Cigarettes Without Smoke, or Regulation

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02cigarette.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

by mshafrir • 17 years ago

31 27 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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.

byrneseyeview2• 17 years ago

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.

biohacker42• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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.

mlLK• 17 years ago

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.

sown• 17 years ago

From what my actor-friend tells me, the best props an actor can have are a chair, a good hat, and a cigarette.

wenbert• 17 years ago

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.

sebastian• 17 years ago

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.

Silentio• 17 years ago

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.

xel02• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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)

tdavis• 17 years ago

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.

mrinterweb• 17 years ago

(a) I have not seen e-cigarettes marketed as a smoking cessation product, or at least I am sure that is not the primary goal. I gather that the e-cigarettes are marketed as an alternative to traditional cigarettes.

(b) I have cut back to one or two every couple days. I ran ten miles last Sunday. That is a lot better than what I could do when I was smoking half a pack a day.

"Nobody wants to smoke; not even smokers. If you think otherwise you're deluding yourself." I guess I am delusional because I sincerely believe I enjoy a smoke every couple days. I enjoy donuts as well. Both are not good for me, and that is why I consume these items in moderation.

If the e-cigarette is shown to have minimal health risks, I'll give them a go.

kaens• 17 years ago

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".

garply• 17 years ago

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.

silentbicycle3• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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

dc2k082• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

Hm. I live in Canada, and they are expressly banned: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2...

dc2k082• 17 years ago

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.

abalashov• 17 years ago

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).

Cigarettes Without Smoke, or Regulation

Related Stories