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

91–100 of 170 posts

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#91

Post by fein »

300bps wrote: post #28
anextio wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes. > The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and fl…

Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit. To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will: 1. Make you less healthy while you are alive 2. Will prematurely end your life 3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population 4. Wi…

"I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life."

Woops, a little bit of liberty taken there. The caffeine-> nicotine comparison refers to the isolated stimulants, not the act of smoking. People don't seem to be primarily addicted to nicotine in the sense of a cigarette, but the combination of nic + everything else in there.

You don't have to smoke to get a nicotine fix. You don't even need tobacco products.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#92

Post by [deleted] »

pvnick wrote: post #32

E-Cigarettes are going to save millions of lives in the coming years. They're harmless, and, if you get a brand that feels like the real thing, easy to transition to. I hope the tobacco industry takes a huge financial hit from the sale of these things because they literally prevent people from dying. That being said, when I switched to e-cigarettes, it was very easy to switch back to regular cigarettes. That "narrow…

[deleted]

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#93

Post by 300bps »

praxeologist wrote: post #75
300bps wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not surprised at the level of spin coming from someone whose livelihood comes in part from e-cigarettes. You dismiss the FDA study (summarized here http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.ht... ) by saying it was "ecigs from China". But the study says it was two leading e-cig makers. I have an ecig company and the ingredients in my liquid are 100% American sourced That's kind of like saying, "M…

"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 you did. You say you only use chemicals from DOW in an attempt to imply they are safe to ingest. But this conveniently ignores the fact that DOW was the primary manufacturer of both Napalm and Agent Orange. Just because they are a large chemical company and their reagents are pure doesn't mean the people using their products are using them correctly.

Please don't take the lack of further reply as anything more than it's not worth the time.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#94

Post by nucleardog »

anextio wrote: post #56
300bps wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex3917 said... Do you seriously believe that second hand propylene glycol vapor can pose any medical risk, either short term or long term? Strawman argument. Is Propylene Glycol the only ingredient in e-cigarettes? Are e-cigarettes regulated by a governmental agency to ensure that they only include listed ingredients? The answer to both these questions is, "no" and you in reality have no idea what ingredients the C…

> Are e-cigarettes regulated by a governmental agency to ensure that they only include listed ingredients? No, but they should be. No one is arguing that quality control isn't important. The problem is that the debate is being marred by FUD that would seek to remove access to these devices for people who need them to quit cigarettes. > you in reality have no idea what ingredients the Chinese manufacturers are putting…

My fluid is mixed up in Ontario, Canada. I still have to trust the manufacturer on where he gets his ingredients, but like you say there are many established businesses which have a reputation for wanting to do right by their customers.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#95

Post by riquito »

pandaman wrote: post #83
hristov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. It is not clear exactly how harmful they are, but they are not harmless. 2. Ecig marketers are trying to push this story line of e-cigs vs the tobacco industry. It is mostly bs as the major ecig company blu is owned by a major tobacco company and every other major tobacco company has an ecig line now. The ecig industry is the tobacco…

I'd like to see any citation for #1. For #2 you need to prove that if there exists s in S and s has property X then every element t in S also has property X.

#1: they're addictive. It's in my list of harmful things

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#96

Post by mst »

300bps wrote: post #58
mst wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more susceptible to any kind of tobacco That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Please at least stick to the ingredients actually present when attempting an attack. Additionallym please bear in mind that saying "oh but we've no guarantee it was actually made with those ingredients" is pretty equivalent to "oh but we've no guarantee somebody's lipstick wasn't…

That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Here's some evidence for you to see: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.ht... Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans. Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected…

Finding a known toxin in one cartridge out of eighteen could be a single manufacturing error, but does indeed strike me as a potential problem.

The remaining statements give no statement of quantities or the likely effects ... so could indeed be a serious problem, or no more of a risk than background radiation.

Please consider the possibility that my refusal to take -your- claims at face value indicates a refusal to do so with anybody's claims rather than a desire to only accept evidence from one side of an argument.

> Are they safe though?

Safety can't be treated as an absolute; I know somebody who's substantially allergic to peanuts or the dust thereof, and as such could easily have a very bad reaction simply from somebody eating a bag of peanuts next to them. This is not to my knowledge commonly raised as an argument to make peanuts illegal - but seems equivalent to your "particularly susceptible to tobacco" point, unless I'm missing something.

> I have no idea

Neither do I, but I regard this as a reason not to immediately draw any specific conclusion rather than to consider anybody who makes a particular guess to be "falling for" anything.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#97

Post by praxeologist »

riquito wrote: post #95
pandaman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see any citation for #1. For #2 you need to prove that if there exists s in S and s has property X then every element t in S also has property X.

#1: they're addictive. It's in my list of harmful things

Sugar is addictive and vastly more dangerous than ecigs IMO.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#98

Post by intslack »

300bps wrote: post #58
mst wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more susceptible to any kind of tobacco That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Please at least stick to the ingredients actually present when attempting an attack. Additionallym please bear in mind that saying "oh but we've no guarantee it was actually made with those ingredients" is pretty equivalent to "oh but we've no guarantee somebody's lipstick wasn't…

That is, of course, assuming that the e-cig uses tobacco, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Here's some evidence for you to see: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.ht... Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans. Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected…

That DEG bit has nothing to do with them using tobacco, and instead has everything to do with a company in China not using USP Propylene Glycol (as non-USP PG might contain some DEG.)

And just to elaborate on this, non-USP PG is used everywhere. If you cook and use flavorings, take a look in your cupboard and check out the ingredients. PG will no doubt be used as a carrier in some of them. Aside from flavorings it's also used in the manufacture of many foods: my grandfather, who works at a cheese house, told me they use it in their process and it no doubt gets into the production.

The nitrosamines are from the nicotine extraction, which again indicates that they were probably not using USP nicotine. The company that produced that particular e-cigarette is now out of business.

The dose makes the poision; analyze everything around you and you may find a very small percentage of unwanted and dangerous chemicals.

Conflating the e-cigarette industry with the tobacco industry is entirely incorrect. The e-cig industry was not started by a tobacco company, and big tobacco has only recently taken interest by buying up companies and starting their own brands.

Also note, that the amount of DEG and nitrosamines were well within acceptable standards enforced by the FDA. The whole media circus around it was very shady.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#99

Post by Nursie »

riquito wrote: post #95
pandaman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see any citation for #1. For #2 you need to prove that if there exists s in S and s has property X then every element t in S also has property X.

#1: they're addictive. It's in my list of harmful things

You don't have to use them with nicotine. Then they are non-addictive.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#100

Post by chimeracoder »

Alex3917 wrote: post #82
hristov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. It is not clear exactly how harmful they are, but they are not harmless. 2. Ecig marketers are trying to push this story line of e-cigs vs the tobacco industry. It is mostly bs as the major ecig company blu is owned by a major tobacco company and every other major tobacco company has an ecig line now. The ecig industry is the tobacco…

> 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.

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.

[0] Or poisonous in any other way (even overdose, since the LD50 for delta-9-THC, if one even exists, is so high that nobody has ever measured it reliably).

Post reply on HN