The vapor doesn’t hang in the air. It’s too heavy. It’s steam. The only way you’d breathe in my second hand vapor is if you were an inch away from my mouth. Then it’s not the vapor that would be your worst health threat, if you get my drift.
Let’s look at the flavored vodkas out there shall we?
Smirnoff fluffed marshmallow.
Smirnoff Root beer float
Smirnoff Iced cake
Smirnoff Grape. ’ cherry, ’ Watermelon
Smirnoff Kissed caramel
There are more, but you get the point. Sure we need to keep this product out of the hands of minors, but telling a company what they can or cannot call there product sounds like an awfully slippery slope to me.
I don’t understand or approve of the moral aspect. I can get behind “people who smoke should quit for their own health and for the health and comfort of those around them”; I can’t get behind “… and they must do so cold turkey or it doesn’t count.”
The article doesn’t seem that bad. I just skimmed it, but he sounded like he wanted more regulation of the e-cig market.
His statement about detectable levels of carcinogens in e-cigs doesn’t mention what counts as ‘detectable’. Technically there is detectable nuclear radiation in hot dogs and arsenic in drinking water. detectable and dangerous are not the same thing.
Results: We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.
Conventional cigarette Electronic cigarette Ratio
Formaldehyde 1.6–52 0.20–5.61 9
Acetaldehyde 52–140 0.11–1.36 450
Acrolein 2.4–62 0.07–4.19 15
Toluene 8.3–70 0.02–0.63 120
NNN 0.005–0.19 0.00008–0.00043 380
NNK 0.012–0.11 0.00011–0.00283 40
I don’t know how I missed this before but that is a total bullshit analogy.
It’s propylene glycol and water. Do you also refuse to be near fog machines?
I don’t want yours, either. So stop breathing. And don’t even dream of wearing deodorant, because I don’t like how it smells. Except then you’ll stink, and I don’t like that either. And your food… it smells so nasty.
Just stay away from me. Everybody. I don’t want to smell anything from any of you.
The pettiness over some exhaled, rapidly dissipating water vapor is astounding.
Awesome post.
Speaking of bullshit analogies…
Some awesome" info for the “it’s just water vapor” folks:
"The following compounds that are on the (California) Proposition 65 list have already been identified in mainstream or secondhand (sidestream) e-cigarette vapor:
Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)"
Enjoy!
Just go outside to do it.
The article I posted showed the amounts of several of these toxins is about 100 times less concentrated in ecigs as opposed to regular cigarettes. The health risk of second hand ecigs smoke could be very minor.
Here in Canada, our federal regulator Health Canada took (and as far as I know, still takes) the position that such products are dispensers of medicinal drugs that require a drug product licence … which it then refuses to grant, as there are no medical indications for such products!
The first part of this statement can be found here:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/pol/notice_avis_e-cig-eng.php
The second part comes from correspondence I have viewed for work.
Talk of your catch-22. 
To my mind, this position is short-sighted. The market for such products is almost exclusively people who already smoke cigarettes, and they are far less harmful than cigarettes.
I agree. First, California Prop 65 is a joke, with no concept of permissible exposure limits allowed in the warning labels. Second, listing nicotine in the vapor of an e-cigarette is just redundant. Finally, most of those are permitted–many with a very low limit, admittedly–as impurities in pharmaceutical products. Benzene has one of the very lowest limits at 2 ppm (which is why nobody will use benzene unless they had no other choice and could prove that they could reliably purge it.) Toluene has a PDE of 8.9 mg/day or a concentration of 890 ppm.
Now, inhalation almost always has a lower PDE than other common routes (such as oral) as it’s assumed that inhalation goes straight into the bloodstream. But a quick look at the draft ICH guidelines for elements shows cadmium at 3.4 ug/day, lead at 5.0 ug/day, and nickel at 6.0 ug/day.
At some point, as our analytical detection techniques have just gotten better and better over the years, we’ll have to get rid of the “no detection” mentality of setting a limit and use actual science.
Is that so? Did you ever wonder what it is in your mouth that quite literally rots your teeth? Your breath is so laden with sick that I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t do it anymore.
Also, when the level of toxins from e-cigarette “smoke”, trace at best considering that you’d likely never notice me taking a puff, exceeds the level of pollution from the tailpipe of your car I will consider your request. Until then, go away, or at least make sure I don’t have to deal with your patchouli stink, the exhaust from your car, the scent of your backyard barbecue, or the fumes from your home furnace. Fair is fair, after all.
There is research comparing emission of pollutants from e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes.
“While the e-cigarette produced lower levels of toxins in the air for nonsmokers to breathe than the conventional cigarette, there were still elevated levels of acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, averaging around 20% of what the conventional cigarette put into the air.”
So yes, while e-cigarettes don’t seem to be as bad as conventional cigarettes based on what we currently know, the news is not exactly reassuring for someone potentially flying on an airplane full of “vapers”.
“Despite the recent popularity of e-cigarettes, to date only limited data is available on their safety for both users and secondhand smokers. The present study reports a comprehensive inner and outer exposure assessment of e-cigarette emissions in terms of particulate matter (PM), particle number concentrations (PNC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), carbonyls, and metals. In six vaping sessions nine volunteers consumed e-cigarettes with and without nicotine in a thoroughly ventilated room for two hours. We analyzed the levels of e-cigarette pollutants in indoor air and monitored effects on FeNO release and urinary metabolite profile of the subjects. For comparison, the components of the e-cigarette solutions (liquids) were additionally analyzed. During the vaping sessions substantial amounts of 1,2-propanediol, glycerine and nicotine were found in the gas-phase, as well as high concentrations of PM2.5 (mean 197μg/m3). The concentration of putative carcinogenic PAH in indoor air increased by 20% to 147ng/m3, and aluminum showed a 2.4-fold increase…Our data confirm that e-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers. In particular, ultrafine particles formed from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor can be deposited in the lung, and aerosolized nicotine seems capable of increasing the release of the inflammatory signaling molecule NO upon inhalation. In view of consumer safety, e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be officially regulated and labeled with appropriate warnings of potential health effects, particularly of toxicity risk in children.”
I knew the moment these were announced as products we’d have the same hysteria as we do about cigarettes. Notice I didn’t say “regular cigarettes”. These aren’t cigarettes and users are not smokers. I switched last November and haven’t looked back.
I suspect, naturally, that a huge problem is that they aren’t taxed and demonized to a level acceptable to some. Get over it.
Want clean air? Stop doing anything that involves carbon pollution. I’m not talking about just not driving a car. I mean no motorized transport at all. Cars, busses, electrics, anything. And no using a tv or dvd player or microwave oven or electric stove. They all contribute to “poorer air quality” for all our pink lungs.
And please knock it off with the cheap perfume. It is way more offensive and harmful than my vaporizer. Why, because I say so. (This is fun, no wonder the anti-smoking crusade is so vehement.)
I fully admit my displeasure at indoor vaping as I tend to experience it is entirely subjective, and has a lot more to do with too many users choosing to sweet or precious bouqets for their product and the impossibility of enforcing a requirement that everyone use only neutral product. Otherwise I would not really mind people engaging in this activity around me in moderation(*).
But, OTOH, I see no evil either in either private-business policies or public ordinances a-la-NYC forbidding vaping in certain locations. The Man says I may only drink inside the bar, but you may only smoke/vape *outside *it? Them’s the rules, neither’s a basic right.
(*Which is another story – I have one person around who I can hardly turn around and look and NOT see her drawing deep on that thing, chain-vaping her way through the day and perfusing the cubicle block in the bouqet-of-the-day, and yes she’s one of those who pulls the “I might as well smoke for real if I have to go outside” card :rolleyes: Dear, you already were able to go a couple of hours at a time w/o lighting up, this looks like the contrary of progress. Some of us wonder if her net nicotine intake may have gone up.)
So, we have people who have bought the “it’s safe!” line (with optional hook and sinker) and are outraged that someone sees kids becoming addicted to nicotine and wants regulation to keep nicotine out of kids’ hands.
How old are you people? You never saw the tobacco execs, one after the other, appear before a Congressional hearing and parroting “I do not believe smoking causes cancer”?
You don’t remember cigarette ads on TV made to look like part of the program? The Flintstones, for instance? How about candy cigarettes? Remember those?
Yes, the tobacco companies have found a loophole big enough to addict another generation, and are driving a truck through it.
Using cartoon characters to sell nicotine is about as low as you can get.
These things should be regulated the same way any tobacco product is - no sales to under 18. Period. No vending machines. No TV ads.
Smokers already know about them. If they are otherwise safe, I’m sure they will be added to the list of products safe and effective for smoking cessation.
The Canadian position of “nicotine is a drug (it is by all rational definitions of “drug”) and must be regulated as such” is the only intelligent response to this product.
Didn’t the FDA get (finally) authority to regulate nicotine?
I used to smoke 1.5 - 2 packs/day. In 1989 I buried both of my parents - lung cancer. In 2001, the girl that got away managed to smoke herself to death. You want fun? Get diagnosed with an incurable, progressive deteriorative disease and then casually google the unusual name of the-one-that-got-away and find an obit at the top of the page. That was a fun year.
Let’s make sure another generation has the same opportunity.
I’d say selling these things in kid friendly flavors like bubblegum and chocolate is pretty damn low. That and they place them right at the checkout counter in many stores, at kid height and right next to the candy bars. :mad: Don’t get me wrong, I use them now when I am out drinking (one last me about 4 months) but don’t see any reason for them to market them as any thing other than cigarette substitutes other than the greed associated with getting an unknowing or weak minded person hooked on an addictive substance.
I’ve been “carded” for every ecig or ecig related purchase I’ve ever made, both brick and mortar and website in IL, IN, OH, NY, FL, and PA. I have no problem continuing to keep these devices age-restricted, whether by law or by informal agreement by retailers. I think it’s illogical to age restrict zero nicotine liquid, but I understand that it might be difficult to control the other ones if we don’t, just as I understand why liquor stores won’t generally sell alcohol free beer to kids.