The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/the-e-cigarette-industry-waiting-to-exhale.html
169 comments
1. E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. It is not clear exactly how harmful they are, but they are not harmless.
2. Ecig marketers are trying to push this story line of e-cigs vs the tobacco industry. It is mostly bs as the major ecig company blu is owned by a major tobacco company and every other major tobacco company has an ecig line now. The ecig industry is the tobacco industry.
I am very happy for you that you were able to quit. And it seems to me that is the only way.
2. Ecig marketers are trying to push this story line of e-cigs vs the tobacco industry. It is mostly bs as the major ecig company blu is owned by a major tobacco company and every other major tobacco company has an ecig line now. The ecig industry is the tobacco industry.
I am very happy for you that you were able to quit. And it seems to me that is the only way.
> E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie.
They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. The three biggest risks of smoking are cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. For a casual smoker, heart disease is by far the biggest risk. This is caused by the carbon monoxide, and eCigs have zero of this. There's also no reason to think that they cause emphysema. In terms of cancer, the majority of the carcinogenic effect of cigarrettes is thought to be caused by radiation rather than by the tobacco itself. So with eCigs you can easily wash off the radiation from the tobacco, or else just use synthetic nicotine or other drugs.
Since the industry is completely unregulated I'm sure these things are filled with all sorts of poison, but even still there are no currently known risks. And even if there are risks, which there likely are, it's not clear that they'll be any bigger than, say, drinking the occasional glass of wine. And it's also likely that once we figure out what these risks are, we'll be able to mitigate them.
I certainly wouldn't use these things today, but in twenty or thirty years they may well be a really good bet.
They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. The three biggest risks of smoking are cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. For a casual smoker, heart disease is by far the biggest risk. This is caused by the carbon monoxide, and eCigs have zero of this. There's also no reason to think that they cause emphysema. In terms of cancer, the majority of the carcinogenic effect of cigarrettes is thought to be caused by radiation rather than by the tobacco itself. So with eCigs you can easily wash off the radiation from the tobacco, or else just use synthetic nicotine or other drugs.
Since the industry is completely unregulated I'm sure these things are filled with all sorts of poison, but even still there are no currently known risks. And even if there are risks, which there likely are, it's not clear that they'll be any bigger than, say, drinking the occasional glass of wine. And it's also likely that once we figure out what these risks are, we'll be able to mitigate them.
I certainly wouldn't use these things today, but in twenty or thirty years they may well be a really good bet.
> They might be fairly harmless, we don't know.
They might be less harmless (though we don't know that yet), but we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful.
This is not like vaporizing cannabis - the desirable compounds in cannabis are not carcinogenic[0] and actually have cancer-fighting properties, and the main drawbacks to smoking cannabis come from the act of smoking, not from the substance.
Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.
[0] Or poisonous in any other way (even overdose, since the LD50 for delta-9-THC, if one even exists, is so high that nobody has ever measured it reliably).
They might be less harmless (though we don't know that yet), but we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful.
This is not like vaporizing cannabis - the desirable compounds in cannabis are not carcinogenic[0] and actually have cancer-fighting properties, and the main drawbacks to smoking cannabis come from the act of smoking, not from the substance.
Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.
[0] Or poisonous in any other way (even overdose, since the LD50 for delta-9-THC, if one even exists, is so high that nobody has ever measured it reliably).
Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.
Citation needed.
Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine.
Citation needed.
Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine.
> Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine.
I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment).
> Citation needed.
The post that you yourself link is a citation for my statement. Notice that I worded my post carefully - I did not say that nicotine has only harmful effects, or even that it has no positive effects.
All I stated is that it is a toxic substance in the medical sense - a statement which could also apply to the drugs used in chemotherapy. Therefore, it is correct to say "we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful."
I make no claim about the situations under which any alleged benefits outweigh the the toxic effects, simply that said toxic effects exist.
I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment).
> Citation needed.
The post that you yourself link is a citation for my statement. Notice that I worded my post carefully - I did not say that nicotine has only harmful effects, or even that it has no positive effects.
All I stated is that it is a toxic substance in the medical sense - a statement which could also apply to the drugs used in chemotherapy. Therefore, it is correct to say "we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful."
I make no claim about the situations under which any alleged benefits outweigh the the toxic effects, simply that said toxic effects exist.
> I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment).
Then I would appreciate your links to the studies of the harmful effects of nicotine alone that I have somehow failed to find.
> I make no claim about the situations under which any alleged benefits outweigh the the toxic effects, simply that said toxic effects exist.
So your confident assertions are merely technically correct, since everything has toxic effects under some situations such as high enough doses. But that's OK, since technically correct is the best kind of correct, as any geek knows!
Then I would appreciate your links to the studies of the harmful effects of nicotine alone that I have somehow failed to find.
> I make no claim about the situations under which any alleged benefits outweigh the the toxic effects, simply that said toxic effects exist.
So your confident assertions are merely technically correct, since everything has toxic effects under some situations such as high enough doses. But that's OK, since technically correct is the best kind of correct, as any geek knows!
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_297500...
At one time, nicotine was used in the United States as an insecticide ... Nicotine affects the nervous system and the heart. Exposure to relatively small amounts can rapidly be fatal.
At one time, nicotine was used in the United States as an insecticide ... Nicotine affects the nervous system and the heart. Exposure to relatively small amounts can rapidly be fatal.
Good thing I'm not an insect and people generally avoid taking anywhere near the LD-50 of 50mg or so (depending on bodyweight & tolerance etc).
Even pure water can be harmful. A few years ago a couple guys ended up in coma at a nearby Buddhist temple after a "cleanup weekend" where they were fasting and drinking lots of water (this water OD condition is called hyponatremia). Of course nicotine is more dangerous than water, yet I can't recall a death by overdose of it.
> Of course nicotine is more dangerous than water, yet I can't recall a death by overdose of it.
There actually are some cases if you go looking. Nicotine oil was famously used as a poisoner's tool for a while, prompting some of the early toxicology screens, but these days, most of the cases are accidental. I recall reading about an Israeli case, IIRC, where a child drank some of the e-cig liquid its father hadn't put up high enough.
There actually are some cases if you go looking. Nicotine oil was famously used as a poisoner's tool for a while, prompting some of the early toxicology screens, but these days, most of the cases are accidental. I recall reading about an Israeli case, IIRC, where a child drank some of the e-cig liquid its father hadn't put up high enough.
> but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.
Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic". Vitamin C is toxic at certain levels. If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless. Just saying "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes" is about as far as strong a claim you can make based on the evidence you have presented.
Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic". Vitamin C is toxic at certain levels. If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless. Just saying "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes" is about as far as strong a claim you can make based on the evidence you have presented.
> "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes"
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything like that - certainly never that I felt that they would be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes.
> Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic".
I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".
> If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless.
It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything like that - certainly never that I felt that they would be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes.
> Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic".
I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".
> If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless.
It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.
> Please don't put words in my mouth
Putting words in your mouth is typically claiming you said X. I am suggesting that you instead, SHOULD have said Y.
> I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".
"Cloud" is a technical word in computing with a specific meaning. This does not stop tech marketers from using it to mean things it does not. "Toxic" and "toxins" are medical words that are abused to the point of being meaningless much like "cloud". You are calling something harmful (to your credit, you do not specify how harmful) without specifying a dosage. Water is toxic at certain levels. Words that give a strong impression one way or the other, but are broad and do not commit to specifics are weasel words.
> It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.
I agree that you are "more right" than the OP, however, "harmless" and "toxic" are both just as bad in the context where dosage is not specified. It would be misleading to say that asbestos is harmless, although pretty much accurate at small enough levels. It would also be technically accurate to say that most things are toxic at some sufficiently high level.
In a nutshell, this debate between you and the OP is useless without specifying the amount being consumed.
Putting words in your mouth is typically claiming you said X. I am suggesting that you instead, SHOULD have said Y.
> I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".
"Cloud" is a technical word in computing with a specific meaning. This does not stop tech marketers from using it to mean things it does not. "Toxic" and "toxins" are medical words that are abused to the point of being meaningless much like "cloud". You are calling something harmful (to your credit, you do not specify how harmful) without specifying a dosage. Water is toxic at certain levels. Words that give a strong impression one way or the other, but are broad and do not commit to specifics are weasel words.
> It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.
I agree that you are "more right" than the OP, however, "harmless" and "toxic" are both just as bad in the context where dosage is not specified. It would be misleading to say that asbestos is harmless, although pretty much accurate at small enough levels. It would also be technically accurate to say that most things are toxic at some sufficiently high level.
In a nutshell, this debate between you and the OP is useless without specifying the amount being consumed.
I'm sorry, I must object to that line of thinking
We can say with near certainty that they are less harmful, because we know what caused harm when smoking cigarettes, and those elements are not present. We also know what is being inhaled is either inert, or the point of smoking.
Also, whether a substance has a measurable LD50 or not is irrelevant. Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's, Some Vitamins have LD50's.
We can say with near certainty that they are less harmful, because we know what caused harm when smoking cigarettes, and those elements are not present. We also know what is being inhaled is either inert, or the point of smoking.
Also, whether a substance has a measurable LD50 or not is irrelevant. Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's, Some Vitamins have LD50's.
> Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's
Well, most medicines could be considered medically toxic. It's just a matter of dosing and whether their desired effect outweighs any risk (whether negligible or non-negligible) of adverse reactions[0].
LD50 is only one of many ways to express toxicity; water can be considered toxic under some circumstances as well. It all depends on the context in which we're discussing the usage.
We don't say that Advil is "harmless", or aspirin, or caffeine, or any other substance, even in normal dosage. We simply say that any risk of harm is sufficiently small as to fall within tolerable limits, given the expected benefit of using that substance. But we can't say that about e-cigarettes - at least not yet.
In short, the medical impacts of drugs are difficult to predict, and oftentimes counter-intuitive. I'm just rather tired of the refrain that "e-cigarettes are harmless", because frankly,
(A) we don't have sufficient evidence-based research either to support or to reject that claim, and
(B) extrapolating based on existing evidence-based research and fundamental medical principles suggests that e-cigarettes are not "harmless".
Whether they are less harmful than cigarettes is a separate question, as is whether they are harmful enough to recommend avoiding usage (or regulation, or what have you) is a separate question.
I don't object to any logical arguments surrounding either of those two questions; I just object to fallacious interpretations of medical research to support illogical arguments.
[0] Unlike the word "toxic", I do not use the word "adverse" in the medical sense, which also has a very precise definition - I use it in the colloquial sense.
Well, most medicines could be considered medically toxic. It's just a matter of dosing and whether their desired effect outweighs any risk (whether negligible or non-negligible) of adverse reactions[0].
LD50 is only one of many ways to express toxicity; water can be considered toxic under some circumstances as well. It all depends on the context in which we're discussing the usage.
We don't say that Advil is "harmless", or aspirin, or caffeine, or any other substance, even in normal dosage. We simply say that any risk of harm is sufficiently small as to fall within tolerable limits, given the expected benefit of using that substance. But we can't say that about e-cigarettes - at least not yet.
In short, the medical impacts of drugs are difficult to predict, and oftentimes counter-intuitive. I'm just rather tired of the refrain that "e-cigarettes are harmless", because frankly,
(A) we don't have sufficient evidence-based research either to support or to reject that claim, and
(B) extrapolating based on existing evidence-based research and fundamental medical principles suggests that e-cigarettes are not "harmless".
Whether they are less harmful than cigarettes is a separate question, as is whether they are harmful enough to recommend avoiding usage (or regulation, or what have you) is a separate question.
I don't object to any logical arguments surrounding either of those two questions; I just object to fallacious interpretations of medical research to support illogical arguments.
[0] Unlike the word "toxic", I do not use the word "adverse" in the medical sense, which also has a very precise definition - I use it in the colloquial sense.
Then I think we are on the same page.
I can understand railing against the statement "e-cigarettes are harmless" because the active ingredients are definitely not.
That said, if you could replace every cigarette in the world right now with an e-cig. Would you not do it? I would. They have their own host of problems, but not so much as inhaling burnt plant matter has. Even with what we know now, we know it is the lesser of two evils.
I understand, you don't like people being imprecise, neither do I frankly. It's rather hard to stop though, one of those human nature thingies.
I can understand railing against the statement "e-cigarettes are harmless" because the active ingredients are definitely not.
That said, if you could replace every cigarette in the world right now with an e-cig. Would you not do it? I would. They have their own host of problems, but not so much as inhaling burnt plant matter has. Even with what we know now, we know it is the lesser of two evils.
I understand, you don't like people being imprecise, neither do I frankly. It's rather hard to stop though, one of those human nature thingies.
In casual conversation many people would describe advil as harmless
Particularly when comparing it to tylenol.
The LD50 of nicotine is low enough that it would be conceivable to die from the toxic effects, and that's not possible with cannabis, but that's already a risk with nicotine patches, and it's not that large a risk.
Nicotine certainly has some distinctive psychoactive effects. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether you find them beneficial if you are otherwise healthy.
Nicotine certainly has some distinctive psychoactive effects. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether you find them beneficial if you are otherwise healthy.
> we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful
Can we? How?
> Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right.
Vaping doesn't necessarily involve nicotine.
Can we? How?
> Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right.
Vaping doesn't necessarily involve nicotine.
If the bar is "somewhat harmful" then almost everything we put in our bodies would comply.
>The ecig industry is the tobacco industry.
A large part of the ecig industry is small businesses making liquid and selling it out of little shops and small websites. We have two of these shops in my little Podunk town now. It's kind of amazing to see, and I wonder how long it will manage to last.
I doubt that the future of ecigs is going to be these shitty disposable toys and prepackaged cartridges. Everyone I've known who started on ecigs pretty quickly moved on to higher quality refillable deals.
A large part of the ecig industry is small businesses making liquid and selling it out of little shops and small websites. We have two of these shops in my little Podunk town now. It's kind of amazing to see, and I wonder how long it will manage to last.
I doubt that the future of ecigs is going to be these shitty disposable toys and prepackaged cartridges. Everyone I've known who started on ecigs pretty quickly moved on to higher quality refillable deals.
Plus the mod makers selling rebuildable atomizers and battery casings.
It's pretty clear you only have a surface understanding of the e-cig industry, the big tobacco owned e-cig lines are crappy disposables. You might start with one, but pretty soon you move on to a proper personal vaporizer with a decent battery life.
It's not clear how exactly harmful they aren't, either. The truth is, no one knows. They certainly haven't done any harm to me thus far, and we aren't yet hearing reports of vapers dropping dead, so I think it's safe to assume they're relatively harmless. (at least in the short term.)
It's not clear how exactly harmful they aren't, either. The truth is, no one knows. They certainly haven't done any harm to me thus far, and we aren't yet hearing reports of vapers dropping dead, so I think it's safe to assume they're relatively harmless. (at least in the short term.)
> so I think it's safe to assume they're relatively harmless. (at least in the short term.)
Cigarrettes are basically harmless in the short term as well!
None the less, and contaminants from crappy manifacturers not-withstanding, I'd be surprised if e-cig's turn out to be harmful (in a meaningful way).
Cigarrettes are basically harmless in the short term as well!
None the less, and contaminants from crappy manifacturers not-withstanding, I'd be surprised if e-cig's turn out to be harmful (in a meaningful way).
I agree that they're not harmless. They're addictive, and being forced into reliance on a substance is never good.
Though, this is the only detriment we know of.
Though, this is the only detriment we know of.
being forced into reliance on a substance is never good
I find this wording problematic. I'm skeptical that any significant number of people in the developed world today start using nicotine without knowing that it's addictive or that a significant fraction of nicotine addicts developed that addiction through involuntary exposure.
I find this wording problematic. I'm skeptical that any significant number of people in the developed world today start using nicotine without knowing that it's addictive or that a significant fraction of nicotine addicts developed that addiction through involuntary exposure.
> They're addictive, and being forced into reliance on a substance is never good.
How bad is it? Unless I'm exercising hard, I'll get caffeine withdrawal symptoms if I stop drinking coffee. I have read of both beneficial and detrimental effects of caffeine. What's the threshold for considering the accompanying physical addiction a problem?
How bad is it? Unless I'm exercising hard, I'll get caffeine withdrawal symptoms if I stop drinking coffee. I have read of both beneficial and detrimental effects of caffeine. What's the threshold for considering the accompanying physical addiction a problem?
> What's the threshold for considering the accompanying physical addiction a problem?
If something is addictive but not physically harmful the threshold is when it starts to affect your day to day life.
Gambling is fun. Some people have a problem with gambling. When you think that gambling is affecting your day to day life it's stopped being fun and turned into a problem.
If something is addictive but not physically harmful the threshold is when it starts to affect your day to day life.
Gambling is fun. Some people have a problem with gambling. When you think that gambling is affecting your day to day life it's stopped being fun and turned into a problem.
I'd like to see any citation for #1.
For #2 you need to prove that if there exists s in S and s has property X then every element t in S also has property X.
For #2 you need to prove that if there exists s in S and s has property X then every element t in S also has property X.
The burden of proof, in this case, should be on the e-cigarette industry. They are selling an addictive recreational product, consisting of a new combination of substances, with a novel delivery method (that involves deep inhalation). It would be naive to let them play the game the cigarette industry has played for decades, that is trying to dodge the burden of proof for safety and spreading uncertainty.
And let's not forget that, for a novel product, the baseline for safety is not using the product, not using something that is known to be extremely toxic.
And let's not forget that, for a novel product, the baseline for safety is not using the product, not using something that is known to be extremely toxic.
All substances in e-cigaretes are harmless in dozes they are normally taken+. IMHO this is sufficient to claim that a mix of harmless substances is also harmless so the burden of proof is on somebody saying that such a mix suddenly became harmful.
+ I know that nicotine has LD50, so does water and even oxygen is dangerous at high pressure.
+ I know that nicotine has LD50, so does water and even oxygen is dangerous at high pressure.
#1: they're addictive. It's in my list of harmful things
Sugar is addictive and vastly more dangerous than ecigs IMO.
Conversely, caffeine is addictive, but is otherwise harmless (except in insane doses.) So long as you never try to quit, you'll never experience any negative side effects of caffeine addiction.
You don't have to use them with nicotine. Then they are non-addictive.
"harmless" isn't quite right but calling that a "lie" is likewise a stretch. If they are, say, less harmful than sugar, is it OK to call them harmless?
[deleted]
But are they harmless? If they’re made with chemicals in an unregulated industrial process, it seems unlikely. Less harmful than ”analog” cigarettes, maybe—but completely harmless seems like an unlikely stretch.
Ecig advocates take a harm reduction approach, rather than the quit or die approach of anti-nicotine zealots. All evidence suggests that ecigs are vastly safer than burning tobacco.
Here is a recent survey of all available research. We could further extend this by looking at known cancer/cardiovascular risks of the small bits of concern with ecigs then compare to burning tobacco and you are talking about 1% danger comparatively: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642...
There is some movement for hte industry to regulate itself and suggest sensible rules, but if ecigs are "deemed" under the 2009 Tobacco act, it will potentially wipe out all innovation because of the rule that any new product be "substantially equivalent" to a product on the market before some arbitrary date in 2007 they set. There's all sorts of horrible rules being proposed which go beyond just making sure the liquid isn't contaminated.
Here is a recent survey of all available research. We could further extend this by looking at known cancer/cardiovascular risks of the small bits of concern with ecigs then compare to burning tobacco and you are talking about 1% danger comparatively: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642...
There is some movement for hte industry to regulate itself and suggest sensible rules, but if ecigs are "deemed" under the 2009 Tobacco act, it will potentially wipe out all innovation because of the rule that any new product be "substantially equivalent" to a product on the market before some arbitrary date in 2007 they set. There's all sorts of horrible rules being proposed which go beyond just making sure the liquid isn't contaminated.
I as a non-smoker can buy an e-cigarette, so one should judge the safety of the product on its own, not compared to something that is clearly harmful.
Methadone, for example, is used for harm reduction. It's only available as an prescription alternative to a harmful addiction. And still, substitution therapy is treated like any other form of medicine, i.e. the industry has to prove the merits of their product before it can go on sale.
Nicotine patches, which are available OTC to the general public, at least had to be proven as safe in clinical trials.
Methadone, for example, is used for harm reduction. It's only available as an prescription alternative to a harmful addiction. And still, substitution therapy is treated like any other form of medicine, i.e. the industry has to prove the merits of their product before it can go on sale.
Nicotine patches, which are available OTC to the general public, at least had to be proven as safe in clinical trials.
thank you for this level-headed response. some of the vitriol around here is toxic.
Safer according to what study? People just assume they are safer.
No. There are numerous studies demonstrating that they are safer. Here's one: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... . Here's another: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac...
Also, without direct evidence or rigorous analysis it would still be preposterous that a mixture of nicotine, fragrances, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine would be anywhere near as harmful to the lungs as cigarette smoke. There is a difference between "just assuming" and applying common sense.
Also, without direct evidence or rigorous analysis it would still be preposterous that a mixture of nicotine, fragrances, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine would be anywhere near as harmful to the lungs as cigarette smoke. There is a difference between "just assuming" and applying common sense.
I must admit I have tolerance for that bullshit. The cigs don't contain any of the dangerous chemical in a cigarette - you don't need a study to prove they are safe, you just need a decent understanding of chemistry.
But a million anti-smoking advocates don't give a shit.
But a million anti-smoking advocates don't give a shit.
The set of chemicals in cigarettes that are dangerous is a subset of all chemicals known to be dangerous. One can conclude something quite important from that fact without any understanding of anything other than basic reasoning skills.
If nicotine isn't harmful in itself, why does chewing tobacco cause cancers of the mouth?
Yes, I know I do assume they are safer.
If the ecig industry were regulated, then we could make sure the liquid has no or minimal side effects.
In my country it is worse because ecigs are forbidden (given that uncertainity), so we have a black market for ecigs, making the quality of the liquids even more quetionable.
I know tobacco is really bad, and I have doubts about ecig. So, I give the benefit of the doubt, as it is little probability it is worse.
If the ecig industry were regulated, then we could make sure the liquid has no or minimal side effects.
In my country it is worse because ecigs are forbidden (given that uncertainity), so we have a black market for ecigs, making the quality of the liquids even more quetionable.
I know tobacco is really bad, and I have doubts about ecig. So, I give the benefit of the doubt, as it is little probability it is worse.
Honestly, I have doubts that there's much bad going to come of unregulated liquid. They're very simple solutions with few ingredients, and there isn't that much room to screw it up. If you bought ingredients from China, you might end up with VG and PG that weren't actually VG or PG, so there's one avenue. But the same thing happened with toothpaste years back, and toothpaste is regulated.
I'd actually be more concerned about the hardware than the liquid. It would be easy to cut costs by using unsafe materials for heating elements, solder, or the wicks. But even with all of that risk, you're going to have a hell of a time beating the harm of cigarettes.
I'd actually be more concerned about the hardware than the liquid. It would be easy to cut costs by using unsafe materials for heating elements, solder, or the wicks. But even with all of that risk, you're going to have a hell of a time beating the harm of cigarettes.
[deleted]
"I hope the tobacco industry takes a huge financial hit from the sale of these things because they literally prevent people from dying."
From what I can tell, the tobacco industry is going to eventually own the e-cig market too.
http://money.msn.com/investing/big-tobacco-invests-in-e-ciga... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57588583/
From what I can tell, the tobacco industry is going to eventually own the e-cig market too.
http://money.msn.com/investing/big-tobacco-invests-in-e-ciga... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57588583/
That seems to be a sign that they _are_ taking a significant financial hit, or at least are afraid that they will soon. I'd rather see people using e-cigs sold by big tobacco companies than real cigarettes though.
I tried the patch before using e-cigs to quit. The patch stopped the cravings for me even better than the e-cigs, but gave me horrifying dreams every night, and I would wake up every morning thinking for the first few minutes that they had actually happened the day before. Even if e-cigs are somewhat harmful, I would choose them over cigarettes and over wacky lucid nightmares.
> horrifying dreams every night
lol please tell me you did not sleep with it, because you are certainly not supposed to!
lol please tell me you did not sleep with it, because you are certainly not supposed to!
> That being said, when I switched to e-cigarettes, it was very easy to switch back to regular cigarettes.
Not easy at all for me. Cigarettes taste so disgusting, I could never go back to them.
Not easy at all for me. Cigarettes taste so disgusting, I could never go back to them.
[deleted]
I used to run a custom e-cigarette company. We sold it this summer.
My take away was that the federal government eventually will get involved and start regulating the shipping of these items. Unfortunately the stuff people are getting now is mostly made in China and you can't be too certain of what the heck you are getting when you take a big inhale and just taste the apple flavoring or whatever. Who knows what chemicals are used to make them.
Most of the testimonials I received was from people that were able to quit smoking because of my product, but I definitely got some complaints as well. The biggest benefit of the e-cig is that is is little to no smell. Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems. It is an interesting market though where it seems like new types of e-cigs are coming out all the time.
Another thing about e-cigs is that people are making them into e-joints. This is very popular especially in medical marijuana states. Before they banned synthetic marijuana, we were developing a synthetic marijuana e-cig. Would have been fun to have around, but ultimately I am glad not to be filling in mass them any more!
My take away was that the federal government eventually will get involved and start regulating the shipping of these items. Unfortunately the stuff people are getting now is mostly made in China and you can't be too certain of what the heck you are getting when you take a big inhale and just taste the apple flavoring or whatever. Who knows what chemicals are used to make them.
Most of the testimonials I received was from people that were able to quit smoking because of my product, but I definitely got some complaints as well. The biggest benefit of the e-cig is that is is little to no smell. Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems. It is an interesting market though where it seems like new types of e-cigs are coming out all the time.
Another thing about e-cigs is that people are making them into e-joints. This is very popular especially in medical marijuana states. Before they banned synthetic marijuana, we were developing a synthetic marijuana e-cig. Would have been fun to have around, but ultimately I am glad not to be filling in mass them any more!
Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems.
If you were flying on an airline based in the United States, you violated their rules.
http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-i...
Beyond that, what gives you the right to put other people's health at risk? You have either judged them safe or decided you don't care about the risks. You can't make that decision for other people and you're not in a position to know what genetic or other disorders that someone might have that make them more susceptible to any kind of tobacco (ex: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficie...). How is this any different from me walking onto a plane with a clump of asbestos fibers and waving it over your head on the plane?
If you were flying on an airline based in the United States, you violated their rules.
http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-i...
Beyond that, what gives you the right to put other people's health at risk? You have either judged them safe or decided you don't care about the risks. You can't make that decision for other people and you're not in a position to know what genetic or other disorders that someone might have that make them more susceptible to any kind of tobacco (ex: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficie...). How is this any different from me walking onto a plane with a clump of asbestos fibers and waving it over your head on the plane?
> more susceptible to any kind of tobacco
That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence.
Please at least stick to the ingredients actually present when attempting an attack.
Additionallym please bear in mind that saying "oh but we've no guarantee it was actually made with those ingredients" is pretty equivalent to "oh but we've no guarantee somebody's lipstick wasn't actually made with rat poision", so your 'strawman argument' claim down thread doesn't make any sense to me.
> I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer.
I fear that this statement elsethread - combined with your sneering tone anc crusader's mindset - indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing the matter clearly but rather in rationalising your hatred of the thing you blame for your mother's death. That would be a shame; under the thick layer of condescension I think you actually have some valid arguments, although it's a little difficult to tell for sure.
That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence.
Please at least stick to the ingredients actually present when attempting an attack.
Additionallym please bear in mind that saying "oh but we've no guarantee it was actually made with those ingredients" is pretty equivalent to "oh but we've no guarantee somebody's lipstick wasn't actually made with rat poision", so your 'strawman argument' claim down thread doesn't make any sense to me.
> I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer.
I fear that this statement elsethread - combined with your sneering tone anc crusader's mindset - indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing the matter clearly but rather in rationalising your hatred of the thing you blame for your mother's death. That would be a shame; under the thick layer of condescension I think you actually have some valid arguments, although it's a little difficult to tell for sure.
That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence.
Here's some evidence for you to see:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.ht...
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
You appear to just be taking all the claims that these e-cigarette companies are reporting at face value. Just like people used to take what the tobacco companies said at face value. I won't fall for it.
Are e-cigarettes safe than regular cigarettes? Maybe? Probably? Are they safe though? I have no idea and neither do you or anyone else.
Here's some evidence for you to see:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.ht...
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
You appear to just be taking all the claims that these e-cigarette companies are reporting at face value. Just like people used to take what the tobacco companies said at face value. I won't fall for it.
Are e-cigarettes safe than regular cigarettes? Maybe? Probably? Are they safe though? I have no idea and neither do you or anyone else.
That DEG bit has nothing to do with them using tobacco, and instead has everything to do with a company in China not using USP Propylene Glycol (as non-USP PG might contain some DEG.)
And just to elaborate on this, non-USP PG is used everywhere. If you cook and use flavorings, take a look in your cupboard and check out the ingredients. PG will no doubt be used as a carrier in some of them. Aside from flavorings it's also used in the manufacture of many foods: my grandfather, who works at a cheese house, told me they use it in their process and it no doubt gets into the production.
The nitrosamines are from the nicotine extraction, which again indicates that they were probably not using USP nicotine. The company that produced that particular e-cigarette is now out of business.
The dose makes the poision; analyze everything around you and you may find a very small percentage of unwanted and dangerous chemicals.
Conflating the e-cigarette industry with the tobacco industry is entirely incorrect. The e-cig industry was not started by a tobacco company, and big tobacco has only recently taken interest by buying up companies and starting their own brands.
Also note, that the amount of DEG and nitrosamines were well within acceptable standards enforced by the FDA. The whole media circus around it was very shady.
And just to elaborate on this, non-USP PG is used everywhere. If you cook and use flavorings, take a look in your cupboard and check out the ingredients. PG will no doubt be used as a carrier in some of them. Aside from flavorings it's also used in the manufacture of many foods: my grandfather, who works at a cheese house, told me they use it in their process and it no doubt gets into the production.
The nitrosamines are from the nicotine extraction, which again indicates that they were probably not using USP nicotine. The company that produced that particular e-cigarette is now out of business.
The dose makes the poision; analyze everything around you and you may find a very small percentage of unwanted and dangerous chemicals.
Conflating the e-cigarette industry with the tobacco industry is entirely incorrect. The e-cig industry was not started by a tobacco company, and big tobacco has only recently taken interest by buying up companies and starting their own brands.
Also note, that the amount of DEG and nitrosamines were well within acceptable standards enforced by the FDA. The whole media circus around it was very shady.
>The dose makes the poision; analyze everything around you and you may find a very small percentage of unwanted and dangerous chemicals.
Very good point. Toxicologists hate the term "poison" because it is misleading. Water is poisonous when we take too much.
There was some terrible anti-ecig research recently that reported all of this dangerous stuff in them (still vastly less dangerous if you look at it merely because there is no burning lignins).
Anyhow, the flaw in this study was burning e-liquid at 900 degrees C, the temperature of the cone of a burning cigarette, versus the 200-250 C of an ecig. It is sort of like saying a car isn't safe to drive on a highway because we tested it at 200 MPH.
All of these people raising concern in this thread, writing NYT articles, etc. are not informed about the body of research and able to put it in perspective.
BTW, with how much is consumed on average taken into account, FDA-approved gums/patches contain more tobacco-specific nitrosamines than ecigs (and this is so minor to not be a concern).
Very good point. Toxicologists hate the term "poison" because it is misleading. Water is poisonous when we take too much.
There was some terrible anti-ecig research recently that reported all of this dangerous stuff in them (still vastly less dangerous if you look at it merely because there is no burning lignins).
Anyhow, the flaw in this study was burning e-liquid at 900 degrees C, the temperature of the cone of a burning cigarette, versus the 200-250 C of an ecig. It is sort of like saying a car isn't safe to drive on a highway because we tested it at 200 MPH.
All of these people raising concern in this thread, writing NYT articles, etc. are not informed about the body of research and able to put it in perspective.
BTW, with how much is consumed on average taken into account, FDA-approved gums/patches contain more tobacco-specific nitrosamines than ecigs (and this is so minor to not be a concern).
Finding a known toxin in one cartridge out of eighteen could be a single manufacturing error, but does indeed strike me as a potential problem.
The remaining statements give no statement of quantities or the likely effects ... so could indeed be a serious problem, or no more of a risk than background radiation.
Please consider the possibility that my refusal to take -your- claims at face value indicates a refusal to do so with anybody's claims rather than a desire to only accept evidence from one side of an argument.
> Are they safe though?
Safety can't be treated as an absolute; I know somebody who's substantially allergic to peanuts or the dust thereof, and as such could easily have a very bad reaction simply from somebody eating a bag of peanuts next to them. This is not to my knowledge commonly raised as an argument to make peanuts illegal - but seems equivalent to your "particularly susceptible to tobacco" point, unless I'm missing something.
> I have no idea
Neither do I, but I regard this as a reason not to immediately draw any specific conclusion rather than to consider anybody who makes a particular guess to be "falling for" anything.
The remaining statements give no statement of quantities or the likely effects ... so could indeed be a serious problem, or no more of a risk than background radiation.
Please consider the possibility that my refusal to take -your- claims at face value indicates a refusal to do so with anybody's claims rather than a desire to only accept evidence from one side of an argument.
> Are they safe though?
Safety can't be treated as an absolute; I know somebody who's substantially allergic to peanuts or the dust thereof, and as such could easily have a very bad reaction simply from somebody eating a bag of peanuts next to them. This is not to my knowledge commonly raised as an argument to make peanuts illegal - but seems equivalent to your "particularly susceptible to tobacco" point, unless I'm missing something.
> I have no idea
Neither do I, but I regard this as a reason not to immediately draw any specific conclusion rather than to consider anybody who makes a particular guess to be "falling for" anything.
[deleted](1)
It is really interesting to look at this article through the lens of the PR agency/strategy that helped place it for NJOY.
1) Quotes from CEO
2) Little anecdote from Chief Marketing Officer
3) Big vision "Vaping" becomes common place.
4) Key differentiators: "building e-cigarettes that look, feel and perform like the real thing" (this is sprinkled throughout)
5) Celebrity endorsement, Big names: Peter Thiel, Brunno Mars
The rest (post first page) is a nice over view of the e-cigarette industry, and some challenges facing NJOY. I wonder how long they were working on a NYT article, of if this was something pretty easy for them to get, given interest around e-cigarettes.
1) Quotes from CEO
2) Little anecdote from Chief Marketing Officer
3) Big vision "Vaping" becomes common place.
4) Key differentiators: "building e-cigarettes that look, feel and perform like the real thing" (this is sprinkled throughout)
5) Celebrity endorsement, Big names: Peter Thiel, Brunno Mars
The rest (post first page) is a nice over view of the e-cigarette industry, and some challenges facing NJOY. I wonder how long they were working on a NYT article, of if this was something pretty easy for them to get, given interest around e-cigarettes.
There's been a fair number of fluff PR and guerilla marketing - even directly at HN readers - around vaping. It's likely organized and funded, etc. blah blah. How far did you have to read through this article to get any voice of someone NOT paid by the company or by the company of the author?
The whole e-cig thing is trying to re-build the signalling that real cigarettes have had instead of the self-medicating, addicted idea people have at this point. Rebellion, authenticity, ritual, nostalgia, freedom etc. vs. Addict
It must be turned into something you do in front of people to be safely contrarian. Why not just have little capsules that you can get a high dose rush from that essentially is minimally enveloped nicotine? Just enough toying to get it straight to the blood stream?
The whole e-cig thing is trying to re-build the signalling that real cigarettes have had instead of the self-medicating, addicted idea people have at this point. Rebellion, authenticity, ritual, nostalgia, freedom etc. vs. Addict
It must be turned into something you do in front of people to be safely contrarian. Why not just have little capsules that you can get a high dose rush from that essentially is minimally enveloped nicotine? Just enough toying to get it straight to the blood stream?
> Why not just have little capsules that you can get a high dose rush from that essentially is minimally enveloped nicotine?
They have these too. Look for the '4mg nicotine mini lozenge' made by Nicorette and generic by many companies. Unfortunately they're expensive and you need to use 2 or 3 (8-12mg) to really get effect from it. Also, they are slightly irritating to the mouth at times (but much less so than nicotine gum or any tobacco).
> The whole e-cig thing is trying to re-build the signalling [...]
That's an interesting point. I think you're right on that for the companies like Njoy and Blu, which are imitating the feel of real cigarettes. They're tapping into the smokers' rebellious psyche but interestingly, it's because those smokers are generally too self-conscious to use an e-cig with a giant battery and refillable tank that looks odd. Essentially, smokers feel (perhaps rightly) that smoking is accepted on some level, but people definitely do find it strange seeing someone inhale from a giant piece of metal that many might assume is some kind of hard drug.
However, as a result of their design concerns (to look like a real cigarette... or 'analog cig' as many say) they've sacrificed on tech specs and also on price. It's much more cost effective and also an overall better experience to buy an e-cig with a large battery and refillable tanks to hold the liquid. But Blu and others do not offer this. Compare their $7.99 e-cig that is equivalent to 20 cigarettes to the $7.99 10ml bottle of e-liquid for refillable e-cigs which will last at least a week (probably equivalent to 200 cigarettes), and batteries that last upwards of 1-2 days between charges. Some Blue e-cigs aren't re-chargeable and the ones that are run of out charge after a few hours of use. Also, Blu does not deliver the amount of nicotine to the user that a refillable tank + large battery can (which is bad b/c then smokers don't feel satisfied).
So, if smokers can find the self-confidence to vape on the most effective device (regardless of its appearance) then they'll save lots of money, get a better nicotine experience, and thus be much less likely to return to smoking.
They have these too. Look for the '4mg nicotine mini lozenge' made by Nicorette and generic by many companies. Unfortunately they're expensive and you need to use 2 or 3 (8-12mg) to really get effect from it. Also, they are slightly irritating to the mouth at times (but much less so than nicotine gum or any tobacco).
> The whole e-cig thing is trying to re-build the signalling [...]
That's an interesting point. I think you're right on that for the companies like Njoy and Blu, which are imitating the feel of real cigarettes. They're tapping into the smokers' rebellious psyche but interestingly, it's because those smokers are generally too self-conscious to use an e-cig with a giant battery and refillable tank that looks odd. Essentially, smokers feel (perhaps rightly) that smoking is accepted on some level, but people definitely do find it strange seeing someone inhale from a giant piece of metal that many might assume is some kind of hard drug.
However, as a result of their design concerns (to look like a real cigarette... or 'analog cig' as many say) they've sacrificed on tech specs and also on price. It's much more cost effective and also an overall better experience to buy an e-cig with a large battery and refillable tanks to hold the liquid. But Blu and others do not offer this. Compare their $7.99 e-cig that is equivalent to 20 cigarettes to the $7.99 10ml bottle of e-liquid for refillable e-cigs which will last at least a week (probably equivalent to 200 cigarettes), and batteries that last upwards of 1-2 days between charges. Some Blue e-cigs aren't re-chargeable and the ones that are run of out charge after a few hours of use. Also, Blu does not deliver the amount of nicotine to the user that a refillable tank + large battery can (which is bad b/c then smokers don't feel satisfied).
So, if smokers can find the self-confidence to vape on the most effective device (regardless of its appearance) then they'll save lots of money, get a better nicotine experience, and thus be much less likely to return to smoking.
Because if it doesn't fulfil the habit accurately (the e-cigs' major strength) then it's useless to get people off the paper ones.
I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different. The problem is that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be safe. From the article:
Most public health officials seem to agree that the levels of toxins in e-cigarettes are far lower than those in traditional cigarettes. But they also say that far too little is known, not just about potentially harmful aspects of particular brands of e-cigarettes, but also about whether there is harm from “secondhand vapor.” Dr. Glantz of U.C.S.F. says that in the absence of data, indoor smoking bans should also cover e-cigarettes.
The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeo...
I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
Most public health officials seem to agree that the levels of toxins in e-cigarettes are far lower than those in traditional cigarettes. But they also say that far too little is known, not just about potentially harmful aspects of particular brands of e-cigarettes, but also about whether there is harm from “secondhand vapor.” Dr. Glantz of U.C.S.F. says that in the absence of data, indoor smoking bans should also cover e-cigarettes.
The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeo...
I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking.
Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes.
> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty
There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring.
Adverse effects generally come from an allergic reaction to PG, which is uncommon but well known. Those who are allergic are advised to use 100% VG mixtures.
Aside from that, PG is well known to be safe for human consumption as regulated by the FDA. It is an ingredient in inhalers for asthma and is used in smoke machines. It can cause a humidicant effect on the throat, which leaves it dry, but drinking liquids easily avoids this problem.
No one is arguing that e-cigarette companies should not be regulated to make sure that the juice they produce is of a high quality, but arguments to regulate them heavily (or like regular cigarettes) is based mostly on FUD.
> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy. That's not something that's ever going to go away.
While long term data on e-cigarettes is not yet available, most experts agree that even in the worst-case scenario, they are nowhere near as bad for you as regular cigarettes. The FUD that exists in the debate can mostly be traced back to groups that have a temperance movement-esque attitude toward nicotine habits.
Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.
E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to get themselves off the dangers of regular cigarettes. That in itself is a public health miracle. The rates of cessation for cigarettes through traditional methods are frighteningly low, yet with the introduction of e-cigarettes, many people (including myself) will never touch a regular cigarette again after the first day.
I have a more advanced device than the ones you pick up at a gas station. It has variable wattage, variable voltage, an ohm-meter, a puff counter, and I can charge my iPhone from it via USB. As well as getting me off tobacco, it's also given me something else to geek out over, and I really enjoy it and the community around it.
Access to these devices must be made available widely and without encumbrance to as many people as possible. Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, not discouragement of purchase.
Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes.
> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty
There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring.
Adverse effects generally come from an allergic reaction to PG, which is uncommon but well known. Those who are allergic are advised to use 100% VG mixtures.
Aside from that, PG is well known to be safe for human consumption as regulated by the FDA. It is an ingredient in inhalers for asthma and is used in smoke machines. It can cause a humidicant effect on the throat, which leaves it dry, but drinking liquids easily avoids this problem.
No one is arguing that e-cigarette companies should not be regulated to make sure that the juice they produce is of a high quality, but arguments to regulate them heavily (or like regular cigarettes) is based mostly on FUD.
> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy. That's not something that's ever going to go away.
While long term data on e-cigarettes is not yet available, most experts agree that even in the worst-case scenario, they are nowhere near as bad for you as regular cigarettes. The FUD that exists in the debate can mostly be traced back to groups that have a temperance movement-esque attitude toward nicotine habits.
Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.
E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to get themselves off the dangers of regular cigarettes. That in itself is a public health miracle. The rates of cessation for cigarettes through traditional methods are frighteningly low, yet with the introduction of e-cigarettes, many people (including myself) will never touch a regular cigarette again after the first day.
I have a more advanced device than the ones you pick up at a gas station. It has variable wattage, variable voltage, an ohm-meter, a puff counter, and I can charge my iPhone from it via USB. As well as getting me off tobacco, it's also given me something else to geek out over, and I really enjoy it and the community around it.
Access to these devices must be made available widely and without encumbrance to as many people as possible. Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, not discouragement of purchase.
Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy
I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit.
To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will:
1. Make you less healthy while you are alive
2. Will prematurely end your life
3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population
4. Will cost you a ridiculous amount of money
5. Will cost you a tremendous amount of time while you seek out cigarettes and smoke them
... there are many more negatives.
What possible positives are there that outweigh these negatives?
Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.
This is just so incredibly ridiculous. I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life. I've gone "cold turkey" several times and the only effect was a slight headache that was off and on for a week. I think it's actually pretty easy to quit caffeine but from what I hear, it's nearly impossible to quit smoking cigarettes.
And if the effects of caffeine are similar to the effects of nicotine why not just use caffeine? It seems to have few of the negatives and all the positives (including the social impact of smoking which can be transferred to the social impact of getting coffee).
I just don't get smoking at all. I don't see any benefits to it in a vein similar to I don't see a benefit of smacking myself in the head with a hammer. It's hard to explain away such things with, "Yeah, people aren't rational" because you don't see many people smacking themselves in the head with a hammer.
I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit.
To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will:
1. Make you less healthy while you are alive
2. Will prematurely end your life
3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population
4. Will cost you a ridiculous amount of money
5. Will cost you a tremendous amount of time while you seek out cigarettes and smoke them
... there are many more negatives.
What possible positives are there that outweigh these negatives?
Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.
This is just so incredibly ridiculous. I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life. I've gone "cold turkey" several times and the only effect was a slight headache that was off and on for a week. I think it's actually pretty easy to quit caffeine but from what I hear, it's nearly impossible to quit smoking cigarettes.
And if the effects of caffeine are similar to the effects of nicotine why not just use caffeine? It seems to have few of the negatives and all the positives (including the social impact of smoking which can be transferred to the social impact of getting coffee).
I just don't get smoking at all. I don't see any benefits to it in a vein similar to I don't see a benefit of smacking myself in the head with a hammer. It's hard to explain away such things with, "Yeah, people aren't rational" because you don't see many people smacking themselves in the head with a hammer.
I started smoking in university, and where I'm from a very high percentage of university students smoke (usually roll-your-own cigarettes, though).
I can remember the first time I had a puff of a cigarette, and I was quite drunk at the time. The thing about smoking while drinking is that, at least at the start, a cigarette seems to make you twice as drunk as you were before, while also making you feel really good.
Of course before this I had smoked weed a bunch of times, and here that is usually mixed with tobacco in a joint, so I was used to it at least in that aspect.
But most people here who smoke weed and not cigarettes are quite able to handle the occasional tobacco in a joint without making a cigarette habit out of it.
Anyway, basically it just started out as something that I would do while out drinking. I would get drunk with my roommates, and occasionally have a puff or two from a cigarette in that state. Eventually I would have a whole roll-up to myself. Eventually I started buying my own tobacco to use with my own weed, and at times I would occasionally have a pure tobacco roll-up with no weed, just for the nice feeling.
For a lot of people, it generally starts out with the connection to drinking. Drinking and smoking are very conducive to each other, and it's how many many people get started.
I don't think I need to go into the details of how alcohol affects your judgement.
How my addiction came about was a slower process. At one point for whatever reason I decided to have a cigarette in the morning just as I was walking to my college, and by god did it feel great. At this point I was still convinced in the back of my mind that I had it under control, and could quit whenever I wanted.
The tradition of a morning cigarette turned into a necessity. Within about 6 months, I had an awful nervous feeling in my arms and stomach until I had the first cigarette of the day, and once it gets to that point, you're screwed.
I was young and foolish, I was drinking, I was doing it with my friends, I was getting social satisfaction from it. I enjoyed the ritual of making the trek to the smoking area with a friend or two for a nice chat while everyone else was inside.
I was smoking up until early August this year. I'm not a drinker at all anymore, and it's always been completely clear to me the health risks of smoking cigarettes, but the excuses still pile up: stress at work, stress at home, no time, trying to find as much enjoyment from my free time as I can, etc.
I switched to an e-cigarette (I hate that term, by the way, much prefer vaporizer) then in August, and the difference has been night and day. I never had another cigarette after that day, and to be honest, I despise them now. I've never had a craving for one and the smell of the smoke disgusts me now like it never did before when I was a smoker.
My cravings have gone down as well. I no longer feel that nervous feeling when I wake up in the morning. My nicotine requirements have gone way down. I'll be moving to a lower nicotine % juice when my current bottle runs out. My blood pressure is great, I can run again, my circulation is better and I don't cough up gunk.
I still have no full intention of quitting. Nicotine for me, like caffeine for some, is an aid to my work pattern. Walking down to the curb for a cigarette or leaning back for a few puffs from my vaporizer are the things that get my mind past a difficult bug or coding problem.
I can remember the first time I had a puff of a cigarette, and I was quite drunk at the time. The thing about smoking while drinking is that, at least at the start, a cigarette seems to make you twice as drunk as you were before, while also making you feel really good.
Of course before this I had smoked weed a bunch of times, and here that is usually mixed with tobacco in a joint, so I was used to it at least in that aspect.
But most people here who smoke weed and not cigarettes are quite able to handle the occasional tobacco in a joint without making a cigarette habit out of it.
Anyway, basically it just started out as something that I would do while out drinking. I would get drunk with my roommates, and occasionally have a puff or two from a cigarette in that state. Eventually I would have a whole roll-up to myself. Eventually I started buying my own tobacco to use with my own weed, and at times I would occasionally have a pure tobacco roll-up with no weed, just for the nice feeling.
For a lot of people, it generally starts out with the connection to drinking. Drinking and smoking are very conducive to each other, and it's how many many people get started.
I don't think I need to go into the details of how alcohol affects your judgement.
How my addiction came about was a slower process. At one point for whatever reason I decided to have a cigarette in the morning just as I was walking to my college, and by god did it feel great. At this point I was still convinced in the back of my mind that I had it under control, and could quit whenever I wanted.
The tradition of a morning cigarette turned into a necessity. Within about 6 months, I had an awful nervous feeling in my arms and stomach until I had the first cigarette of the day, and once it gets to that point, you're screwed.
I was young and foolish, I was drinking, I was doing it with my friends, I was getting social satisfaction from it. I enjoyed the ritual of making the trek to the smoking area with a friend or two for a nice chat while everyone else was inside.
I was smoking up until early August this year. I'm not a drinker at all anymore, and it's always been completely clear to me the health risks of smoking cigarettes, but the excuses still pile up: stress at work, stress at home, no time, trying to find as much enjoyment from my free time as I can, etc.
I switched to an e-cigarette (I hate that term, by the way, much prefer vaporizer) then in August, and the difference has been night and day. I never had another cigarette after that day, and to be honest, I despise them now. I've never had a craving for one and the smell of the smoke disgusts me now like it never did before when I was a smoker.
My cravings have gone down as well. I no longer feel that nervous feeling when I wake up in the morning. My nicotine requirements have gone way down. I'll be moving to a lower nicotine % juice when my current bottle runs out. My blood pressure is great, I can run again, my circulation is better and I don't cough up gunk.
I still have no full intention of quitting. Nicotine for me, like caffeine for some, is an aid to my work pattern. Walking down to the curb for a cigarette or leaning back for a few puffs from my vaporizer are the things that get my mind past a difficult bug or coding problem.
You might find that asking the question without repeated use of the word "ridiculous" and without calling people "reviled" would make it more likely that they'd answer you.
Then again, I'm not really seeing any evidence that you want your mind to be changed, so perhaps a better approach would be for you to simply post "I don't understand smoking at all and I don't honestly want to" and skip the insults for that reason instead.
Then again, I'm not really seeing any evidence that you want your mind to be changed, so perhaps a better approach would be for you to simply post "I don't understand smoking at all and I don't honestly want to" and skip the insults for that reason instead.
Well first of all, and as much as your deep-set hatred for smoking may not let you see it, you get a MUCH different feeling from a long drag on an American Spirit than you do from smacking yourself in the head with a hammer. One can be described as quite pleasant, the other quite...blunt.
I'm not a regular smoker, but I'll take a drag from a friend's every few months, and I enjoy it. But I also lost a family member to lung cancer, so I am particularly careful.
From my own anecdotal evidence, people start smoking in three ways: 1) Started as a kid under 16. Usually through parental influence (if they're smoking around the house a lot, you become very likely to). Otherwise through peer pressure (cool kids behind the bleachers). 2) Started while drunk. See the sister-comment for details. 3) Dated a smoker. This one will get ya, and definitely was the closest I ever got to smoking regularly. Once you get used to the smell of it, the taste of it, the release of a post-coital cig... I'm sure you can imagine how it can be to be deeply in love with someone and have incredible sense-memory connections with their brand of cigarettes.
Hopefully this might give you a little more compassion for people who have become smokers through any avenue, and instead of mocking them for their choices, help them seek cessation therapy.
I'm not a regular smoker, but I'll take a drag from a friend's every few months, and I enjoy it. But I also lost a family member to lung cancer, so I am particularly careful.
From my own anecdotal evidence, people start smoking in three ways: 1) Started as a kid under 16. Usually through parental influence (if they're smoking around the house a lot, you become very likely to). Otherwise through peer pressure (cool kids behind the bleachers). 2) Started while drunk. See the sister-comment for details. 3) Dated a smoker. This one will get ya, and definitely was the closest I ever got to smoking regularly. Once you get used to the smell of it, the taste of it, the release of a post-coital cig... I'm sure you can imagine how it can be to be deeply in love with someone and have incredible sense-memory connections with their brand of cigarettes.
Hopefully this might give you a little more compassion for people who have become smokers through any avenue, and instead of mocking them for their choices, help them seek cessation therapy.
"I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life."
Woops, a little bit of liberty taken there. The caffeine-> nicotine comparison refers to the isolated stimulants, not the act of smoking. People don't seem to be primarily addicted to nicotine in the sense of a cigarette, but the combination of nic + everything else in there.
You don't have to smoke to get a nicotine fix. You don't even need tobacco products.
Woops, a little bit of liberty taken there. The caffeine-> nicotine comparison refers to the isolated stimulants, not the act of smoking. People don't seem to be primarily addicted to nicotine in the sense of a cigarette, but the combination of nic + everything else in there.
You don't have to smoke to get a nicotine fix. You don't even need tobacco products.
> There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring.
There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions.
> Regulations that come in should be about quality of product,
Yes.
There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions.
> Regulations that come in should be about quality of product,
Yes.
> There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions.
Then we're in agreement. I don't know of anyone (besides the usual anarcho-capitalists) who thinks that low quality ingredients should be used in any consumed product.
Then we're in agreement. I don't know of anyone (besides the usual anarcho-capitalists) who thinks that low quality ingredients should be used in any consumed product.
I'm a non-smoker, but enjoy the effects of nicotine, and also find its effects on concentration etc useful when working. I've tried wearing patches during coding binges to (non-scientific) success.
The only real concern I'd have about vaping is forming an oral habit / gesture habit. What's your experience with this?
Also, what's a good spot to dive into the community, especially to find quality products? I'm in France - huge consumers of e-cigs, but there are plenty of cheap ones - I'd like to avoid using 'dangerous' flavours - an would probably prefer to mix the juice myself.
Thanks !
The only real concern I'd have about vaping is forming an oral habit / gesture habit. What's your experience with this?
Also, what's a good spot to dive into the community, especially to find quality products? I'm in France - huge consumers of e-cigs, but there are plenty of cheap ones - I'd like to avoid using 'dangerous' flavours - an would probably prefer to mix the juice myself.
Thanks !
> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking.
Ad hominem. Plus, just because something resembles smoking does not mean you should conflate the two, "poisoning the well."
> When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different
Condescending and derisive.
> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty
Finally we get to some actual evidence. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias. Did you find any opposing data?
Ad hominem. Plus, just because something resembles smoking does not mean you should conflate the two, "poisoning the well."
> When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different
Condescending and derisive.
> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty
Finally we get to some actual evidence. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias. Did you find any opposing data?
Ad hominem
Criticizing someone's behavior is not an ad-hominem. You really don't seem to know what ad-hominem means at all. This should help you:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Condescending and derisive.
Ironically, it is condescending and derisive that they are trying to educate me about e-cigarettes.
I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias
Did you just read a Wikipedia article on logical fallacies and are trying to fit as many "big words" into your HN comments as you can?
Criticizing someone's behavior is not an ad-hominem. You really don't seem to know what ad-hominem means at all. This should help you:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Condescending and derisive.
Ironically, it is condescending and derisive that they are trying to educate me about e-cigarettes.
I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias
Did you just read a Wikipedia article on logical fallacies and are trying to fit as many "big words" into your HN comments as you can?
I think you misunderstood his intentions. You see, fallacies are like Harry Potter spells except their Latin names produce crushing arguments instead of magical effects. You are now engaged in a duel and must respond with your own invocations. This is how debates are conducted.
You have the scientific method backwards. Things are not shown to be safe, ever. They are shown to be dangerous.
For example, cannabis smoke. It has been shown to cause emphysema. Despite rather large and lengthy population studies, it has not been shown to cause lung cancer. That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that.
E-liquid is hugely variable in quality because there's no regulation. While I happen to think quality e-liquid will be safe for say 98% of the population to inhale, and the rest will be just as easily sent into shock by, say, perfume (this allergy is quite common), it is only detailed study which can actually answer this question.
For example, cannabis smoke. It has been shown to cause emphysema. Despite rather large and lengthy population studies, it has not been shown to cause lung cancer. That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that.
E-liquid is hugely variable in quality because there's no regulation. While I happen to think quality e-liquid will be safe for say 98% of the population to inhale, and the rest will be just as easily sent into shock by, say, perfume (this allergy is quite common), it is only detailed study which can actually answer this question.
>That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that.
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full
The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full
The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.
What you are showing here is that we've moved on to the meta-analysis part of the scientific method. Basically, given many studies, featuring an unknown number of bad actors and poor methodologies, what conclusion can we draw from the numbers?
There are 400 people enrolled in that study. British health services have conducted multiple longitudinal studies, on Jamaican, British and Indian populations, over more than 100 years, with larger sample sets. Different conclusions were drawn.
Note: what I wrote is not a meta-analysis either. I don't have one in my back pocket. If you find one let's talk.
There are 400 people enrolled in that study. British health services have conducted multiple longitudinal studies, on Jamaican, British and Indian populations, over more than 100 years, with larger sample sets. Different conclusions were drawn.
Note: what I wrote is not a meta-analysis either. I don't have one in my back pocket. If you find one let's talk.
"Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use... Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821
Wildly off topic, though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821
Wildly off topic, though.
Wow, looking through your citation, almost all of the reports are because the user had a lung condition prior, or an allergy to glycol. This is merely confirmation bias in a report, at best. This is why they SHOULD be regulated, so the adequate warnings can be expressed and the low quality one thrown out of the market, but it does not show that ALL should just be removed.
We already see that your experience has shaped your worldview, but dont impose that on others.
We already see that your experience has shaped your worldview, but dont impose that on others.
> The problem is that [we know nothing about the safety or lack thereof of] e-cigarettes
> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
We don't know anything about it [e-cigarrettes]. There is no literature that suggests that nicotine alone causes cancer, and no research at all on the safety of the devices themselves.
Should we do more research as they gain popular adoption? Definitely.
> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?
We don't know anything about it [e-cigarrettes]. There is no literature that suggests that nicotine alone causes cancer, and no research at all on the safety of the devices themselves.
Should we do more research as they gain popular adoption? Definitely.
A lot of smokers I know switched to these things. They 'smoke' (is that the proper word with such an e-cig?) far more than they did before. Some of them use them every second they have nothing todo with one of their hands, which basically means they're puffing most of their waking day. I hope for them these things don't turn out to be as bad as/worse than normal cigs...
As someone who switched to an e-cigarette, I might be able to answer this for you.
The first thing is that the level and effect of nicotine that is absorbed though vapor is a lot less than a regular cigarette. The reason for this is twofold: firstly, the lungs/mouth/throat seem to simply not pick up as much as in a cigarette, and secondly, cigarette smoke also contains MAOIs, which increase the sensitivity of the brain to nicotine's effects.
In addition, users can choose the level of nicotine that they use. Most e-cig users who are regular smokers tend to start at around 18mg/ml. When I first started, I was using this liquid in a 1.6ml tank. One tank worked out to about 1 pack of cigarettes worth of nicotine, and I got through about a tank a day: the same amount that I used to smoke in cigarettes, except spread out through a longer period of time.
Most vapers will puff way differently to cigarette users. We take one or two puffs at a time and then wait, while a cigarette user will smoke the whole thing quickly in one go.
Nicotine has been shown[1] to increase creativity in the brain, and I know from my own experience that I find it to be great while working. Most of my 'House' moments when tackling difficult coding problems have occurred on the curb with a cigarette in my mouth, and now I lean back at my desk and have a few puffs of fine-tasting menthol e-liquid.
[1] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoc--bcw08150...
The first thing is that the level and effect of nicotine that is absorbed though vapor is a lot less than a regular cigarette. The reason for this is twofold: firstly, the lungs/mouth/throat seem to simply not pick up as much as in a cigarette, and secondly, cigarette smoke also contains MAOIs, which increase the sensitivity of the brain to nicotine's effects.
In addition, users can choose the level of nicotine that they use. Most e-cig users who are regular smokers tend to start at around 18mg/ml. When I first started, I was using this liquid in a 1.6ml tank. One tank worked out to about 1 pack of cigarettes worth of nicotine, and I got through about a tank a day: the same amount that I used to smoke in cigarettes, except spread out through a longer period of time.
Most vapers will puff way differently to cigarette users. We take one or two puffs at a time and then wait, while a cigarette user will smoke the whole thing quickly in one go.
Nicotine has been shown[1] to increase creativity in the brain, and I know from my own experience that I find it to be great while working. Most of my 'House' moments when tackling difficult coding problems have occurred on the curb with a cigarette in my mouth, and now I lean back at my desk and have a few puffs of fine-tasting menthol e-liquid.
[1] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoc--bcw08150...
I don't disagree with your sentiment at all, but have you thought about the "curb" being the primary factor behind the increased creativity? Is leaning back and puffing from a vape as effective for you?
Of course I have, and yeah, it is as effective. Sometimes I will still get up and walk around while doing it.
I'm not going to claim any scientific miracles from it (that would be dumb), but for me the combination of taking a break from the screen and having some nicotine is what gets my brain going.
I'm not going to claim any scientific miracles from it (that would be dumb), but for me the combination of taking a break from the screen and having some nicotine is what gets my brain going.
They've already been studied, and they are clearly far, far less harmful than ordinary cigarettes. As for the more constant usage, it's definitely a problem, and one that will need some creativity to solve. I don't buy the explanation that you're getting less nicotine from it. People who use high-concentration liquid seem to have just as much as a problem with it as people who don't. As for the MAOI explanation: I've known people who use MAOIs and ecigs at the same time. They exhibit the same behavior.
What I think is happening is this: With a classical cigarette, there's a clear beginning and end. With an e-cig there isn't. You're getting a dopamine reward every time you hit it, and there's no cue to stop. My recommendation to anyone starting on ecigs would therefore be to start with a very low nicotine concentration, and stay there.
If you want to avoid this effect, that is. If you don't care (and there doesn't appear to be a health reason to care), then I just wouldn't worry about it.
What I think is happening is this: With a classical cigarette, there's a clear beginning and end. With an e-cig there isn't. You're getting a dopamine reward every time you hit it, and there's no cue to stop. My recommendation to anyone starting on ecigs would therefore be to start with a very low nicotine concentration, and stay there.
If you want to avoid this effect, that is. If you don't care (and there doesn't appear to be a health reason to care), then I just wouldn't worry about it.
My dad went through the same process. He smoked his e-cigarette essentially non-stop, all day long, everywhere he went.
He eventually ditched it and went back to real cigarettes, though he smokes drastically fewer per day now than he used to. Unfortunately, though, I expect his habit to be back in full swing in the next few years.
He eventually ditched it and went back to real cigarettes, though he smokes drastically fewer per day now than he used to. Unfortunately, though, I expect his habit to be back in full swing in the next few years.
Some e-cigs deliver nicotine more slowly, that might the reason for what you are describing.
See "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" , reference 76.
See "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" , reference 76.
I think the verb is 'vape'.
I can't fathom who thought these things were a good idea. I see people "smoking" these things everywhere: on the bus, on the train, at the effing university during classes!
I don't care if it's just steam, I don't want it in my face. I can't believe people don't get this.
I don't care if it's just steam, I don't want it in my face. I can't believe people don't get this.
> I can't fathom who thought these things were a good idea.
The millions of people who have quit tobacco because of them, for one example.
> I don't care if it's just steam, I don't want it in my face.
On behalf of the decent people in the vaping community, I'm sorry that you have to put up with people like that. There's a big movement in the community at the moment to severely discourage people from using them in inappropriate places like restaurants or around people who are disturbed by it.
However, I think that this problem can be solved by awareness raising alone. It's too risky for the sake of public health to ban them in certain places or outright.
If you come across someone doing this and you don't like it, tell them that propylene glycol vapor irritates you and ask them to avoid making clouds. Holding in the vapor for more than 5 seconds usually means that none at all will be expelled when they exhale. This is what I, and many others, do if we ever vape on public transport etc., which I try to avoid anyway.
The millions of people who have quit tobacco because of them, for one example.
> I don't care if it's just steam, I don't want it in my face.
On behalf of the decent people in the vaping community, I'm sorry that you have to put up with people like that. There's a big movement in the community at the moment to severely discourage people from using them in inappropriate places like restaurants or around people who are disturbed by it.
However, I think that this problem can be solved by awareness raising alone. It's too risky for the sake of public health to ban them in certain places or outright.
If you come across someone doing this and you don't like it, tell them that propylene glycol vapor irritates you and ask them to avoid making clouds. Holding in the vapor for more than 5 seconds usually means that none at all will be expelled when they exhale. This is what I, and many others, do if we ever vape on public transport etc., which I try to avoid anyway.
Thats just it, most e-cig users will be fine with holding it in. As an ex cigarette smoker, I am still not ok with doing it openly in public spaces (movie theater, restaurant, etc.). However, if I feel that all too familiar feeling and going outside is an inconvenience, Ill take a drag, and just hold it.
Boom, no cloud. Simple as that.
Boom, no cloud. Simple as that.
Exactly. I do not care what chemicals someone wants to put in his or her body but I care very strongly what chemicals and odors are around mine. The county where I live bans indoor e-cig and vaporizer consumption in the same places where cigarette smoking would be banned, such as inside office buildings, yet my coworkers simply do not care. This goes double for the bus or train stop where I have no choice; if I want or need to take that bus/train, I must stand _right_ _freaking_ _there_. When a couple of "vapers" (that's honestly the name I've heard people at work call themselves when they are partaking) are there and combined with another one to three people smoking "real" cigarettes, it gets quite hazy and uncomfortable.
I wish people would stop sneezing, coughing, stinking, wearing perfume etc in public but we can't have everything our own way when we interact with other people.
People tap-tap-tapping at their fucking phones gets the same reaction from me. Of course it's irrational for me to feel this way, so I've learned to ignore it.
I am extraordinarily allergic to the glycol in e-cigs. Just a few seconds of exposure is enough to send me into anaphylaxis. I am pretty sure somebody tapping away on their phone wont kill you.
If you're allergic to propylene glycol then you're allergic to pretty much everything.
That same propylene glycol is used in cakes/cupcakes, frostings, many ice creams, beers (as a foaming agent), some coffees, candy, many salad dressings, flavoured coffees, dried fruits, some brands of milk, many beauty products (makeup, shampoo, soaps)...
There are a lot more people with peanut allergies and we don't ban people from eating products containing peanuts anywhere in public. Why is this case different?
That same propylene glycol is used in cakes/cupcakes, frostings, many ice creams, beers (as a foaming agent), some coffees, candy, many salad dressings, flavoured coffees, dried fruits, some brands of milk, many beauty products (makeup, shampoo, soaps)...
There are a lot more people with peanut allergies and we don't ban people from eating products containing peanuts anywhere in public. Why is this case different?
Because you're not vaporizing peanuts and spraying it into the air where somebody with a peanut allergy has absolutely no choice but to inhale it?
People wear perfume. Some people are allergic to perfume. So what. At some point it's the person with the allergy's responsibility to manage their immune response through medical treatment.
I assume you are also allergic to hospital wards, which maintain a concentration of vaporized propylene glycol in their HVAC systems to prevent cross-infection?
Yeah, I too despise the militant glee people derive from using them everywhere. I also hate the enormous numbers of tacky shops ('MyCiggy'... jeez) appearing to flog them, which seem single-handedly to be propping up the Guild of Bad Typographers.
"Militant glee" is such a great description. It's like they look at you in the eye and think, "that's right motherf*, I'm smoking in the building!"
Don't piss off the Guild. Their letters are illegible, so you never really know what they are threatening you with until it is too late.
If you stand close to anyone else you're probably breathing air that came out of their filthy, mucusy lungs too.
THE HORROR!
THE HORROR!
“The very thing that could make them effective is also their greatest danger,” said Dr. Tim McAfee, director of Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It's exactly this kind of thinking that started and perpetuates the pernicious war on drugs. It's the root of the (proven false) "gateway drug" phenomenon.
The "thing" by the way is the fact that they don't do any harm. How absurd and ridiculous ..
It's exactly this kind of thinking that started and perpetuates the pernicious war on drugs. It's the root of the (proven false) "gateway drug" phenomenon.
The "thing" by the way is the fact that they don't do any harm. How absurd and ridiculous ..
Smokers getting annoyed looks at a Stones concert??? My how times have changed. The last time I saw the Stones in concert the entire venue was so filled with cigarette (and I'm sure other) smoke that when the house lights came up at the end of the show the place looked like a Cheech and Chong scene.
I do not understand why some people try to regulate this. My guess is that income from smoking-tax is shrinking.
I never smoked cigarette in my life, but I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee. It works, no hassle with tea or coffee preparation, also it is probably healthier. But being labeled as a smoker puts me off.
I never smoked cigarette in my life, but I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee. It works, no hassle with tea or coffee preparation, also it is probably healthier. But being labeled as a smoker puts me off.
"I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee...it is probably healthier."
I'll grant that vaporization ameliorates the problems merely caused by smoke inhalation, but doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own? I'll also not aware of there being health issues that result from drinking a normal amount of tea or coffee.
> but doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own?
Nicotine on its own causes very little harm.
(A word of advice, though, if you decide to read up on this topic: it is extremely common in the research literature to lazily conflate tobacco with nicotine. You will routinely find abstracts which say something like 'we sampled smokers...' and then in the conclusion write '...we conclude that nicotine damages cognitive performance', as if tobacco was nothing but solidified nicotine. When you find something negative about nicotine, you need to check that tobacco is not driving the results.)
Nicotine on its own causes very little harm.
(A word of advice, though, if you decide to read up on this topic: it is extremely common in the research literature to lazily conflate tobacco with nicotine. You will routinely find abstracts which say something like 'we sampled smokers...' and then in the conclusion write '...we conclude that nicotine damages cognitive performance', as if tobacco was nothing but solidified nicotine. When you find something negative about nicotine, you need to check that tobacco is not driving the results.)
> it is extremely common in the research literature to lazily conflate tobacco with nicotine.
It is also assumed that the tobacco is burned. Sure, snuff can cause oral cancer (unlikely though it may be in comparison to cigarettes), but if you dodge the oral cancer bullet what are the other potential problems? I have no idea because everything I find conflates tobacco use with burning it and inhaling it. Smoking is bad, we get it. Smoking automotive tires is probably bad, too. How about the effects of tobacco itself, separate from the bad effects of burning something and inhaling it?
It is also assumed that the tobacco is burned. Sure, snuff can cause oral cancer (unlikely though it may be in comparison to cigarettes), but if you dodge the oral cancer bullet what are the other potential problems? I have no idea because everything I find conflates tobacco use with burning it and inhaling it. Smoking is bad, we get it. Smoking automotive tires is probably bad, too. How about the effects of tobacco itself, separate from the bad effects of burning something and inhaling it?
+1
Also nicotine effects are more isolated to brain. Caffeine affects whole body including metabolism stimulation and hearth rate. Not so good for office worker.
Also nicotine effects are more isolated to brain. Caffeine affects whole body including metabolism stimulation and hearth rate. Not so good for office worker.
[deleted]
Reading the Wikipedia article on the health effects of coffee, coffee is almost certainly a net plus for health.
Nicotine is ambiguous.
Nicotine is ambiguous.
"doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own?"
Not really. Nicotine seems to be about the same or maybe a few times as dangerous as caffeine, which is to say barely dangerous at all.
Most of the danger of cigarettes is burning the plant material. There is a study assigning cancer risk to the toxicants of tobacco smoke and there is a list of the top 50 or so chemicals of concern called the Hoffman analytes. Nicotine isn't on this list.
Not really. Nicotine seems to be about the same or maybe a few times as dangerous as caffeine, which is to say barely dangerous at all.
Most of the danger of cigarettes is burning the plant material. There is a study assigning cancer risk to the toxicants of tobacco smoke and there is a list of the top 50 or so chemicals of concern called the Hoffman analytes. Nicotine isn't on this list.
You have no idea what chemicals are actually in that stuff.
If you buy from legitimate sources, you do. There are quality liquid producers that only use FDA-regulated flavors and sweeteners, organically-source vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and water. You can buy cheap from producers overseas, and I'm sure many do, but you can be as picky with your liquid as you can with what you eat.
lacking regulation you have no idea if such claims in their marketing material are even true
Even with regulation you still have to trust the companies making products. Most regulations do not require statistically significant independent sampling of every batch of product people consume. With such independent testing, you are going to have to trust the producer.
That would make sense if the penalty of finding a tainted batch were to send it back for another one. However, the case is that if you ever get caught selling tainted products you could get shut down completely.
[deleted]
Standardised doses, known ingredients etc etc.
Regulation doesn't have to mean restriction, as an ex-smoker that used e-cigs to quit, I think it's a great idea to get them regulated and legit.
Regulation doesn't have to mean restriction, as an ex-smoker that used e-cigs to quit, I think it's a great idea to get them regulated and legit.
If I smoked, it certainly wouldn't be something I would show off to others readily or be proud of in any way, I'd see it as an embarrassment. Even if these are safer, I still consider them to be anti-social.
I'm not a smoker, but I can't see why e-cigarettes should be anything more than a way to help stop smoking.
I'm not a smoker, but I can't see why e-cigarettes should be anything more than a way to help stop smoking.
Since people here talk about the difference of e-cigs and cigarettes , i.e. the lack of effects on MAOI, have anybody tried any juice that claims to have that effect on MAOI, for example "aroma ejuice" ?
How were the results for you ? And does anybody know about research or regulation of this types of ejuices ?
And since those same MAOI affecting compounds(probably beta carbolates) found in tobacco ,are found in brewed coffee, kinds of seasoning, grilled foods and other stuff, have anybody noticed a combination of vaping and some food more effective ?
How were the results for you ? And does anybody know about research or regulation of this types of ejuices ?
And since those same MAOI affecting compounds(probably beta carbolates) found in tobacco ,are found in brewed coffee, kinds of seasoning, grilled foods and other stuff, have anybody noticed a combination of vaping and some food more effective ?
Beta-carboline MAOI's were originally hypothesized to be what is important for those who feel something is missing with nicotine-only eliquid. After 3 years of working on this, I can tell you that this is not true. What's important is the other "minor tobacco alkaloids" like anatabine, anabasine, myosimine, etc.
Beta-carboline MAOI's, like the minor alkaloids, do have a potentiating effect with nicotine and therefore increase satisfaction or the potential for addiction; however, these MAOI's are pyrosynthesized (created by burning) 20-40x. This means that these MAOI's are not a significant component of a WTA eliquid or non-burned tobacco like the snus many people turn to for the "something missing".
Beta-carboline MAOI's, like the minor alkaloids, do have a potentiating effect with nicotine and therefore increase satisfaction or the potential for addiction; however, these MAOI's are pyrosynthesized (created by burning) 20-40x. This means that these MAOI's are not a significant component of a WTA eliquid or non-burned tobacco like the snus many people turn to for the "something missing".
> What's important is the other "minor tobacco alkaloids" like anatabine, anabasine, myosimine, etc.
Interesting. Could you provide more info about this?
Interesting. Could you provide more info about this?
I really feel like an ET. I'm from a world of cigarrete tv commercials; marlboro mclaren car; my mom, at 73, still smokes, daddy smoked until his last day and his death cause was not related to tobacco; grandfathers too; I studied in a technical high school where the teenagers could freely smoke; in university, there was one teacher that smoked cigars in the classroom...lost world of youth.
I recently switched from smoking half a pack a day to vaping about 95%. I still smoke here and there, but the craving is covered.
I had one of those smokes that looks like a cigarette, but it was garbage. The e-liquid with a KangerTech EVOD is the way to go.
Outside of the health benefits or whatever, the smell is one of the best reasons to switch. It's a good career move.
I had one of those smokes that looks like a cigarette, but it was garbage. The e-liquid with a KangerTech EVOD is the way to go.
Outside of the health benefits or whatever, the smell is one of the best reasons to switch. It's a good career move.
I used a nicotine spray. I have done for a few months now, it works sublingually. I used it (and patches) to quit smoking, and I'm nearly there, only a few weeks left.
What I find interesting though, is that while the spray does indeed get rid of the cravings, it (and the e-cigs I've used) is not the same "feeling" as smoking. This is possibly because of the lack of any MAOIs in the liquid itself.
How many of those using e-cigs here are ex-smokers? How many picked it up because it's a socially "acceptable" drug that you can now take without killing yourself slowly? I find it such a fascinating topic!
What I find interesting though, is that while the spray does indeed get rid of the cravings, it (and the e-cigs I've used) is not the same "feeling" as smoking. This is possibly because of the lack of any MAOIs in the liquid itself.
How many of those using e-cigs here are ex-smokers? How many picked it up because it's a socially "acceptable" drug that you can now take without killing yourself slowly? I find it such a fascinating topic!
I am an e-cig user, and an ex-smoker. There are five of us now in my group of friends.
I love the things. It's become a fun hobby for us. We swap flavours, buy hardware to show off, and talk about our experience whenever we're together. Way more fun than smoking ever was.
And, take this with a grain of salt (sample size of one), but I feel way better. No more coughing in the mornings, I take hills on my bike like a pro, and I'd swear I look healthier.
I love the things. It's become a fun hobby for us. We swap flavours, buy hardware to show off, and talk about our experience whenever we're together. Way more fun than smoking ever was.
And, take this with a grain of salt (sample size of one), but I feel way better. No more coughing in the mornings, I take hills on my bike like a pro, and I'd swear I look healthier.
>And, take this with a grain of salt (sample size of one), but I feel way better. No more coughing in the mornings, I take hills on my bike like a pro, and I'd swear I look healthier.
This is the same for me. A huge thing for me is that the tiredness that I feel when I smoke is nonexistent on ecigs.
This is the same for me. A huge thing for me is that the tiredness that I feel when I smoke is nonexistent on ecigs.
Here's another anecdote for the train!
Quit smoking in about 1 month from vaping, and that was 2-3 years ago. It's an awesome hobby, I have great stamina, and I can taste food. For the last year or so I've been riding a bike to work every day, averaging about 6-8 miles.
Quit smoking in about 1 month from vaping, and that was 2-3 years ago. It's an awesome hobby, I have great stamina, and I can taste food. For the last year or so I've been riding a bike to work every day, averaging about 6-8 miles.
I've been using an e-cig for about 3 months now and I've wanted a real cigarette maybe 3 times. The sheer volume of flavours and things to try is keeping me off the cigs. I've dropped my nicotine level down from medium to medium-low and I'm looking to drop again soon.
It's the closest thing to smoking without actually smoking and it's the only thing that's worked for me. I've tried cold turkey, patches and gum. None worked for more than a few weeks of constantly thinking about smoking.
It's so easy to switch from cigs to e-cigs too.
It's the closest thing to smoking without actually smoking and it's the only thing that's worked for me. I've tried cold turkey, patches and gum. None worked for more than a few weeks of constantly thinking about smoking.
It's so easy to switch from cigs to e-cigs too.
Have you read the book Allen Carr's easy way to quit smoking? It really works.
It sort of worked for me - after reading it I gave up smoking day-to-day - just like that. It was amazing.
But I still smoked when I went to the pub and had a drink - I guess it's a deeper link between them. To stop that I went for hypnosis.
I still want cigarettes every now and then, but I'm not actually tempted to have one any more.
But I still smoked when I went to the pub and had a drink - I guess it's a deeper link between them. To stop that I went for hypnosis.
I still want cigarettes every now and then, but I'm not actually tempted to have one any more.
ex-smoker here. Used ecigs without nicotine to quit. From the moment I tried the e-cig I thought ot tasted and felt better than burning plant matter.
I puffed like mad for about three months, then noticed I'd just stopped by accident.
Highly recommended IMHO.
I puffed like mad for about three months, then noticed I'd just stopped by accident.
Highly recommended IMHO.
[deleted]
I've always thought that part of what made quitting cigarettes so hard is the social aspect. Laws preventing it force fellow smokers together in designated areas where I guess they smoke and chat. To suddenly quit not only means you're suffering from the physical withdrawl but also the social aspect. e-cigs seem like the only alternative to actual cigarettes which mean you don't lose that social aspect since you can hang out with other smokers while you vape, should you wish.
One thing these e-cig companies could try in order to boost their rep is raising public awareness of the importance of recycling batteries.
Imagine battery recycling stations at all the places that cell these e-cigs which contain batteries themselves.
Imagine battery recycling stations at all the places that cell these e-cigs which contain batteries themselves.
[deleted]
Here is my guess: 2/3 of cancer is from smoke, 1/3 is from nicotine. E-cigs are 66% safer/better than analog cigs.
That being said, when I switched to e-cigarettes, it was very easy to switch back to regular cigarettes. That "narrow bridge of familiarity" was easy to cross back over, especially when I ran out of vapor cartridges. Ultimately for me to quit it took stopping cigarettes cold-turkey. Nicotine gum and a transition to regular gum helped a lot. It's been one of the hardest but most rewarding things I've ever done in my life.