
Cigarettes Without Smoke, or Regulation - mshafrir
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02cigarette.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
======
dc2k08
I have quit smoking for over a year now using these and have been through at
least 15 different models. They break easy and as demand has increased, their
quality has worsened. One supplier I know who has made a killing selling them
says when He first started in business, 10% of his sales would be returned as
DOA. Now it is ~40%. He has a 2 week warranty in place on parts but sells them
with only a small mark-up(~$50) compared to the mall stores(~$125). They
retail for $12-$17 wholesale. When he first started in business, there were
under 10 suppliers in the US. A year later there is over a hundred and
counting.

There are a couple of legitimate concerns in using e-cigs though most of the
scaremongering has been concocted by organisations associated with the
pharmaceutical industry who fear these like Saudi Arabia fears lithium-powered
cars.

1: Though an ingredient might be classified as FDA approved, it does not mean
it is safe to inhale. Recently it was discovered that workers at a popcorn
factory were suffering from a deadly lung ailment due to a synthetic flavour
that replicates butter which they were inhaling. Some avid consumers of the
popcorn have also died due to the disease. One won a $6 million payout
posthumously. The chemical remains FDA approved. There is a new e-cig flavour
out every other day - from red bull to black tea. No-one knows how these
flavours might affect our lungs. One supplier who had his mint flavour tested
discovered that it contained methanol. He quickly halted it's sale. Others are
not as cautious. I have never seen a list of ingredients on any bottle of
e-liquid I own.

2: The main ingredient in the liquid is propylene glycol. This is the same
substance that is found in fog machines. It is found in many cosmetics and
toothpastes too. PG is generally recommended as safe though its cousin
diethylene glycol which acts in the exact same manner, tastes the same though
costs far less is deadly. Recently in Nigeria over 80 babies died because a
teething formula imported from China which was supposed to contain PG had been
substituted with DG. How long before someone wanting to cut corners in China
does the same with e-cigs. Hopefully never - but it is a legitimate concern.

Regardless, I do suggest to everyone I meet who smokes to try these. Some are
amazed, some laugh. They are not for everyone. I keep a site updated with
relevant news at <http://www.e-cignews.com>

~~~
windsurfer
Hm. I live in Canada, and they are expressly banned: [http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2...](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-
asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2009_53-eng.php)

~~~
dc2k08
Yes, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and Iran have banned them outright. S.Korea
consider them a tobacco product and tax them accordingly. Other restrictions
apply in some other countries.

------
biohacker42
Pointless regulation. Full disclosure, a family member has used these to quit.
And also broken the law while doing so in the US.

This is regulation by inertia, to insure everyone's safety everything of type
X needs very expensive trials and regulations. X happens to be "medical
device" whatever that means in this case.

~~~
joeyo
I think these devices are definitely a step in the right direction but I am
not so sure that regulation of them is _pointless_. Surely at the very least
we can agree that all drugs (and e-cigarettes are certainly a drug delivery
device) should meet some minimum standards for quality, purity and safety. For
example, does the dose of nicotine in a cartridge match what is advertised?
Also, it may be worthwhile to restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to adults.

It should be very easy [1] to show that the e-cigarette is as safe or safer
than a cigarette. The problem of the fake smoke is easy enough to deal with--
simply manufacture a version that does not include propylene glycol. The fake
smoke sounds obnoxious anyway. The whole reason for banning cigarettes in
public are the second-hand effects; it seems silly to replicate an aspect of
them.

Once the safety issues are worked out it just becomes a morality issue: do we
care about cigarettes because they are addictive or because of their public
health implications? I would argue that, as a society, we should concern
ourselves primarily with the latter. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of
the push-back is because of the addictive nature of the nicotine.

1\. Generally when you introduce a new drug or device that is similar to an
existing product, there is a much lower regulatory bar to cross because the
precursor has already gone through the more rigorous demonstration. However,
there may be more red tape in this case since the FDA doesn't even have
explicit authority to regulate tobacco yet.

------
garply
Wow, these are kind of cool. If I could be shown studies that demonstrate that
these don't affect health very negatively, I might be willing to give them a
try. I think nicotine, like caffeine, can be useful, but its benefits aren't
worth the risk of getting cancer from smoking. I have a friend who's never
smoked but sometimes uses nicotine patches (cut into small strips - otherwise
they're too strong) for the stimulant effect. I could totally see him using
this as an alternative.

~~~
silentbicycle
Some of my coworkers use snus, a kind of chewing tobacco from Sweden. It's
supposedly much less likely to cause oral cancers due to its method of
preparation, though I'm not sure how thoroughly it has been studied.

I haven't tried it, and find the spitting etc. kind of unpleasant, but it's
probably less harmful than smoking. (It's certainly less noxious to others
around the user.)

~~~
mmelin
The largest study I know of found no increase in oral and lung cancers for
snus consumers as compared to nonsmokers who did not use any tobacco.

However, the risk for pancreatic cancer is double that of people who do not
use snus.

Source: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498797> Lighter reading:
<http://www.slate.com/id/2170141/fr/flyout>

------
sebastian
I don't they they are meant to help you quit. I bought the starter kit from
blucigs.com last week. I'm waiting for it to arrive. E-cigs are for people
like me who like nicotine a lot, and not for people that want to quit using
nicotine.

------
xel02
I actually saw an ad for these yesterday and did some research and ended up
buying them for my dad. On the other hand Health Canada has already 'banned'
E-cigarettes in Canada citing possible nicotine poisoning, and addiction.
(<http://tinyurl.com/pqmmnm>)

I decided to buy them anyways because my dad has already been smoking for
years and hasn't been able to quit. The only issue is whether they are similar
enough to normal cigarettes to act as a replacement.

At the very least these devices will allow smokers the hit they need without
consuming a majority of the toxic chemicals normally found in a cigarette. In
fact the regulation is almost hypocritical since its hard to imagine how these
devices could be as bad as normal cigarettes (maybe plastic, and water turn
out to be lethal carcinogens).

One issue I foresee is taxation, these devices as they are now won't replace
nicotine patches or gums (theoretically they could incrementally lower the
nicotine content over time), but they could replace cigarettes since they
mimic a lot of the sensations.

------
jsz0
I think they're a fantastic idea and should not be impeded by the FDA unless
they can actually be proven to be more dangerous than analog cigarettes. Like
someone else said -- there are lots of people who don't want to quit smoking
but might consider an alternative. (especially if it was cheaper and from the
research I've done e-cigarettes can be)

------
mlLK
I smoke and although I haven't really made an effort to quit yet since I
actually enjoy the activity (or act) of smoking rather than the cigarette
itself. This is actually the first product (solution) I'd be willing to make
an effort towards using in order to quit _smoking_ cigarettes, if not for my
wallet but for my health as well.

~~~
wenbert
I agree with the act of smoking makes me smoke rather than the cigarette
itself. +5 for you on that statement. I enjoy it if me and my friends go out
for a few minutes to smoke -- but when I am alone, it makes it less appealing,
so sometimes I just forget about smoking all together. But I do crave for a
stick after a heavy meal.

------
tdavis
As an ex-smoker I see two preposterous ideas in this e-cigarette:

(a) That if one wishes to shake a drug addiction, they should do so by _using
the drug_. Addicted to heroin? Start by doing _a little less heroin!_

(b) That this is somehow "better" than smoking. The only thing better than
smoking is _not smoking_. It isn't smoking less or smoking electronic
cigarettes. Just _stop smoking_.

Nobody wants to smoke; not even smokers. If you think otherwise you're
deluding yourself. The only thing the e-cigarette does is give you two options
instead of one: social leper, or weirdo nerd smoking a battery-powered
cigarette.

I respect peoples' decisions to smoke and I don't complain to those who do
(unlike non-smokers did to me), but come on people. This is just one more
addition to a multi-billion dollar industry based on the ability of people to
infinitely delude themselves.

~~~
kaens
With regards to b, most of the reasons that people have against smoking have
to do with nasty smelling smoke and increased chances of serious health
problems from inhaling tobacco smoke, not addiction to nicotine.

Nicotine isn't what's giving people cancer, and nicotine isn't what's causing
people to stink of smoke.

Regardless of what you think of addiction, these reasons are why the
e-cigarette can be considered "better than smoking".

------
abalashov
It's not a bad idea, and certainly is the first alternative nicotine product
that replicates a lot of the cognitive feedback and sensations that are so
intricate to the positively reinforced behaviours of smokers. I've tried a few
of these and have been reasonably satisfied with the experience, and during
the time that I had them I pretty much was ready to never smoke a real
cigarette again. It's not that the experience is comparable to real smoking,
and if you expect that it is, you won't like the e-cigs; that's the wrong
question to be asking. The real question is whether it's something you can
make yourself switch to, not whether it's identical--it's not.

While the damn things worked, that is. The problem is that the cheap, Chinese-
made technology breaks down after a few weeks, necessitating a complete
replacement (and, of course, waiting for it). The vendors appear to know this:
they are happy to send you a replacement unit free of charge and with no
questions asked, but they won't answer any questions either. I told them I
appreciated their generous warranty policy, but what I really wanted to know
was, is there something I'm doing wrong with the thing that's causing the
atomiser to overheat and/or stop working? To that, the response was amazingly
silent. Apparently, that's just the level of product quality. I've had other
problems as well -- e.g., after about a month, the batteries won't hold more
than about 5 minutes of charge.

Let's just say the MTBF on these is very, very short.

If they'd actually get that part right, I could see this really taking off,
Big Tobacco's efforts to kill it notwithstanding. I know Health New Zealand
published a study a while back (you can find it as a footnote off the
Wikipedia page about e-cigarettes) declaring that it is free of virtually all
of the health hazards of real smoking, and appeared to endorse it publicly (NZ
has a high per-capita smoking population).

------
Silentio
I saw a kiosk at the mall selling these. I didn't stop to take a look, but
I've never seen a kiosk at the mall with so many people crowded around it.

------
byrneseyeview
This will never be popular. Buying e-smokes is admitting defeat -- it's saying
that you don't have the willpower to rebel _or_ to quit.

Can you imagine the Marlboro man riding into town to buy batteries for his
smokes?

~~~
mustpax
To be honest I can't imagine the Marlboro man undergoing chemo for lung
cancer. Or standing outside a bar smoking in the cold with all the middle aged
office workers.

What I'm trying to say is that he's a pretty two dimensional fictional
character. I don't think we bother to fill in any details beyond the few that
he signifies: freedom, smoking, epic marketing triumph and whatnot.

~~~
byrneseyeview
Exactly! That's probably why people don't sell chemo treatments or smoking
regulations by talking about cowboys.

What I'm saying is that people smoke to be someone, and very few people want
to be the person who smokes these. I guess if they invest as much in branding
as Phillip Morris did, they can change that. But it's probably not worth it.

~~~
aswanson
I'm guessing most people smoke because they are addicted to nictone. I can't
see the _be someone_ motive extending far beyond 10th grade.

~~~
silentbicycle
It's probably something for people rationalizing their brain's begging for
nicotine to latch onto, though. Same with, "...but if I quit smoking, I'll
gain weight!"

Like people struggling with alcohol reminding themselves that red wine is good
for their heart, as long as they stop after one glass.

~~~
aswanson
I don't know. Nicotine is an ugly addiction that I read somewhere is almost as
strong as crack. And crackheads don't seem to need any rationalization for
what they do other than the high. I think the same mechanism, for most
smokers, is at work here, given the power of the habit.

~~~
silentbicycle
Well, part of it is that cigarettes are ubiquitous in many places, and
considerably more socially acceptable than crack. I don't smoke, but I know
people who have had to completely avoid bars and coffeehouses for months at a
time because they associated them with smoking.

