better: It claims, based on a 1942 study, that an ingredient in e-cigarettes could prevent flu and other respiratory diseases.

SmokeShop’s POV: “Outrageous health claims? Like say, ones like these?