Confounding a Smoking Ban, and Bouncers(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Confounding a Smoking Ban, and Bouncers
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/fashion/smoking-is-back-without-the-stigma.html?pagewanted=all
63 comments
The liquids are usually made of: propylene glycol (a food safe additive), glycerine, nicotine and flavoring (the same kind used in food). Nicotine, while not completely benign, is not exactly deadly stuff at the concentrations used in ecigs; it's in the same ballpark as caffeine. Propylene glycol and glycerine are well studied and safe. The "unknown" part is whether or not the food flavorings (which are safe to ingest) are also safe when vaporized. Probably, but not all of them have been tested, so there can't be a guarantee.
So there are no known special health risks apart from those from the nicotine, and no particular reason to believe that there are any. The superficial ressemblence with the act of smoking is what makes people afraid of ecigs, and in reaction the public is pushing a rather unfair burden of proof onto the ecig industry.
As for whether it can be used to deliver other substances than nicotine; I'm not really sure I follow your question. Do you mean whether someone could use it to vape pot? If that's what you want to know, well there are ways to make hash oil that can be used in an ecig, but apparently it's a big hassle; most would prefer buying a dry herb vaporizer and would use that instead.
If you want to know if there a guarantee as to the content of the liquid used, not exactly. You could buy Chinese made liquid (Dekang and the like), of which I would be very wary. But most vapers I know buy liquid from small domestic businesses. Personally, I have talked with and met the very people who make the liquid I use. If I did not trust them, I could even make it myself: all of the ingredients are easy to find, and mixing them require little equipment.
The biggest risk to the ecig industry is that overly zealous regulation will remove the small players from the industry, leaving only the large corporations. Many of whom would be tobacco companies, which have an incentive to keep people smoking rather than vaping.
So there are no known special health risks apart from those from the nicotine, and no particular reason to believe that there are any. The superficial ressemblence with the act of smoking is what makes people afraid of ecigs, and in reaction the public is pushing a rather unfair burden of proof onto the ecig industry.
As for whether it can be used to deliver other substances than nicotine; I'm not really sure I follow your question. Do you mean whether someone could use it to vape pot? If that's what you want to know, well there are ways to make hash oil that can be used in an ecig, but apparently it's a big hassle; most would prefer buying a dry herb vaporizer and would use that instead.
If you want to know if there a guarantee as to the content of the liquid used, not exactly. You could buy Chinese made liquid (Dekang and the like), of which I would be very wary. But most vapers I know buy liquid from small domestic businesses. Personally, I have talked with and met the very people who make the liquid I use. If I did not trust them, I could even make it myself: all of the ingredients are easy to find, and mixing them require little equipment.
The biggest risk to the ecig industry is that overly zealous regulation will remove the small players from the industry, leaving only the large corporations. Many of whom would be tobacco companies, which have an incentive to keep people smoking rather than vaping.
In California and Colorado hash e-cigs (called vape pens) are commonly sold. Making your own cannabis fluid is a huge hassle (I should know), but it is sold commercially.
Yep. Also, re: the small players getting pushed out, this is exactly what the big boys are trying right now. It stinks as the "big players" produce crappy tasting, low quality devices. The smaller makers put out some beautifully engineered devices that deliver much better flavor and much more vapor.
I've seen two of your comments about e-cigs mentioning quality differences. What's your go to brand?
I use a ProVari with an iClear30 dual clearmomizer most of the time. At home I use a genesis style atomizer (an RTS at the moment). It's more advanced (and expensive) stuff though.
For a good middle ground between quality and price I would go with a decent variable voltage battery (like a Vision spinner) and the iClear or a vivi nova tank.
As for juice, I like Papa Smurf from LJ's E-Smokes and pretty much anything from Mrs. T's Bakery (mmm... banana nut bread...).
There really is a huge disparity in quality between products right now, with the larger brands almost always being the worst. The best source of information that I've found is from a guy named P. Busardo. He has hundreds of Youtube video reviews and tutorials.
For a good middle ground between quality and price I would go with a decent variable voltage battery (like a Vision spinner) and the iClear or a vivi nova tank.
As for juice, I like Papa Smurf from LJ's E-Smokes and pretty much anything from Mrs. T's Bakery (mmm... banana nut bread...).
There really is a huge disparity in quality between products right now, with the larger brands almost always being the worst. The best source of information that I've found is from a guy named P. Busardo. He has hundreds of Youtube video reviews and tutorials.
The studies have been done. Nicotine on its own is orders of magnitude safer than tobacco (and so I find this scaremongering sensationalistic NYT article deeply anger-inducing if it means that anyone decides to keep smoking rather than switch to e-cigs or if it helps ban or regulate e-cigs), which is why things like nicotine patches and gum are no longer prescription-only.
[deleted](1)
@MrMember
Sorry I deleted my other comment, but I can't help but laugh at your response that they exhale propylene glycol, ROFL.
That's the chemical used to de-ice airplanes!!!
Wikipedia says that the oral toxicity of it is low, but it can be harmful in large amounts.
So I would have to casually guess that the long term effects of it, and if you smoke heavily, that it could be a problem.
Sorry I deleted my other comment, but I can't help but laugh at your response that they exhale propylene glycol, ROFL.
That's the chemical used to de-ice airplanes!!!
Wikipedia says that the oral toxicity of it is low, but it can be harmful in large amounts.
So I would have to casually guess that the long term effects of it, and if you smoke heavily, that it could be a problem.
You know what chemical we use around here to de-ice? Salt. Both of these are generally recognized as safe and are approved for both human and animal food additives. The anti-freeze that is made with propylene glycol is labeled as non-toxic.
So really I'm not sure what you're laughing at.
So really I'm not sure what you're laughing at.
I wouldn't want to inhale and exhale salt all day, either.
It's also the same chemical used in asthma inhalers and, oh yeah, food. Your argument is completely irrational. Oh, it's used for 'X', it must be bad!
According to Wikipedia, "Propylene glycol is considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and it is used as an humectant (E1520), solvent, and preservative in food ... It is also used in pharmaceutical and personal care products."
Propylene glycol is indeed a major component of antifreeze, such as what is used to de-ice airplanes. It's also a major component of automobile antifreeze.
It's also true that automotive antifreeze is generally toxic to humans and animals. It's especially concerning because the propylene glycol helps make them sweet, which makes them attractive for kids and animals to drink.
However, the toxicity of these liquids has more to do with the methanol and ethanol glycol in them than the propylene glycol. The first two are generally known to be toxic: The third is generally recognized as a safe food additive, and is indeed used as coolant/antifreeze around food processing where the potential for leaks and ingestion exist.
It's also true that automotive antifreeze is generally toxic to humans and animals. It's especially concerning because the propylene glycol helps make them sweet, which makes them attractive for kids and animals to drink.
However, the toxicity of these liquids has more to do with the methanol and ethanol glycol in them than the propylene glycol. The first two are generally known to be toxic: The third is generally recognized as a safe food additive, and is indeed used as coolant/antifreeze around food processing where the potential for leaks and ingestion exist.
>It's especially concerning because the propylene glycol helps make them sweet, which makes them attractive for kids and animals to drink.
I hate this argument when used to say why flavored tobacco, alcohol, etc should be banned (I'm not sure that you're making that claim, I'm assuming you are only referring to their use in anti-freeze. However, it's a common trend and is used against e-cigs as well). Adult things should taste bad because if they taste good kids will consume them? I like sweets too. Not everything has to taste like Arby's.
I hate this argument when used to say why flavored tobacco, alcohol, etc should be banned (I'm not sure that you're making that claim, I'm assuming you are only referring to their use in anti-freeze. However, it's a common trend and is used against e-cigs as well). Adult things should taste bad because if they taste good kids will consume them? I like sweets too. Not everything has to taste like Arby's.
Yeah, I'm not making that argument at all. It's only a problem with antifreeze because it's something very harmful to consume, yet it has a somewhat attractive, food-like odor and taste.
Dangerous things to eat should taste bad to indicate you shouldn't eat them, but that's not always practical and this isn't a perfect world.
Dangerous things to eat should taste bad to indicate you shouldn't eat them, but that's not always practical and this isn't a perfect world.
In Japan they have (or had) nicotine energy drinks.
Why are you worried about your second point, especially if it turns out that the first is harmless?
Why do you care what other people put into their bodies?
Why do you care what other people put into their bodies?
"Andrew Beaver, chief marketing officer for NJOY, likened smoking e-cigarettes to the early days of hands-free Bluetooth conversations: what looks strange now will soon appear normal."
Yeah, people walking around talking on bluetooth headsets still look like douche bags to me.
Yeah, people walking around talking on bluetooth headsets still look like douche bags to me.
because?
Irrational probably.
Possibly I can trace this back to the fact that the 1st people to start using them were mostly douche bags.....
Maybe there's something deeper about having no respect for someone who considers themselves so busy that they can't find a place to stand and have a conversation. At least if I have to over hear a bit of their tedious phone call I do it as I pass them. Rather than walking behind / in front of them for the entire conversation.
I've never really invested a lot of time in thinking about "why" I dislike it. It is just an immediate reaction.
ps: I have the same sort of reaction to people who engage in long and useless phone conversations on public transport.
Possibly I can trace this back to the fact that the 1st people to start using them were mostly douche bags.....
Maybe there's something deeper about having no respect for someone who considers themselves so busy that they can't find a place to stand and have a conversation. At least if I have to over hear a bit of their tedious phone call I do it as I pass them. Rather than walking behind / in front of them for the entire conversation.
I've never really invested a lot of time in thinking about "why" I dislike it. It is just an immediate reaction.
ps: I have the same sort of reaction to people who engage in long and useless phone conversations on public transport.
Association. Most people associate constantly wearing a Bluetooth headset with douchey, self-important MBA types. There's nothing wrong with the tech per se, it just got adopted by an unpopular crowd first.
I wonder if eyeglass-like wearable computers will suffer for the same reason.
I haven't actually ran into someone wearing them yet so I can't report on my personal response.... but I suspect I'll dislike them instantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette#Toxicity
Seems like there are some indications that many of these contain toxic stuff.
Will not be surprised in a few years when a brand new cancer is discovered because of this.
Seems like there are some indications that many of these contain toxic stuff.
Will not be surprised in a few years when a brand new cancer is discovered because of this.
These studies found trace amounts only. The same could be said of water. These studies were also done on early liquid made in China, not on the domestic, small batch liquid most of the vaping community now use.
The mist is hot too, I heard of a measurement of 56C at throat once, just googled, but can't find the source anymore.
Yeah, the mist is hot. It uses heat to vaporize the liquid. Even at 56C, it's not far outside the temperature range of a typical cup of coffee [1]. According to that link from coffeedetective.com, coffee should be served closer to 80C. They even list the low end of proper coffee temperature at 65C (and other sources I found on Google corroborate). As nicotine and caffine serve similar functions, I'm not sure that the temperature at the throat is necessarily an issue. How many people pour a fresh cup of coffee and breathe in the steam coming off the top? I know I do occasionally.
[1] http://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperatu...
[1] http://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperatu...
I submit that cooked food is far more likely to injure you...
'Some' and the only meaningful reference to dose says - 'but the quantities are significantly smaller than the quantities found in tobacco smoke and do not pose a significant health risk.'
There's basically always another type of cancer--somewhat cynically, one is forced to wonder why it is one of the most profitable sectors of medicine. Ever met a poor oncologist?
Hey, if it isn't giving ME cancer and it's odorless, they can puff it all over my face if they want.
From first-hand experience I can say that the second-hand smoke of an ecigarette is not pleasant. I had a dry throat and coughed.
It's not odorless, but most of the liquids have pleasant smells.
As a non-smoker, I wouldn't call it pleasant.
It depends on the liquid, really. There's no inherent smell to ecigs; it's all in the flavoring. So if someone is vaping peach flavored liquid, it will smell like peaches. If it's tobacco flavored, it will smell like tobacco.
Many experienced (read; really into vaping) users do not use the tobacco flavored liquids. We all think that's what we want when we start, and then we realize that, for example, banana but bread tastes oh so much better than tobacco substitute.
But yeah, they are not 100% odorless.
But yeah, they are not 100% odorless.
I think these are great. They have definitely helped some people move away from smoking, and any argument that they pose a health risk is fairly moot given the alternative.
However, I do think that there needs to be some legislation surrounding them. We should ensure that children and teenagers can't easily buy them - just because they're not as harmful as cigarettes doesn't mean that they're completely harm free. I'm also deeply suspicious of allowing marketing of an addictive product - much like cigarette marketing I think it has the potential to destroy lives.
I do think that the people (mostly middle aged men) I see wandering around with a large e-cigarette around their neck on a cord look like complete idiots though.
However, I do think that there needs to be some legislation surrounding them. We should ensure that children and teenagers can't easily buy them - just because they're not as harmful as cigarettes doesn't mean that they're completely harm free. I'm also deeply suspicious of allowing marketing of an addictive product - much like cigarette marketing I think it has the potential to destroy lives.
I do think that the people (mostly middle aged men) I see wandering around with a large e-cigarette around their neck on a cord look like complete idiots though.
Kudos to this comment for pointing out the addiction angle. There are definitely much more dangerous products being sold than even traditional cigarette, but hardly there is a legally marketed product more addictive than nicotine. The sale of such products should be strictly regulated, not only it because of the human costs but because it undermines the the principle of free market exchange when a customer is not at will to buy or not buy the product or alternatives. On the other hand the benefit of converting traditional smoker to e-cigs is undisputed.
As a middle aged man wandering around with a large e-cigarette around my neck on a cord I know I look like an idiot. I'm okay with that though since that large e-cigarette cost me $30 and tends to get broken if you keep it in your pocket.
Totally agree about keeping it out of kid's hands. Let's make them wait until they're adults before they choose to get addicted.
Totally agree about keeping it out of kid's hands. Let's make them wait until they're adults before they choose to get addicted.
> any argument that they pose a health risk is fairly moot given the alternative.
What? You mean the alternative to not smoking?
What? You mean the alternative to not smoking?
E-cigs are marketed pretty strongly towards current smokers. In that group, not smoking is a fairly difficult alternative to accept.
Is it not still an alternative? It may be a difficult alternative, but it is still an alternative.
How effective has the "stop smoking cold turkey" campaign been? There are still people who smoke, massive numbers. In this wake is billions of dollars of smoking cessation products. Still, some people smoke, for reasons they have and are comfortable with. So why not have a middle ground? E-cigs are cheaper, seem to be safer, and help people out (including those who don't smoke). So why get all worked up over it? It's legitimately helping the problem. Smokers who use e-cigs are no longer affecting your life in any way.
Put it this way: cars are dangerous. Lots of campaigns exist to keep people from driving. Driving has economic, political, and environmental issues pushing against it. But still people drive, despite the risks. So rather than trying to force everyone to bike or walk, what's the harm in lower emissions, electric vehicles, and improvements in vehicle safety? Make it safer to drive, safer to be around drivers, and better for the environment when people do drive. Is that not an acceptable alternative?
Put it this way: cars are dangerous. Lots of campaigns exist to keep people from driving. Driving has economic, political, and environmental issues pushing against it. But still people drive, despite the risks. So rather than trying to force everyone to bike or walk, what's the harm in lower emissions, electric vehicles, and improvements in vehicle safety? Make it safer to drive, safer to be around drivers, and better for the environment when people do drive. Is that not an acceptable alternative?
I'm not getting worked up over anything, I'm merely stating that not smoking is an alternative, which is something leoedin left out. Everything that's followed is my insistence that not smoking is an option. I have made no claims to the ease or feasibility of it as an option.
I've made no claim for or against e-cigarettes. I've made no claim for or against smoking in general in this thread. The only claims I've made are that not smoking is an option. The reason I made that claim was, as stated above, the original comment failed to mention that not smoking was an option.
On the car front, yes, cars are bad, I agree, wholeheartedly, but America made a decision to emphasize cars over trains post-WWII, which is why I use one. As for biking and walking, those are infeasible options for long distances. Fascinating that you neglected to include trains.
I've made no claim for or against e-cigarettes. I've made no claim for or against smoking in general in this thread. The only claims I've made are that not smoking is an option. The reason I made that claim was, as stated above, the original comment failed to mention that not smoking was an option.
On the car front, yes, cars are bad, I agree, wholeheartedly, but America made a decision to emphasize cars over trains post-WWII, which is why I use one. As for biking and walking, those are infeasible options for long distances. Fascinating that you neglected to include trains.
No, the alternative is cigarettes. The people who use these (myself included) tend to enjoy smoking and don't want to quit. We do however enjoy an alternative which leaves healthier and odor free. Hell, it even tastes better, assuming you're not using one of those cheap cig-alikes (Blu and pals, looking at you here).
Just because you don't want to quit doesn't mean you might have to, or that it's not an option.
The big deal about these e-cigs is that they're converting long term smokers. Two years ago for christmas I bought all of the smokers in my family e-cig kits. My grandmother refused to try it, and died a year later from emphysema complications. However, my mother has been cigarette free for over a year and a half! That's after 35 years of tobacco use. It's a huge deal for me because now I don't have to worry about her slowly wasting away over 10 years like my grandmother did.
Also, Nicotine is a nootropic. Studies suggest that it enhances general attention and memory retention. Check out this site for collected studies and information: http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
Also, Nicotine is a nootropic. Studies suggest that it enhances general attention and memory retention. Check out this site for collected studies and information: http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
Helped me quit smoking, as well as several of my friends. It's a much more effective transition because it mimics the entire ritual of smoking, not just the nicotine hit.
Mostly, nicotine was very secondary to the other reasons I would smoke. First, it's a great excuse to step outside alone, or with a small group. that's invaluable to an introvert-playing-an-extrovert like me. Second, cigarettes are a great study break. You let your mind wander, while your subconscious chews on problems. It's like taking a shower, but you can do it several times a night without leaving the library. Third, they're a countercultural flag. Want a good icebreaker when talking to hipsters, hackers, the Russian grad student programmers? Smoke a cig with them. Finally, there's a certain ritual to cigarettes that becomes very calming. Step outside, light up. Go to class, light up. Leave a party, light up.
E-cigs are so effective because they fulfill almost all of these needs. All in all, e-cigarettes probably added several years to my life.
Mostly, nicotine was very secondary to the other reasons I would smoke. First, it's a great excuse to step outside alone, or with a small group. that's invaluable to an introvert-playing-an-extrovert like me. Second, cigarettes are a great study break. You let your mind wander, while your subconscious chews on problems. It's like taking a shower, but you can do it several times a night without leaving the library. Third, they're a countercultural flag. Want a good icebreaker when talking to hipsters, hackers, the Russian grad student programmers? Smoke a cig with them. Finally, there's a certain ritual to cigarettes that becomes very calming. Step outside, light up. Go to class, light up. Leave a party, light up.
E-cigs are so effective because they fulfill almost all of these needs. All in all, e-cigarettes probably added several years to my life.
I've moved from Australia (Melbourne specifically) where the counter-counter culture is to smoke roll your own cigs. Since moving to the US I've stopped smoking because:
a) I couldn't find a brand of roll your own tobacco I liked b) none of my friends here smoke
I really do miss the ritual of "creating and smoking" a cigarette. I can't really see any of the e-cig brands coming out with anything that mimics that ritual.
a) I couldn't find a brand of roll your own tobacco I liked b) none of my friends here smoke
I really do miss the ritual of "creating and smoking" a cigarette. I can't really see any of the e-cig brands coming out with anything that mimics that ritual.
There's rebuildable atomizers or DIY liquid then.
At its most basic, an ecig is made of two devices: a battery and an atomiser. The heating element in the atomiser, a coil of resistance wire wrapped around some sort of wick, is consumable. Either the whole atomizer (in the case of a cartomizer) or the atomizer head (in the case of most clearomizers) has to be replaced every few months. Rebuildable atomizers are made so that you can make your own heating coil and wick instead of throwing out the cartomizer or head. There's a lot of technique to making good coils, almost like a craft.
It's also possible to mix you own liquid from ingredients.
At its most basic, an ecig is made of two devices: a battery and an atomiser. The heating element in the atomiser, a coil of resistance wire wrapped around some sort of wick, is consumable. Either the whole atomizer (in the case of a cartomizer) or the atomizer head (in the case of most clearomizers) has to be replaced every few months. Rebuildable atomizers are made so that you can make your own heating coil and wick instead of throwing out the cartomizer or head. There's a lot of technique to making good coils, almost like a craft.
It's also possible to mix you own liquid from ingredients.
As long as it doesn't make me stink like a chimney when I get home from a bar or restaurant, then more power to them.
Man, I have never seen an article where one side of an argument seemed so consistently silly. Really, you're banning it because people might see it and decide to light a real cigarette?
And how does one figure that this "turns back the clock on public health advances"? It has the potential to turn countless potential smokers to a way safer (and perhaps even negligibly dangerous) alternative. How many otherwise nonsmokers would have to start using ecigs to cancel the benefit of one otherwise smoker using them?
I feel like this is what happens when a newspaper feels the need to present "both sides" of an issue that maybe has 1.1 sides.
And how does one figure that this "turns back the clock on public health advances"? It has the potential to turn countless potential smokers to a way safer (and perhaps even negligibly dangerous) alternative. How many otherwise nonsmokers would have to start using ecigs to cancel the benefit of one otherwise smoker using them?
I feel like this is what happens when a newspaper feels the need to present "both sides" of an issue that maybe has 1.1 sides.
>Really, you're banning it because people might see it and decide to light a real cigarette?
I can actually see where they're coming from on this one, and in part, it's the fault of the e-cig makers for producing and pushing look-alikes. With some popular brands (mainly gas station disposables, but not always), the e-cigs actually look like cigarettes. The problem isn't that it puts the idea in the smoker's minds, its that the smokers think the other people are legitimately smoking. If he's got a cigarette, I can have one too, right? The e-cigs that have blue tips or don't resemble normal cigarettes won't give off this confusion.
If I saw someone smoking in an area, I might think it would be okay to smoke there too.
I can actually see where they're coming from on this one, and in part, it's the fault of the e-cig makers for producing and pushing look-alikes. With some popular brands (mainly gas station disposables, but not always), the e-cigs actually look like cigarettes. The problem isn't that it puts the idea in the smoker's minds, its that the smokers think the other people are legitimately smoking. If he's got a cigarette, I can have one too, right? The e-cigs that have blue tips or don't resemble normal cigarettes won't give off this confusion.
If I saw someone smoking in an area, I might think it would be okay to smoke there too.
With that logic people shouldn't be allowed to eat ice-cream in public because it makes others want to eat sweets leading to obesity. Pure BS.
Two questions. What is in the exhaled vapor? What is to prevent there use in delivering substances other than nicotine? Combined with the first question is what worries me.
They are present where I work, but the users must go outside like regular smokers. I would love to see studies done on these like cigarettes and think the FDA needs to get onto it quickly.