
E-Cigarettes Bring Smokers Back Inside, For Now - brilliantday
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/27/179490799/e-cigarettes-bring-smokers-back-inside-for-now
======
mullingitover
Good luck keeping people from using them anywhere. They don't smell, so non-
smokers aren't going to complain (I've been using e-cigs at work for two years
and never received any complaints, in fact one person who sits five feet from
me wasn't aware that I did it). The only people who've ever asked me to stop
using them in restaurants and bars are staff (and only two instances in two
years of regularly going out with e-cigs), and they're only doing it because
they're afraid of getting into trouble with whatever regulators might crack
down on them.

Electronic cigarettes should be left the hell alone. I've never seen a more
successful smoking cessation tool. Trying to heavy-handedly 'regulate' them so
they aren't as easy or affordable to use will only ensure that people keep
smoking regular cigarettes. Of course, the more paranoid side of my brain
reminds me that a lot of tax revenue comes from old fashioned cigarette sales,
and perhaps governments will want to protect those revenues.

~~~
hristov
a- e-cigarettes do smell. The fact that you have had few complaints may
reflect the fact that people are courteous and do not like to get into
arguments. I have very much liked to complain several times about e-cigarettes
myself.

b- they almost certainly harm people around you although the harm may be less
than that of secondary smoke.

c - your last argument obviously does not apply to the present situation. If
you ban e-cigarettes in places where cigarettes are already banned, then this
ban would not cause an e-cigarette smoker to start smoking ordinary
cigarettes. In fact, the contrary is true -- if smokers can smoke e-cigarettes
in places in situations where they cannot smoke ordinary cigarettes, that very
well may result in an increase of smoking.

You can smoke your e-cigarettes in places and situations where cigarette
smoking is allowed.

~~~
praxeologist
A - You sometimes get a whiff of the smell. 90%+ of the time a nonsmoker is
going to like the smell because people vape things like cake and fruit
flavors. Even smells people might find objectionable dissipate quickly. The
stench doesn't hang on the users' clothing at all like regular cigarettes. I'm
not sure what sort of situation you would have to be in to be bothered...

B - Got some proof that secondhand vapor causes harm? Here is reference to a
published indoor air quality study showing:

"Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor
and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs,
nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted
based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-
cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health
for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most
findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant
Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor
sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or
adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult
exposure."

<http://www.ivaqs.com/>

There's more and more very positive research all the time. Ecig users
shouldn't have to prove that it is 100% safe. It is pretty clearly far safer
than smoking and a great benefit to the health of people who are unable or
unwilling to quit.

C - "that very well may result in an increase of smoking."

Pure speculation on your part. "

~~~
ars
> Got some proof that secondhand vapor causes harm?

Why is "harm" needed? If I am next to you I'm not interested in you forcing me
to take drugs. I don't need to demonstrate harm, I just don't want you to send
me drugs.

At least put a filter on the thing so no nicotine comes out of it (i.e. you
breath both in and out of it, through the filter).

~~~
praxeologist
"I'm not interested in you forcing me to take drugs."

You have got to be kidding me. Whatever amount of nicotine you are getting
from secondhand vapor is TINY. You are not getting drugged. It has no
psychoactive effects or addictive potential at that level.

Since that whole line of thinking is ridiculous, we consider harm. Being near
cooking food, say your neighbors having a BBQ, exposes you to volatile
N'-nitrosamines, similar to one of the groups of compounds shown to have some
carcinogenic potential in smoking.

These types of things are not found in ecigs (or only in incredibly tiny
amounts). There is no burning, carbon monoxide, etc. You are getting more harm
from stuff like cleaning product fumes or other air pollution from
cars/industry.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
With almost no independent studies being done on e-cigs and their impact on
the environment around you almost none of the claims you just made can be
substantiated as either true or shown to be false.

We need more reliable data.

In general e-cigs should be restricted until they're proven safe. Basically
treated like any other kind of cigarette. It is clear from this thread and
elsewhere that smokers have zero consideration for others.

~~~
praxeologist
There's tons of credible evidence out there that ecigs do not contain most of
the carcinogens in burning cigarettes. Even studies done by scientists with
big pharma funding will at least mostly acknowledge this.

Ecigs are clearly not "100% safe" but the same goes for the food you eat and
all other types of things you put in your body. it isn't about proving 100%
safety. It's about showing a vast reduction in harm for people who are
addicted to and dying from smoking.

Speaking of "zero consideration for others", anti-nicotine zealots take a quit
or die stance. You would rather ban ecigs and force people back to smoking?

------
jordanthoms
E-Cigarettes are are excellent litmus test for the prohibitionist brigade - it
shows clearly that it's not about safety or health, it's about control and
some misguided puritan ideal.

~~~
hristov
How do you know that it is not about safety or health? Do you have any study
that says they are safe? It is amazing how many delusions a little marketing
can create.

~~~
monkeyspaw
I agree with you.

But the reason cigarettes are banned is because they affect other people.

American rules/regulations aren't built around the concept of proving
something is safe. Tobacco is different from the norm because of how much
evidence exists to prove its harm

------
guylhem
"Local governments are already taking steps to limit e-smoking in places where
traditional smoking is banned"

For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how
they are doing something - a bit like the pre-flight security theater.

The fact that we have a technological replacement better than the original (ie
no tars or carcinogens) while giving the sample pleasure (nicotine, inhaling)
should be ground enough to change the laws in the other direction - ie
allowing e-cigarattes wherever they are possible..

But this is not about logic. The new habitus sees tobacco as low class and bad
[http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-
and-h...](http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-habitus/)

Why I am not surprised the government will fight against it, regardless of the
scientific facts or the right to pursue happiness?

EDIT: From the original article "The FDA has said that it plans to assert
regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes" - just like every government
agency looking for a piece of the cake, while consumers will suffer.

There is another good article on e-cigarettes on
[http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-
should-...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-
welcome-electronic-cigarette-no-smoke-why-fire)

"Smoking tobacco is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the world. More
than 5m people die every year of the consequences. That is one death in ten."

Want to save human lives? Don't regulate e-cigarettes- in fact, it might be a
better idea to GIVE THEM AWAY in poor countries instead of spending the same
amount to procure them with expansive drugs that may help at best a hundred
people per year (cancer drugs are expansive, and except in specific cases
their efficiency is limited. we still have a lot to learn).

Since people will consume tobacco products anyway, we might as well give them
the good stuff that won't give them cancer, our last technology - that's
e-cigarettes, instead of exporting the old foul smelling plant.

We are talking about the potential to save 5'000'000 humans _every year_.

It _should_ be about _helping_ people, not just subsidizing the agricultural
industry or making _feel good_ but ultimately counter-productive actions.

But reason won't prevail. It will be a sad thing to watch.

EDIT2: I originally said "it is about", which is an incorrect formulation
since it could be interpreted as a statement on how current systems work. It
was ironic, and may not have been very clear.

~~~
icegreentea
The FDA should most definitely regulate e-cigs in some way. If not the
vaporizers, then certainly the fluid. At the very least, I would want my
country's regulatory body (Canadian here) to at least enforce labeling and
quality standards (if you claim your fluid is 95% propylene glycol, and 5%
nicotine concentrate, then you better be selling that). As a customer, I do
not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to do this testing myself, just
as I do not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to determine if
ibuprofen actually has the stated amount of active ingredient, that my free
range chicken actually is free range chicken, that my nicotine patches contain
nicotine, etc.

~~~
uvdiv
I believe he means the FDA will impose restrictions that will reduce the use
of e-cigarettes. Not precisely what "regulate" means, but a common
connotation.

~~~
arrrg
Is there any indication that the FDA will actually do this?

~~~
uvdiv
There are already FDA regulations which severely restrict their advertising,
FTA:

 _"The companies are not allowed to market them as smoking cessation devices
because that would put them in the category of other nicotine replacement
products that are regulated by the FDA, such as nicotine gum or patches,"
Felberbaum says._

Certianly this slows down their adoption. This is his point: FDA restricting
something harmful without regard for harm reduction. This kills people, in the
net.

~~~
arrrg
I think you are quite confused about the issue. This is not a restriction
imposed by the FDA, this is a restriction manufacturers impose on themselves.
There would be no problem marketing those cigarettes as smoking cessation
devices, they would then just fall under the same rules as other such devices
(nicotine patches, gum) and manufacturers don’t want that.

That’s the issue. Surely, if those cigarettes are marketed as smoking
cessation devices they should have to follow the same rules as other such
devices have to follow.

As to why those devices are more tightly regulated? Well, duh. They claim to
have a medical effect. If you want to claim that you better, well …

This seemed perfectly clear from this passage in the article. You seem to be
quite confused about it.

~~~
uvdiv
_There would be no problem marketing those cigarettes as smoking cessation
devices, they would then just fall under the same rules as other such devices
(nicotine patches, gum) and manufacturers don’t want that._

If they are being deterred, then maybe the FDA regulation is too burdensome.

~~~
arrrg
Well, that’s a nice get-out-of-jail-free card for those manufacturers, isn’t
it?

I’m sorry, but if you want to claim that something is a smoking cessation
device you better back it up with solid evidence. If you don’t want to, you
can still sell it, but don’t claim it’s something you didn’t prove it is.

------
fsckin
I quit smoking 1.5 packs a day about 120 days ago, and started out with 36mg
nicotine/ml e-liquid, and have cut down to 6mg/ml e-liquid. In another month,
I should be off nicotine completely.

I use a eGo Twist/iClear16 (w/ iClear30 heads) at work, and CCTS/IGO-L at
home. The variety of flavors are endless, and none smell up the office, my
home, hands, or clothes. Even if they did stink as bad as regular smokes, who
would really complain about smelling Watermelon, Pear & Honey, Ecto Cooler
(yes!) or Swedish Fish when they come to visit me?

After switching, I don't: 1\. Smell like an ashtray 2\. Lose my breath walking
up a few sets of stairs 3\. Take several 15 minute breaks at work 4\. Spend
$300(!) per month 5\. Have fears of emphysema and/or lung cancer in my future.

My doctor is happy with the results. So am I.

~~~
gingerlime
are there any completely nicotine free e-cigarettes? I'm tempted to start
using them just for the fun of inhaling and exhaling smoke and having
something between my fingers to fiddle with...

This is half in jest, but I used to be a smoker, and one aspect I really
enjoyed was the whole ceremony involved with smoking. The habitual aspect of
it (something to do when you're waiting for somebody, something to twiddle
with...) was perhaps stronger than the physical addiction when I quit.

~~~
CorrectingDude
<http://www.mtbakervapor.com> is dirt-cheap, very good, and has a zero
nicotine option for all their juices. I recommend Orange Dream Bar, Hot
Chocolate, or Ecto Cooler.

------
np422
The rush of moral righteousness and overall feeling of superiority that non-
smokers must get when they are agitating are obvious very addictive and I
think that should be regulated.

It's amazing how far the brainwashing have gone in regards to anything
remotely smoking related. Otherwise sensible and thinking people throw out all
sense of consideration, respect and balance and start repeating "Smoking is
bad, smoking should be banned", no matter what the consequences are.

And when we are talking about e-cig it is very clear to me that none of the
objections are about health or genuine care for those affected, at all. At
best, the supporting arguments for that are severe exaggerations - which
should be obvious with minimum of critical thinking.

------
mart8801
As an asthmatic, e-cigarettes induce my asthma just as well as normal
cigarettes, it only takes a longer time to have the same quantitative effect.
I do hope they get regulated, and soon, because this is seriously going to
hamper my ability to enjoy social activities.

The lack of odor is actually problematic. I was not able to quit a place
before the inset of an asthmatic attack in a couple of restaurants because I
didn't smell anything until it was too late.

I'm actually used to that (several substances do the same), but it's only in
the last year or so that I increasingly attributed that to e-cigarettes
because people feel "it's ok".

Even if I wasn't asthmatic, I would still be pissed as hell to be sniffing
nicotine just for the addiction of somebody else. It's not a drug powder that
you can contain and keep it to yourself.

~~~
jimzvz
Maybe I should lobby for the regulation of flowers indoors because pollen
upsets my hay-fever.

> _I would still be pissed as hell to be sniffing nicotine just for the
> addiction of somebody else._

Don't worry, even sitting right next to someone who is using one, you are
almost certainly not "sniffing nicotine".

------
StavrosK
I'm as anti-smoking as they come, and it enrages me that Greece is stuck in
the middle ages in that regard. People smoke everywhere, inside and out, and
you can't go to a bar without inhaling loads of smoke. I would like nothing
better than to see smoke-free indoors environments, but smokers here have a
huge sense of entitlement, their mindset being "if it bothers you, go
somewhere else".

All that said, there's no reason to ban e-cigarettes. They don't smell, they
don't make my eyes/throat hurt, they aren't obtrusive in any way, unless
you're trying to inhale the other person's smoke as it comes out of their
nose. As long as it doesn't bother other people, it shouldn't be banned, and
e-cigarettes don't bother other people.

~~~
simcop2387
Some of them don't smell (or at least the odor isn't nearly as much of an
issue). There is at least one that my boss uses all day long that make it so
that anyone within 40 feet of him knows it. I have no idea what kind he's
managed to find though as it has no labeling and some bizarre cartridge.

~~~
klibertp
I'd be happy if you asked him what he smokes for me. I stopped smoking a pipe
half a year ago (earlier I was smoking cigs) and I sometimes miss that heavy,
but quite good smelling smoke from the pipe.

~~~
simcop2387
I will next time I remember, but he's notorious for being hard to find when
you want to ask him something. It looks ALMOST like this[1] but is larger. The
cartridges are about like this[2] but the body is that thick all the way down.
Given the fact that he's said before he goes through a cartridge a day I
suspect he's gone and found whatever the largest capacity one there is,
possibly from outside the US (at least I wouldn't put that past him).

[1] [http://www.info-electronic-
cigarettes.com/images/ManWithEcig...](http://www.info-electronic-
cigarettes.com/images/ManWithEcig_3.jpg) [2]
<http://www.ecigsbuy.com/images/l/201211/13535904500.jpg>

------
dade_
Love love love my e-cig. No one has a clue in the office.

I quit smoking quite a while back, but I still had cheaters from time to time.
I really think nicotine has a much more permanent effect on the brain than we
are led to believe.

If you don't smoke, don't go near the stuff, but if you do, you really should
try it.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Nobody has a clue you're exposing them to toxic, carcinogenic chemicals in the
office you mean.

Maybe you should show some consideration to others and smoke outside.

~~~
jimzvz
Please stop spreading baseless information.

------
Alex3917
For what it's worth they now make smokeless hookah. It's basically stones that
are pressure injected with flavored vegetable oil, and they're free of tobacco
and nicotine.

[https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&q=...](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&q=smoking+stones+hookah&revid=1520962025&sa=X&ei=Lo58UfCXG4no0wHiyIDwCw&ved=0CG8Q1QIoAQ&biw=480&bih=268)

I've never tried them, though there are a few different brands you can find on
Amazon, some of which actually have pretty good reviews.

~~~
praxeologist
It isn't vegetable oil. Hydrocarbon oils would be dangerous to inhale
potentially. This would be closer to ecigs than a regular hookah and hookah is
safer than cigarettes because you are vaporizing versus burning. Still this is
probably a bit mroe dangerous than ecigs because you still have burning coals.

------
nicholassmith
They're an interesting one in terms of 'should you use them around non-
smokers', as there's no statistics on exhaled contents of nicotine (that I've
seen) so it's quite difficult to make a call in terms of second hand health
risk. First hand health risk? It's your body so do what you want.

There's other issues, do they smell? Yes, some do, they have flavourings in
that will impart a smell. However it's quite faint in a lot of cases, it
bothers my girlfriend in the car but not at home. Is it anti-social? Depends
on the social group you're in, I generally hang around with smokers (maybe
there's some selection bias inherent in social groupings due to the smoking
ban) and a couple of us have shifted to e-cigarettes (traditional style and
vape style) and no one minds. I wouldn't use one in a restaurant but I would
in a pub or nightclub.

Hopefully they'll avoid regulating them for a while, but there's rumblings of
regulation on the horizon in the EU.

------
Nursie
These things were a godsend to me quitting BUT they do need to be studied to
find out if they also have long term harms.

------
simonsarris
>The FDA warns that more research needs to be done on the health risks of
inhaling liquid nicotine.

> "The FDA has said that it plans to assert regulatory authority over
> electronic cigarettes. And that could lead to them being regulated in the
> same way as cigarettes as far as marketing is concerned," Felberbaum says.

This is odd. For one, we know the health risks of nicotine patches, and we
know the health risks of the _alternative_ to e-cigarettes, which carries very
large known risks. For that reason alone we should celebrate these little
devices.

Further, what the hell is the FDA doing? I thought this would be for the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Edit, some dates:

Since 2009 the FDA has had the authority to explicitly regulate tobacco too,
not just nicotine:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_tobacco_by_the_U....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_tobacco_by_the_U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration)

Since 1998 the FDA has been allowed to regulate cigarettes as nicotine
delivery devices:
[http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846773/Szubin.ht...](http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846773/Szubin.html?sequence=2)

~~~
ceol
Nicotine isn't an alcohol, tobacco, firearm, or explosive. It's a drug.

It's also fair to request additional research into an inhalant version of a
drug. I wouldn't _want_ an FDA that immediately celebrates a product without
properly researching it.

------
hcarvalhoalves
These electronic cigarettes are pretty cool, nicotine without all the other
downsides. There's no point in banning _that_.

Could this be used for ganja too?

~~~
jlgreco
You can get vaporizers for pot. From uh, what I have heard... they are pretty
good.

------
ck2
I cannot believe how many people still buy cigarettes and smoke though. Stand
and watch at your local drugstore how many people come in within 15 minutes to
buy cigarettes.

If they are addicted then the industry failed at helping them quit and the
government needs to force the industry to provide direct free assistance to
quit. It's not a game where they should be able to keep making profit off
known death.

~~~
george88b
Why is it the industry's responsibility to help them quit? Also, why is it the
government's responsibility?

~~~
sciurus
Because they are knowingly selling people an addictive and fatal product but
have tried to hide this fact.

~~~
jff
Have you ever met someone who didn't know cigarettes are addictive and
dangerous?

They print it all right there on the box, and at the bottom of every
advertisement (are there even still cigarette ads? I never see them around),
and you can't complete school without being told over and over how dangerous
they are. I think these days the cigarette companies don't even need to do
anything. Cigs are there, if you want them they're easy to find, everyone
knows what they do, some will still choose to smoke them.

~~~
Natsu
Yes, my grandfather. Back then, the dangers of smoking were not well known by
the public. In fact, the tobacco industry pushed bogus research to attempt to
throw the conclusion that smoking causes cancer into doubt. Once it was
apparent that smoking was harmful, my grandfather quit smoking cold turkey.

It was too late. He spent more than a decade coughing up his lungs only to
finally succumb to cancer, weakened by the steroids keeping him alive to the
point where he broke his back picking up a gallon of milk.

------
nnnnni
Do they stink like regular cigarettes? The horrible stench of regular
cigarettes is worse than any possible carcinogens to me, ugh!

~~~
enobrev
Not by a long shot. I've been a smoker for more than half my life, and while I
still am, since I've moved to another city that frowns upon smoking in your
own apartment, I've become far more cognisant of the smell - not that I was
completely ignorant to it.

Nicotine vaporizers have no scent that I've ever been aware of. I've had a
couple myself, and they have found quite a bit of popularity in my
neighborhood very recently. You can't even tell someone is smoking one unless
you see them take a puff. As far as I've been able to tell, there is no scent.

~~~
ars
> As far as I've been able to tell, there is no scent.

You said you still smoke. Smokers have a terrible sense of smell. You would
have to ask a non-smoker if the e-cigs smell.

If you wonder: They do. Not anywhere near as bad as a real cigarette, but they
do smell.

~~~
klibertp
Of course they smell. Nearly everything has some smell, me and you included.
It's just that you happen to dislike this particular smell. I know how it is -
the smell of raw meat makes me puke almost instantly. But... It's my problem,
you know? I'm not going around trying to ban making meals from raw meat
(really, I can smell even if the kitchen is quite far away). Disliking e-cigs
smell - which one? there's tons of them... - is your problem. I think mine is
more serious - think of what I feel when I have to feed my dog! - and so I
don't think your moaning about is needed or even worth listening.

------
jebblue
Wow, I miss smoking, maybe this is how to get that clear lucid feeling back
but without the health risks. I know it would be regulated, the government
needs to make its two cents too. Right?

~~~
marquis
That clear lucid feeling is your brain being relieved of its addiction
withdrawal. Non-smokers never have that feeling because their brain has never
been exposed to it. Read Allen Carr to help you never want a cigarette again.

I think long-term smokers have a permanently-affected brain, it will be
interesting to see future studies.

~~~
harshreality
I'm interested in how that compares to the effects of S(S|N|SN)RIs.

~~~
marquis
I have no experience with psychoactive drugs but I don't think it's anywhere
as near as drastic. It's pretty easy to deal with psychologically as smoking
is a lifestyle so quitting successfully mostly involves changing your
lifestyle. Nicotine leaves your system completely fairly quickly with no side
affects except for what I believe is a lingering sensitivity to the memory of
it.

------
Siecje
What I don't understand is how are they allowed to put ads on TV?

~~~
jlgreco
We allow alcohol advertisements on TV; why should we ban e-cigarette
advertisements?

~~~
deepvibrations
I have no idea how the alcohol industry gets away with it tbh...I guess they
have some serious lobbying power, in fact I know a lot of the anti-drug
campaigns are driven by the alcohol industry, one of their biggest threats is
probably cannabis!

------
sultezdukes
I want to see the excuse for banning these from being used indoors. It'll
probably be along the lines of "children will be influenced or something".
Gotta love the nanny state - not!

~~~
Niten
More likely along the lines of other people not wanting to breathe your
second-hand nicotine / whatever the hell else might be in this vapor, because
the jury's still out on their safety.

~~~
jimzvz
Here's a study[1] that concludes there is "no significant risk".

[1]-[http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.7...](http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728)

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
That one was funded and conducted by the e-cigs industry, of course it is
going to come to that conclusion.

