Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#101

Post by nucleardog »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #43
KC8ZKF wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tap-tap-tapping at their fucking phones gets the same reaction from me. Of course it's irrational for me to feel this way, so I've learned to ignore it.

I am extraordinarily allergic to the glycol in e-cigs. Just a few seconds of exposure is enough to send me into anaphylaxis. I am pretty sure somebody tapping away on their phone wont kill you.

If you're allergic to propylene glycol then you're allergic to pretty much everything.

That same propylene glycol is used in cakes/cupcakes, frostings, many ice creams, beers (as a foaming agent), some coffees, candy, many salad dressings, flavoured coffees, dried fruits, some brands of milk, many beauty products (makeup, shampoo, soaps)...

There are a lot more people with peanut allergies and we don't ban people from eating products containing peanuts anywhere in public. Why is this case different?

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#102

Post by Nursie »

shadowOfShadow wrote: post #72
bcx wrote: post #68

It is really interesting to look at this article through the lens of the PR agency/strategy that helped place it for NJOY. 1) Quotes from CEO 2) Little anecdote from Chief Marketing Officer 3) Big vision "Vaping" becomes common place. 4) Key differentiators: "building e-cigarettes that look, feel and perform like the real thing" (this is sprinkled throughout) 5) Celebrity endorsement, Big names: Peter Thiel, Brunno M…

There's been a fair number of fluff PR and guerilla marketing - even directly at HN readers - around vaping. It's likely organized and funded, etc. blah blah. How far did you have to read through this article to get any voice of someone NOT paid by the company or by the company of the author? The whole e-cig thing is trying to re-build the signalling that real cigarettes have had instead of the self-medicating, addic…

Because if it doesn't fulfil the habit accurately (the e-cigs' major strength) then it's useless to get people off the paper ones.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#103

Post by [deleted] »

mistercow wrote: post #88
fbellag wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know I do assume they are safer. If the ecig industry were regulated, then we could make sure the liquid has no or minimal side effects. In my country it is worse because ecigs are forbidden (given that uncertainity), so we have a black market for ecigs, making the quality of the liquids even more quetionable. I know tobacco is really bad, and I have doubts about ecig. So, I give the benefit of the doubt, as i…

Honestly, I have doubts that there's much bad going to come of unregulated liquid. They're very simple solutions with few ingredients, and there isn't that much room to screw it up. If you bought ingredients from China, you might end up with VG and PG that weren't actually VG or PG, so there's one avenue. But the same thing happened with toothpaste years back, and toothpaste is regulated. I'd actually be more concern…

[deleted]

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#104

Post by Nursie »

cliveowen wrote: post #9

I can't fathom who thought these things were a good idea. I see people "smoking" these things everywhere: on the bus, on the train, at the effing university during classes! I don't care if it's just steam, I don't want it in my face. I can't believe people don't get this.

If you stand close to anyone else you're probably breathing air that came out of their filthy, mucusy lungs too.

THE HORROR!

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#105

Post by btilly »

chimeracoder wrote: post #100
Alex3917 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. The three biggest risks of smoking are cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. For a casual smoker, heart disease is by far the biggest risk. This is caused by the carbon monoxide, and eCigs have zero of this. There's also no reason to think that they cause emphysema. In terms of cancer, the…

> They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. They might be less harmless (though we don't know that yet), but we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful. This is not like vaporizing cannabis - the desirable compounds in cannabis are not carcinogenic[0] and actually have cancer-fighting properties, and the main drawbacks to smoking cannabis come from the act of smoking, not from the substance. Ni…

Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense.

Citation needed.

Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#106

Post by Nursie »

qwerta wrote: post #6

I do not understand why some people try to regulate this. My guess is that income from smoking-tax is shrinking. I never smoked cigarette in my life, but I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee. It works, no hassle with tea or coffee preparation, also it is probably healthier. But being labeled as a smoker puts me off.

Standardised doses, known ingredients etc etc.

Regulation doesn't have to mean restriction, as an ex-smoker that used e-cigs to quit, I think it's a great idea to get them regulated and legit.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#107

Post by praxeologist »

300bps wrote: post #93
praxeologist wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leading ecig makers" are fraudsters in my opinion. They are selling whitelabel Chinese junk at huge margins. They make false claims about their sub-1ml liquid in pre-filled cartridges being equivalent to 2 packs of cigs. They are marketing hacks and aren't actually innovating, unlike my company. The FDA tested the liquid composition of these Chinese cartridges and yes, one was supposedly contaminated. I get my propy…

With all due respect, you are clearly biased. As your Twitter profile states, you are a "Flavorist, tobacco chemist & design junkie. Trying to build an online marketplace for ecig vendors." Your arguments are illogical. You incorrectly use terms like Strawman Argument to respond to a simple illustration. I never said you claimed your products were all natural, just that what you did say is just as meaningless as if y…

Your response was exactly what "attacking a strawman" is. I was talking about how I use American sourced propylene glycol versus Chinese PG as used in the samples where DEG was found. You responded to a statement I never made, that something is "100% natural". You are clearly an intellectually dishonest person so, sure, see yourself out of the conversation.

You can call me biased but you have failed to to make any sort of substantive argument on the science. I have critcisms of the safety on ecigs and some false claims people make too.

The real angle for safety you want to go at, if anything, is the addition of volatile diketones in creamy/buttery flavorings (diacetyl, acetoin, acetyl propionyl, etc.) Some of these small businesses selling liquid claim they use FDA-approved flavorings.

The FDA doesn't approve flavorings. It is sourced out to a group called FEMA (no, not that FEMA): http://www.femaflavor.org/gras

The FDA largely accepts the opinion of FEMA for what is GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Flavorings are only GRAS at varying levels for the intended usage (baking, alcoholic beverages etc., none of which is inhalation).

Diacetyl is not safe to inhale and has been known to cause bronchiolitis obliterans AKA "popcorn lung" both in workers at flavoring plants and even cases like a man who ate multiple bags of microwave popcorn per day.

I'm worried that these smaller eliquid makers haven't taken the warnings on this seriously enough and in a few years the first cases of this will appear. It can be a long process for popcorn lung to develop but the harm is irreversible. It is only this class of flavoring chemicals which raise concern, so I am sure to avoid them.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#108

Post by Nursie »

girvo wrote: post #2

I used a nicotine spray. I have done for a few months now, it works sublingually. I used it (and patches) to quit smoking, and I'm nearly there, only a few weeks left. What I find interesting though, is that while the spray does indeed get rid of the cravings, it (and the e-cigs I've used) is not the same "feeling" as smoking. This is possibly because of the lack of any MAOIs in the liquid itself. How many of those u…

ex-smoker here. Used ecigs without nicotine to quit. From the moment I tried the e-cig I thought ot tasted and felt better than burning plant matter.

I puffed like mad for about three months, then noticed I'd just stopped by accident.

Highly recommended IMHO.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#109

Post by chimeracoder »

btilly wrote: post #105
chimeracoder wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. They might be less harmless (though we don't know that yet), but we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful. This is not like vaporizing cannabis - the desirable compounds in cannabis are not carcinogenic[0] and actually have cancer-fighting properties, and the main drawbacks to smoking cannabis come from the act of smoking, not from the substance. Ni…

Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense. Citation needed. Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine .

> Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine.

I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment).

> Citation needed.

The post that you yourself link is a citation for my statement. Notice that I worded my post carefully - I did not say that nicotine has only harmful effects, or even that it has no positive effects.

All I stated is that it is a toxic substance in the medical sense - a statement which could also apply to the drugs used in chemotherapy. Therefore, it is correct to say "we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful."

I make no claim about the situations under which any alleged benefits outweigh the the toxic effects, simply that said toxic effects exist.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#110

Post by GhotiFish »

chimeracoder wrote: post #100
Alex3917 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. The three biggest risks of smoking are cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. For a casual smoker, heart disease is by far the biggest risk. This is caused by the carbon monoxide, and eCigs have zero of this. There's also no reason to think that they cause emphysema. In terms of cancer, the…

> They might be fairly harmless, we don't know. They might be less harmless (though we don't know that yet), but we can be fairly certain that they are least somewhat harmful. This is not like vaporizing cannabis - the desirable compounds in cannabis are not carcinogenic[0] and actually have cancer-fighting properties, and the main drawbacks to smoking cannabis come from the act of smoking, not from the substance. Ni…

I'm sorry, I must object to that line of thinking

We can say with near certainty that they are less harmful, because we know what caused harm when smoking cigarettes, and those elements are not present. We also know what is being inhaled is either inert, or the point of smoking.

Also, whether a substance has a measurable LD50 or not is irrelevant. Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's, Some Vitamins have LD50's.

Post reply on HN