var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 1, 2009 1:51 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

If anyone looks at the poll right now [9:51 AM EST], they are going to be soo bummed.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
October 1, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Glad to see so many Consumerists don't smoke! Of all the ridiculous shills in the consumer arena, this one is the most obvious!

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 2, 2009 9:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: It's funny that most New Yorker like to think of themselves as Europeans (or at least model their excess after them).

Guess what...ALL EUROPEANS smoke. I guess you'all aren't cool enough to be truly European.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
October 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: I don't smoke anymore but if I did, I'd want the real thing. Screw these \"safe\" cigarettes. No such things. Mmmmmmmmmmm, carcinogens... my one weakness...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
October 1, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: and if anyone wants to know what helped me quit, it was the cost of cigs + quitnet.com.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
October 2, 2009 10:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: The cost was the ONLY reason I quit this past winter. I still miss my little friends, I could give 2 shits and a fuck if I die 10 years earlier! I am glad though not to be supporting big tobacco any longer. I quit cold turkey without any meds or program, I guess I'm even more a stubborn asshole than drug addict!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
October 1, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85:
Enjoying the view from your tower, are you? I'm sure there's no unhealthy behavior you voluntarily do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amish Undercover
October 1, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tbax929 is back from the beach: Smoking is a more dangerous behavior relative to most other common unhealthy behaviors (an exception might be overeating to the point of obesity). Additionally, companies and the government profit off of smoking, which also distinguishes it from some other unhealthy habits.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Quidnam
October 1, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The \"health concern trolls\" that are fighting e-cigarettes are crazy, if you ask me. They can't possibly be worse than \"real\" cigarettes. Sure, they should probably regulate the contents and make sure it's as safe as possible. But banning a viable smoking alternative is like taking the razor blade away from a cutter and instead handing her a revolver.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Marionette
October 1, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: pfff, you can't cut yourself with a revolver

Reply
\"user-pic\"
maztec
October 1, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: I personally love that with e-cigs you are still exhaling stuff on me, which means that no, it is not better for the person standing next to you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sgtcody
October 2, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@maztec: You are a complete paranoid dumbass. This is no more dangerous than the steam that comes from your dishwasher.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
October 2, 2009 6:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sgtcody: Must be that deadly Dihydrogen monoxide I've been hearing about.

Or maybe its the even deadlier hydroxyl acid!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sgtcody
October 2, 2009 10:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: I know! I think I read somewhere that e-cigarettes are the sole cause of global warming. If you'll just have a look at this chart... you can see the distinct warming trend since the invention of these e-cigarettes and you'll also note the slight decline beginning around the time countries started banning them. Now where's my freaking Nobel Prize?!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
October 1, 2009 8:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@maztec: So you've seen one of these in action and can attest to that, or is that just an assumption?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RonDiaz
October 1, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: AGREED. No way these are more harmful. Yes nicotine is not the healthiest thing, but neither is 2 liters of soda and the transfat cinnamon rolls in a tube that tons of Americans guzzle down every morning.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
October 2, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RonDiaz: Dunno what kind of ads are playing nationwide about this stuff, but in my DMA they're saying \"we can't say it's perfectly safe, but all it is is water vapor!\"

Well, according to what I've been able to dig up, that's a lie. It isn't just water vapor. It's water vapor and nicotine and a bunch of other crap.

This is a miniature resurgence of the era when cigarette companies would use medical professionals in their advertisements. \"More doctors choose Camel!\" as though, since a doctor smokes it, it's obviously perfectly safe.

Such advertising should be banned, because it's patently false, misleading, and harmful.

If, after the consumer knows that these electric cigarettes (which I still say are among of the most ridiculous products I've yet seen) are potentially harmful and contain carcinogens, he still wants to buy it anyway, that's fine. But companies should not be allowed to trick people into thinking that a potentially dangerous product is 100% safe in order to generate sales.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
October 1, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: Remember who you are dealing with here. Does anyone remember when they used to say that second hand smoke was worse then actually smoking? Logic alone will tell you that is not true. The smoker is getting the second hand smoke and inhaling from the cigarette causing the flame to become much hotter and inhale a lot more smoke. Unless the smoking of a cigarette somehow counter acts the effect of second hand smoke then it is impossible for the non-smoker to be harmed more than the actual smoker.

-Not a smoker just a big fan of logic, reason, gravity, reality such and such

Reply
\"user-pic\"
liquidnumb
October 1, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sir_pantsalot: The original argument was that second hand smoke is worse than the smoke you inhale through the filter, not that it was worse than actually smoking. This was a response to smokers not caring if they smoked around others because it was 'just second hand smoke'.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
October 1, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: My wife used Smoke Anywhere to quite smoking the real things. Although they are certainly safer from a \"no tar in your lungs\" aspect but there are concerns about the vaporized nicotine.


My guess is that while there are probably carcinogens in them, it is probably a LOT less than what is in a real cigarette. Banning them and not real cigarettes would be hypocritical.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: Yeah, I don't get banning these and not real cigarettes especially since these don't produce smoke. If the person has to do something harmful why would you force them to use something that also harms (or at least bothers) other people?

I don't like cigarette smoke and if smokers would rather use something that's smokeless I say more power to them. (Yeah, they should quit altogether but they already know that.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
downwithmonstercable
October 1, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Politics. People will fight tooth and nail to save tobacco farmers. Banning cigarettes would destroy that industry.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scooter
October 1, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@downwithmonstercable: The nicotine used in in these, as well as many of the products that help you quit, is produced from tobacco.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 1, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: I don't care for smoking, but it does resolve the stench and smoke issue, meaning it doesn't have an immediate effect on me. Keep killing yourself, just don't bother me while you do it.


It's like the fat dude eating a triple Whopper. Yeah, I know that health costs will rise, but I can deall with that later. What I don't need is nasty smell or smoke as I walk down the sidewalk, just like I don't need the smell of grease.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Munchie
October 1, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: The bums around my city smell, can we ban them? How about restaurant dumpsters? Don't things that smell bad to one person smell good to another?

Hypocrisy avenger away

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tallanvor
October 1, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quidnam: I cannot help but come up with a Simpson's quote:

Krusty's Agent: It turns out the Krustyburger is the most unhealthy fast food item ever.
Krusty: Even worse than the Double Krustyburger?
Krusty's Agent: Apparently, yes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
god_forbids
October 2, 2009 5:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@god_forbids: Shite, that meant to say: \"It's not the nicotine that kills! It's the smOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOke, the smOOOOOOOOOOOOOOke!\"

See at 53s, or just watch the whole thing because it's hilarious. I know this is satirical, but what that guy says is so true!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 1, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My favorite blog mentioned in my other favorite blog!

[politicalwire.com]

Though technically only CU was mentioned, not The Consumerist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
breakspirit
October 1, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have smoked e-cigarettes and must say that they just don't compare. It's not the same fulfilling drag, it's more like a weak little drag and it's impossible to get more. Plus, since each cigarette lasts like 10 times longer than a real one, you tend to just keep smoking forever. Maybe someday a company will make a really good line of them, but for now, there's no contest.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
SunnyLea
October 2, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@breakspirit: There are dozens of models out there, some of which hit harder than my usual brand.

Trying the mall crap just doesn't count.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pitawg
October 1, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@breakspirit: The higher voltage units simulate the feel much better than the cig-looking models. If you obtain lower nicotine liquids, the quantity of vapes can easily rival your smoke hits without needing higher nicotine intake.

In other words, you can configure your usage to one vape session a day to get the same nicotine you used to get with all day of smoking, or you can make it a chain-vape habit with less nicotine than you used to get from all day of smoking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
October 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@breakspirit: I think they were originally to help people quit. That would explain the longer time and smaller amount, you'd finally say \"ah, eff it\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Wang_Chung_Tonight
October 1, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

if you don't like this model just wait until Apple releases the iCigarette.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Zorantor
October 2, 2009 6:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wang_Chung_Tonight: Yeah, but I hear the rate of them failing to light is something like 30% in places like New York City.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
October 2, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zorantor: And once the moisture sensor is triggered, you're stuck with a smokeless smokeless cigarette.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jfielder
October 1, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wang_Chung_Tonight: I think the iSmoke would be a much more catchy name.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
October 1, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wang_Chung_Tonight: But with apples release model it will be 5 years before they get from 1st gen Ultra Lights to 5th gen Non Filters

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Karita
October 1, 2009 2:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I actually looked into these, but they seem really really sketchy. Even the comments on boards from people that actually use them turned me off of the idea. Plus they seem overpriced and without any kind of quality control.

Since the government just banned what I smoke (cloves) I figured my best option is just to quit, rather than switch to some other thing that will feed my addiction. I started smoking at 12. I'm 30 now. I guess I've supported the tobacco industry long enough.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 1, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: I actually took up e-cigarettes in the beginning of August from a company called Blu. They come in several flavors (I've tried them all but the menthol since I haven't touched a real menthol cigarette in 15 years or so) and also different levels of nicotine. I broke open a used cartridge to find out what it was made of and it's not a lot - a tinfoil seal to keep the contents from drying out until use, a tiny ball of what seems to be cotton fiber (like the top of an asprin bottle) that is wet down with the nicotine and flavoring. The fact that there is no flame (only heat that vaporizes the liquid) means no charring so no charcoal or tar forms.


I was a pack a day smoker that was costing me around $180 - $200 a month. I've cut down so much that I only bought $24 -$30 (4 or 5 packs) of real cigarettes this month and now after using the Blu E-Cig I don't really like the taste or the smell of the real ones. My fiance' is thrilled since now he doesn't have to smell it on his & my clothing, there's no ashes making messes everywhere (especially by the computer which is where I smoke the most), no smell in the house, he and I both can breathe better, I can smoke in the vehicles now and in public areas where others have to go outside into the weather, and best of all, there's no second-hand smoke that I'm polluting everyone else around me with. Oh, and I forgot, with it being a water vapor, there's little to no residue left over to clean off walls and windows like the yellow residue left over from traditional smokes. I can honestly say after trying to quite with the patch, the gum, the pill, and some other off the wall ways, this one seems to work pretty well for me. I started out last month with the \"light\" nicotine amount and dropped down to \"ultra light\" nicotine amount this month and I haven't smoked more than I did before. I know I'm addicted to nicotine, but at least this way, if I don't manage to quit, I'm only harming myself and not anyone else with my \"emissions\" along with not ruining posessions/objects and other people's health.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
October 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eat A Peach: Interesting. You know, despite my reservations, I probably would have tried them. But with what I smoke not being available, it's a lot easier to avoid giving in. I hate regular cigarettes so those aren't a temptation.

One thing I've wondered about the e-cigarettes - do people ever freak out on you for smoking where you shouldn't be? They are shaped like cigarettes, so I always imagined some person seeing me using one somewhere, and proceeding to throw me out while ignoring my protestations that I'm not smoking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 1, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: I get a few strange looks and lots of questions...lol The brand I use is black and has a blue \"ember\" on the end vs. the usual orange/red one. It looks less like a cigarette that way and mostly when people see it they ask about it. I've gotten a few of my smoker friends and the guys in my fiance's band to try it and they're now trying to quit the real ones because of the cost, health issues, smell, and mess of them. I choose the black colored one only because I used to smoke clove cigarettes that were black colored paper and filters and also you don't see it as well in a dimly lit area.
I did smoke it right out in the open this past August at Philly airport when I was picking up my daughter and I got some eyeballing from the security guy for about 15 minutes. Then he came over and asked me about it because he saw the \"smoke\" I was exhaling and I explained it and he was just like - Cool! and went on his way. That's about how most people react to me and the brand I use.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 1, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: Why were the cloves banned, btw?

/too lazy to google.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drizzt380
October 1, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:
The FAmily SMoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gave the FDA greater regulatory power over tobacco products but also included a provision that flavored cigarettes(but not menthol) were to be banned.

They were banned because they were seen as a gateway cigarette to get younger people to start smoking.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really hold up entirely. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control had a study showing only a small percentage of underage smoking was from flavored cigarettes, and their use by high school students was declining. Probably because flavored cigarettes tend to be more expensive and underage kids tend to buy cheap and in bulk as it were.(last sentence is an assumption on my part)

Note: Methols are flavored cigarettes, have the largest market share of any flavored cigarette, but are specifically exempt from the ban. Phillip Morris really wanted this bill passed. Phillip Morris also only makes menthol and regular cigarettes. Phillip Morris has a lot of money. I'll leave the deduction to you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thnkwhatyouthnk
October 1, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: They were considered a flavored cigarette under the FDA's ban on flavored cigarettes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 1, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thnkwhatyouthnk: More to the point, they were considered a flavored cigarette by Phillip-Morris, so cloves had to go. Luckily, Phillips-Morris doesn't sell them. Phew!
Menthol cigarettes, OTOH, which Phillip-Morris does make, escaped the ban.
Disregard the illogic - it's for children!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 1, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thnkwhatyouthnk: And why were the flavored cigarettes banned?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drizzt380
October 1, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation:
It wasn't really the FDA caving. The clove cigarettes were banned in the bill that gave FDA power over the regulation. FDA never even got a chance to regulate them.

From the Bill:
(1) SPECIAL RULES-

'(A) SPECIAL RULE FOR CIGARETTES- Beginning 3 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority to take action under this section or other sections of this Act applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified in this subparagraph.\"

So, the FDA has the ability to ban Menthols. But were given power with other flavored cigarettes banned.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 1, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drizzt380: It's oddly reassuring that the FDA wasn't bought off by Phillip-Morris, only Congress.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drizzt380: That's what I get for just skimming the post.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
temporaryerror
October 1, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita:
Just wait. It won't be long before you can buy clove mini-cigars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
October 1, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@temporaryerror: Ew, I have tried them and they are disgusting. They taste and smell like cigars.

My friends and colleagues keep telling me things like that, or giving me suggestions for importing or rolling my own. I find it funny that most people do that instead of supporting my efforts to quit. lol

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 1, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: Well I think it's great that you're using this as an opportunity to quit. I was thinking that before I read the other comments that respond to yours.


Good luck!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
October 1, 2009 2:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a dumb poll, talk about forcing results.

\"Sure, what difference can one more unproven and possibly dangerous product make?\"

Oh please. We don't yet know whether it is \"unproven and possibly dangerous\" or \"a reduction in health risks\". Why is it necessary to automatically sideline those who are interested in the product and think it has potential? Opinions are mixed. So why do I have to answer either \"No\" (in 4 different iterations) or \"Yes\" in a way that implies I don't care about the risks? Or has Marc done his own scientific study we should know about?

But those I know who have one say it satisfies the urge to smoke without actually smoking, so it sounds like a nice bet for someone in my life who smokes more than a pack a day, has not had luck quitting with either Wellbutrin or Chantix and whom I want to see quit for the sake of his health.

I sense Marc has a great career ahead of him with Bill O'Reilly or some other inflammatory, marginalizing embarrassment. This with the CVS post the other day has just taken my respect and interest in Consumerist down a notch. Actually, over the past month I have been reading more like once a week or every 2, rather than daily. So I guess this is the \"new\" Consumerist.

(Obvs, did not answer. But the answer would be \"Yes, because I enjoy smoking and believe the health risks of this are less.\" Too bad that does not fit into one of the 1 yes and 4 no options.)

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
JennQPublic
October 1, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bunnymare: I totally agree. Where's the option for \"Sure, this sounds like a better idea than sucking down lungfulls of actual smoke.\"

Also, I know a couple who used these to quit smoking. They still use the e-cigs, but they don't replace the filters with fresh ones. They've kicked the nicotine habit, but they still need something to do with their hands. These may not be ideal, and \"unproven\", but I will guarantee they are less harmful than two packs of cigarettes a day!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
October 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JennQPublic: In that case, your friends are inhaling water vapor only so there is ZERO danger.


We all inhale water vapor everyday.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frari489
October 1, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bunnymare: yep. I was going to comment on the skewed poll but see you already have it covered.

I'm sure these things have a health risk, but the question is if they are more harmful than old fashioned cigarettes?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We don't yet know whether it is \"unproven...

@bunnymare: By definition if we don't know what the health risks or benefits are doesn't that mean it's unproven? No one's proved anything either way.

Yeah, it could have be phrased differently but it's not incorrect.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bunnymare: I thought your main point was that it was inflammatory and insulting to smokers. If I'm wrong here, please tell me what I missed.

But I don't agree that the first option is lying or incorrect in saying that it's unproven which you implied when you said \"we don't know yet\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
October 1, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: I didn't answer the poll either. None of the answers applied to me. I thought it was quite obvious where the pollster stood on the issue though. That, by itself, makes it a skewed poll.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
October 1, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Yeah, it could have be phrased differently but it's not incorrect.


That's why he compared him to Bill OReilly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: It's the \"We don't know yet\" part that didn't make sense.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Hector Ramos
October 1, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For what it's worth, I want to say, I quit cigarettes thanks to e-cigarettes.

I had been smoking since I was 18 (26 now), three packs a week, one smoke every morning and one after every meal, and half a pack if I were drinking.

I got a starter pack in August for around $40. All it had was two battery packs, one vaporizer and five liquid packs. Only two of those packs was enough to get me over.

It worked this way - after every meal, mornings, before going to bed... whenever I would get an urge to smoke, I'd pull out the e-cigarette, have one puff, and my nicotine fix would be taken care of. I did buy one pack after two weeks because I left my e-cig at work, but even after smoking it sparingly over the next two weeks, I kept using the e-cigarette while at work or whenever I was visiting friends and family and I didn't want to reek of smoke.

In the end, since one puff was enough to cover 1 - 2 cigarettes in my case, I got used to NOT smoking after every meal and every morning. As my liquid packs got used up, with fear of having to wait another week for replacements, I started to use the e-cig less and less.

Six weeks later, I still have the third liquid pack on the e-cig and only use it sparingly, once or twice a week. It's been 4 weeks since my last real smoke, and 2 weeks since my last e-cig puff. I don't even know where I left it.

Even if it is bad for your health, if it can help others like me quit, then I am all for it.

*Keep in mind that this is still not a quit smoking tool. I just happened to be able to use it that way. Also, I hate, HATE smelling like cigarette smoke.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
October 2, 2009 10:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hectorramos: \"I had been smoking since I was 18 (26 now), three packs a week, one smoke every morning and one after every meal, and half a pack if I were drinking.\"


That's not smoking, that's not even thinking about it! When you're an old geezer smoking a couple packs a day of Marlboro Red 100s, then you might qualify as a smoker!


Anyway, good luck, if I could quit 10 months ago, you can do it!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
October 1, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"But health concerns have led to warnings from the FDA that the fakes contain cancer-causing ingredients\"

Um...I don't think smokers care if their products contain cancer-causing ingredients. It would be rather amusing if they did.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
October 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: It would figure if the FDA banned it because it contains carcinogens, but still allows the sale of the cigarettes... even though it contains carcinogens...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
October 1, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: There's quite a few places where it's legal to own and carry a firearm...but you can't have a taser or mace because some small portion of the population is lethally affected.

I've never understood why a really lethal product can be legal but a less lethal one for the same purpose gets banned as unsafe. But that's government for you...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
psm321
October 1, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: Because if somebody shoots a firearm, they are probably meaning to kill or seriously injure, and know that that's what they're doing. If somebody shoots you with a taser or mace, they do not intend to kill or permanently injure you, so if they do, that's bad.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: The problem with tasers and mace is that they weren't supposed to be lethal. When something that's not supposed to kill anyone does anyway people freak out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Don't get me wrong, it's a legitimate reason to freak out...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hoi-polloi
October 1, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: I started smoking at 13, when most of us feel immortal. (This was also in an era when smoking was more socially acceptable.) I was concerned when it started to obviously impact my health. I had a smoker's cough within the first few years, and had my first case of bronchitis by 19. Because of the highly addictive nature of cigarettes, caring about the consequences of smoking and quitting are two different things. If it's not something you've struggled with, it can be hard to identify.

Especially when you look at older generations, you have to consider the length of addictions and the information available when people started smoking. I'm not suggesting people aren't responsible for their choices, but it's callous to suggest smokers are oblivious or unconcerned about their health.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 1, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: They care if they're trying to quit or at least mitigate the damage they're doing to their health.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
October 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: Thanks for sharing your experience.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chucklebuck
October 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even if these things turn out to be just as harmful to smokers as real cigs, wouldn't they (probably) still be less harmful to the public in general due to the lack of secondhand smoke? And if that's the case, banning these and not banning regular cigarettes seems contrary to the public health interests that the FDA supposedly represents.

(Disclaimer: I'd rather not ban real cigarettes OR these fakes, personally).

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
October 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chucklebuck: There's lots of places where you can legally own and carry a pistol, but not a can of mace. It's legal in those places to kill someone in self defense, but not legal to incapacitate someone in self defense, because the usually-non-lethal chemical kills a small portion of the population, and therefore is banned as unsafe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
October 1, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: And your point, in regard to chucklebuck's comment, is...?

Oh, incidentally, I have a theory on the logic to the apparent inconsistency of the laws or lack thereof which regard handguns and mace:

There is, however flawed, a presumption on the part of these lawmakers/voters that an average, sane, responsible, non-combat-trained adult is much more likely to let fire with the can of mace than to actually pull the trigger of a gun. As in, they'd spray it even in circumstances that may not warrant it, while in the same circumstances they'd hesitate to shoot due to the greater violence and implication of irreversible damage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 1, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chucklebuck: Like weed or flavored cigarettes, electronic cigs will be illegal until Phillip-Morris decides to manufacture them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Southern
October 1, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Don't let them fool you, it's all about the (tax) money. They don't make any tax money on E-Cigs (what is it now, $20 a carton?), so they want to ban them.


I started \"Vaping\" (which is what they call \"smoking\" an E-Cig) about 2 months ago, and it has *dramatically* cut my regular cigarette consumption. By more than half. I was a 1½ pack a day smoker, now a single pack lasts me 2-3 days. And that's only after 2 months.


Plus it's a LOT cheaper than regular cigarettes (but NOT really cheaper than those \"cigar cigarettes\" that have so far escaped the increased taxes - but I feel that loophole will be closed just ASAP because of all the tax money they're loosing).


If everyone switched to ECigs, the tobacco industry would crumble and the government would make NO tax revenue (because you can really make your OWN \"refill juice\" if you follow some tutorials on the 'net).


It has nothing to do with \"we don't know if it's bad for you\". Please. It's basically just poly-ethanol glycol and nicotine, neither of which cause cancer (according to every study ever done, so far, anyway).


It's all about the tax revenue.


In 2005, The Federal Government & The state governments collected just over $20 BILLION from consumers in cigarette taxes. That was before the recent $6.00 a carton tax increase back in January.


[www.msnbc.msn.com]


The states (and the Fed) DEPEND on that money. If they lose it, they'll have to make it up somewhere else. Of COURSE they don't want to do that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
October 1, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chucklebuck: Ditto everything you just said. That is all.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
October 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was actually considering buying a starter set of the Blu Cigs, going with the non-nicotine flavor packs in cherry and vanilla as a way to curb my sweet tooth. I don't know how intense the flavor is, though, so I don't know if it would really work. Still, probably better than keeping a pack of double-stuf Oreos around the house. >.<

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 4, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SunnyLea: Is there something particular that he should research? They are the same thing as other base models sold by other companies: a rechargeable battery, an atomizer, a cartridge top with an e-liquid soaked batting inside. I've used mine since early August and haven't had any problems (except a battery that wouldn't charge which was a defect and replaced at no charge immediately when they were notified). What makes Blu suspect vs. any other e-cig on the market?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisisnotkathy
October 1, 2009 9:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_OwesNigeriaAnApology: I also use them and concur that the vanilla is GREAT. I also like the menthol but I found the classic tobacco a little lacking. It's hard to replicate the smoky flavor so they are better with the other flavors. I am not using them to quit smoking but so that my boyfriend won't complain about me smelling like smoke anymore. Worked out pretty well so far :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 1, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_OwesNigeriaAnApology: I use Blu Cigs and I LOVE the vivid vanilla flavoring. It's not overt...much like just a taste of it after the drag. It doesn't linger and it's not strong at all. I personally didn't care for the Cherry Crush, though. It was stronger and it had that chemical type taste you get from artificial cherry flavoring (think real cheap freeze pops kinda). The Java Jolt is also very good. A bit stronger than the Vanilla, but not as strong as the Cherry. I HATE coffee, but I did like the Java and the Classic Tobacco flavors. If you decide to try the Blu Cigs, get the starter kit and you get to choose 5 kinds (I choose 2 van., a cherry, a java, and a classic tobacco with my starter kit). I'm pretty much staying with the Vanilla and Java ones now, though.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
PriorityChoad
October 1, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Greetings Consumerist! As an e-smoker for nearly a year, I figure I'd offer my two cents. There are plenty of companies out there (I'm looking at you, Smokingeverywhere) that charge ridiculously high prices for junk. I can see how anyone that got suckered into buying one of their \"products\" would be very disappointed and turned off of e-cigarettes forever.

However, there are plenty of great products on there. The tried and true models are the DSE801, DSE901, and 510. All three of these will mimic smoking an actually cigarette and work pretty well. I used the 801 exclusively for a very long period of time. There are a few things that people should understand:

The atomizer part of the e-cigarette, or where \"the magic happens\" frequently fail. Some people consider them disposable. I smoked about a pack to a pack and a half of regular cigarettes a day. At this point, I go through about 3 atomizers and 50ml of juice a month. It sets me back about 50.00 per an order, which is probably less than what I was spending on cigarettes.

I've actually upgraded to \"the Prodigy\" which can be ordered from \"http://www.puresmoker.com\" It's a bit pricey, but if you're serious about e-smoking it will make the whole experience much more enjoyable.

That being said, there are several starter kits available that should give you an idea whether or not e-smoking is for you. I tend to order parts and juice from \"http://myvaporstore.com\" They're reasonable and have very fast shipping. If you really want to give this a try, I suggest ordering an 801 starter kit, some juice (I suggest RY4 or Butterscotch) and an extra atomizer.

Also, if you want to learn more about e-cigarettes than possible, give \"http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/\" a lookie-lou.

*I am not affiliated with any of the sites I mentioned in anyway at all, aside from being a customer. I hope this information helps someone who is on the fence. I will say that I noticed a few things vanish when I started e-smoking..no more hacking up a lung when I wake up, no more shortness of breath, and my house/clothing/car no longer smells like smoke. Perhaps e-cigarettes will be proven to be as harmful or more harmful than conventional cigarettes, but I highly doubt it.

At least in the short-term, it's been a wonderful solution for me.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
SunnyLea
October 2, 2009 3:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PriorityChoad: Hello fellow Prodigy vaper and forum member! My worlds are colliding!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
October 1, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I currently own an e-cig and it is interesting, to say the least. Does it taste like a real cigarette? Slightly, but it has a taste that takes a while to get used to. It definitely satisfies the craving though, which has helped me cut back on regular cigs. It is a good conversation starter as well as they are still pretty much unknown to the general public. I'm fairly certain the FDA b.s. is just pressure from tobacco companies. The e-cig costs pennies to refill with liquid..the biggest cost is the initial purchase.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
frari489
October 1, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: they cost pennies to refill because I don't think there are hugh taxes on them (like normal cigarettes).

If normal cigarettes were introduced today I'm sure the FDA would ban them as well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
emona
October 1, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Two of my coworkers some these. I don't get it. Actually, I find it kind of creepy. Although, when you plug it in to recharge, the tip glows... which I find kind of awesome, honestly.

One guy smokes it in Walmart just to get a rise out of the employees, which I also don't get.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 1, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Something like this might actually allow my mother-in-law to visit us here in Texas. She is a chain smoker and can't bare to even think about being on a plane for 25 hours without being able to smoke.


Australia seems to have more strict rules about cigarettes than we do here in the US. I noticed that when I was there last time, even though she smoked ALL the time that she was awake, I didn't feel all that sick (allergies) until she started smoking the cigarettes that we brought her from here. (She requested that we bring her duty free scotch, and a carton of menthols. Lol) But when she opened up the ones we brought her, I started feeling sick like I typically do when I'm around smokers. Coughing, sneezing, miserable, sick. I didn't know there could be that much difference, but I guess there is.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
OrtizDupri
October 1, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: When I was in Australia, I bought a pack of Kools thinking they would be the same as the Kools in America - HUGE difference. The ones over there seemed a lot lighter and different somehow (hard to explain, less nicotine? less menthol?).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
October 1, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: The airline may still have rules about whether or not she could use an E-cigarette on a plane. I know at least domestically, Southwest does say you can't use an E-cigarette on their flights.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
October 1, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Apparently some of them do produce a second hand vapor. I'm also trying to substantiate this but someone mentions that US flight attendants are trained to treat all devices that look like cigarettes the same way, which means no smoking, period.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 1, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog_Happy250thGuinness!: I was just thinking that the idea of it was a good one. I did figure that they may not want/allow it.. but it's all moot anyway since they are banned in Australia.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MBPedia
October 1, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My brother-in-law absolutely loves his e-cigarette. He's never been able to kick the smoking habit (and really, he doesn't want to) but he has been able to quit smoking regular cigs. I don't see any problem with it - he's an adult and can make his own decision.

The e-cigarette doesn't stink like commercial tobacco products, he breathes more easily, he's never going to fall asleep in bed with one and set the house on fire. If he's going to smoke, I don't see that an e-cigarette is worse than tobacco, and it has some advantages.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
October 1, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Meh, now that i discovered SNUS, there's no need to quit.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jfielder
October 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: I have a serious weakness for snus... I love the stuff. But I've decided to not use it, for fear of any health problems that it may cause. I used to smoke, and quit smoking by using snus, and I loved the stuff, but my goal was to become tobacco free...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
October 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Look for the Colbert Report on this - and his alternative product. It's a great piece, and even Colbert can't get through it without breaking character once or twice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pixel
October 1, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation:
[dumb joke]
Not much, what's SNUS with you?
[/dumb joke]

Useful answer, they are a product much like chewing or plug tobacco that you tuck under your lip. Only difference is they don't require you to spit tobacco juice like the others do. Just as dangerous and likely to cause lip/mouth cancer though.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
startertan
October 1, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One of the guys that works for me just started smoking the BluCigs. If people want to smoke that's their choice but it is a pleasant alternative to those around them. He was puffing away at his desk and no one even noticed. I smoke cigars and occasionally flavored tobacco via hookah so the non-nicotine flavored e-cigs might be an interesting alternative to setting up or going out for hookah.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
coss3n
October 1, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I personally love the effects of nicotine, but don't smoke because of the enormous cancer risks. I think I'll wait a bit longer until the science is in, but I'd definitely pay for a product that delivered a nicotine high without all those carcinogens. (I'd love to see the analysis that says these are dangerous, btw)

The real problem is that the e-cigarettes aren't thought to deliver the high that regular cigarettes do. Regular cigarettes are insanely good at delivering nicotine straight into the brain -- that's why they're so addictive. If these e-cigs are more like nicotine gum than cigarettes in their dosing, I wonder what the point is.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 2, 2009 6:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coss3n:

Well...at least 50% of people get cancer anyway, maybe lung cancer will kill you but it'll take a while. You wanna live forever?!?

PS-->e-cigs work on the \"oral fixation\" that smokers have that nicotine patches can NEVER emulate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 1, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coss3n: I don't know about other brands of e-cigs but the nicotine amounts in BluCigs is by strength: Full Flavored: 16mg Light: 12mg Ultra Light: 8mg Non-nicotine: 0mg


I find that the Light version worked for me when I started in August (I smoked Marlboro Lights) and I've weaned down over the past month to the Ultra Light version (and also get the occasional Marl. Ultra Light smokes). I smoke maybe 4 or 5 packs of cigarettes now compared to the 30 or 33 packs per month before I started with the e-cigarette. My ultimate goal is to quit smoking cigarettes all together. The more I smoke my e-cig the less I like the taste of regular cigs and I smoke less of them now.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gfonner
October 1, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As long as they don't smell, I personally don't have as much of an issue with them as a real cigarette, which is way more poisonous.


Seriously, in the vain society we live in, I don't know how people still smoke. You stink. You stink real bad. And the perfume you use to cover it up makes you smell worse.


Sorry, just taking out my anger that my grad school seems to favor smokers over nonsmokers by the way our outdoor plaza is set up. Plus the fact I have to sit for an hour and fifteen minute class next to a person that just smoked during the class break. Yuck.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 2, 2009 9:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gfonner: No...see...what you're smelling is from having your head up your butt. We live in America land of the free. If you don't like to smell cigarette smoke outside use a nose plug.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
October 1, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gfonner: They don't smell at all, actually. I was quite surprised.


And as for your school's outdoor plaza... dude. We can't smoke inside ANYWHERE. At least let them have that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pitawg
October 1, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had smoked a pack a day for 25 years. The e-cig/personal vaporizer has replaced that habit quite well. The prices online are half or less of their mall-stand pricing, however it is still less than I spent on cigarettes.

The basic models are being sold for 2+ times the online price in malls and other stores, and they come up a little short on life and flavor for my taste. I chose power packs that work much better on inexpensive replaceable rcr123a rechargable batteries.

The tangible feeling of the vapor is close enough to replace the physical habit for me. The nicotine levels are selectable, and in my case after 3 months are already down below the levels of ultra-light cigarettes reported nicotine levels. I lowered the levels even taking into account the time spent \"vaping\" per day. Even nicotine will be out by winter.

The FDA used cryptic unrelated statements in a PR hit job that only pointed out chinese manufacturing issues with the liquid or liquid containers. The fact of roughly 2-4 thousand chemicals being removed from the nicotine intake was not even mentioned in their piece. The levels of the toxins they found in their very limited testing from the one company's product were low, and comparable to our water systems in some areas.

I chose liquids made in the UK or US to lower some concerns on manufacturing/packaging. The contents of the liquids, outside of the nicotine (poison), is nearly the same as the fog parents send their kids into for some lasertag arenas.

Overall, the change to propylene glycol (same as used in food/drink/pills taken daily by most everyone not eating their own food), nicotine, water vapor, and flavorings from the toxic cigarette smoke has given me lung capacity, taste, and smell in just a month. The odor is not there on clothing or environment.

4 months without regret.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Cool story bro
October 1, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Abso-fuckin-lutely.

I'm 10 days into quitting and I want to smoke. Give me a guiltless e-cig and I'm home-free!

Downside: they're still a big expense, like smoking normal cigs, and inconvenient to buy refills for.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
crouton976
October 1, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cool story bro: mine hasn't been inconvenient... see my response below

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eat A Peach
October 1, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cool story bro: I spend 1/2 on my e-cigs per month or less then I did with traditional smokes ($6 or more per pack in my are of the US) and I order refils/cartridges online once or twice a month. Delivered within 3 days usually and I don't have to leave the house.


An example: In July I spent $200 on cigarettes for the month. In August I spent $60 for an e-cig starter kit that lasted the entire month and bought 3 packs of regular cigarettes - total cost for August: $78. More than half as much spent. September I bought a refil kit for $25 that will last the month and 4 packs of regular cigs (I was a bit stressed and also went to Ultra Lights) - total cost for Sept: $49. Again half of what I spent the month before. Hopefully I will be able to cut out the real smokes altogether and just spend the $25 on the refils for my e-cig till eventually I wean myself off the nicotine and then I'll be spending that money on new computer toys..LOL

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cool story bro
October 1, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cool story bro: Oh and addiction. I'd still be an addict.

But you know what they say. Once a smoker...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pitawg
October 1, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cool story bro: nicotine addiction is preferable to pouring tar into your lungs with nicotine addiction if you ask me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
October 1, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I had three wishes, one of them would be that smoking was harmless.

I miss it sometimes. :(

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
October 1, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Before I even come near one of those things, I'd need to know what it is I'd be sucking into my lungs. Does anyone know? I imagine they contain propylene glycol, which is typically used in smoke machines and, so far as I know, is safe (to a point). But what else do they put in these things? And why would I want to take a chance?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
October 1, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: Propylene Glycol, Nicotine, and flavoring. As far as I know, that's it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pitawg
October 1, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop:
[www.e-cigarette-forum.com]

They have most of the info you need. They discuss this from all sides. (quitters, vapors, campaigning, equipment makers/modders, DIYers..)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RamV10: The Axeman Returneth
October 1, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A guy I work with smokes these.

He's a huge jackass.

Doubtful that that has anything to do with his smoking e-cigs, but when he's \"smoking\" one, he comes off as even more of a tool than he normally does.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
crouton976
October 1, 2009 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, we e-cig users prefer to call it \"Vaping\" rather than smoking, as no smoke is produced, only a vapor.

I'm happily vaping away on my Titan 510 right now!!

I have been a pack a day smoker for the last 15 years, and have been vaping for about 3 weeks. Since I started, I went from smoking 2-4 cigarettes a day to NONE!!!! Of all the times I've tried to quit smoking cigarettes, NOTHING compares to the success I've had with an e-cig, NOTHING!

As far as \"cancer causing ingredients\" is concerned, what the FDA is failing to mention is that on TRACE amounts of carcinogens were found in the fluid used in e-cigs (which is comprised of nicotine oil, glycerin and propeleyne glycol which is an inert material having no effect on the body), and because the nicotine is derived from tobacco, it stands to reason that you would find trace elements of said carcinogens. Also, there were no higher levels of them found than you would find IN ANY SMOKING CESSATION DEVICE OUT THERE INCLUDING GUM AND THE PATCH!!

The FDA is, in my opinion, in bed with Big Tobacco anyway and skewing the facts in BT's favor (anyone remember the article the other day on all cigarettes besides regular and menthol being banned?).

See the below links on youtube to find out what Dr. David Baron M.D., who is the Chief of Staff at UCLA Santa Monica Hospital has to say:

_page



He is endorsing a particular brand called \"Smoke Stick\", but the parts and principals of that brand and others is the exact same.

On the topic of some users having a bad experience with e-cigs, the probably didn't have a good model. There have been SEVERAL advances in e-cigs since they came out.

Since the cost of cigarettes went up, many users who have switched to e-cigs have found that they have saved money in spite of the initial upfront investment. I myself estimate that I will be spending around $60 a month compared to the $150+ I was spending each month. That really does pose the question \"How much is your health worth to you?\".

If you are looking into e-cigs, here are some links to the company I got mine from. They are extremely reputable, and have offices in the UK and in the US:

US site: [www.totallywicked-eliquid.com]

UK site: [www.totallywicked-eliquid.co.uk]

and for those of who who are a little more reserved image wise, here are the sister sites for the same company:

US site: [www.theelectroniccigarettecompany.com]

UK site: [www.theelectroniccigarette.co.uk]

If you purchase from either of these sites, enter this promo code at checkout for a discount (c'mon, this is Consumerist after all, gotta save some cash!!): T4BE699

Well, I've done enough ranting...

-Creighton

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crouton976
October 1, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

BTW, to clarify (still looking for an edit button!!) the 2-4 cigarettes a day is in COMBINATION with my e-cig. Like I said, I was a pack a day smoker.

-Creighton

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
He
October 1, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hell yeah, I would. Nicotine is basically like caffeine in my view, except it's historical delivery method has made it evil in the public eye. It isn't bad for you, it's all the other crap in tobacco once it's on fire (or left to steep in your gums) that hurts you.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pixel
October 1, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, those are some seriously prejudiced answers to the poll. Some border on the \"Have you stopped beating your wife?\" level.

Seriously, I had heard one news story on these things that talked about how dangerous they were, and now saw this. The poll answers pissed me off enough that I started to do some googling, and after reading everything I could find I'm planning to talk to my girlfriend tonight about giving these a shot. She's a 25+ year smoker who has tried and failed to quit uncountable numbers of times.

*Everything* I could find on them, from either side makes them look years better than regular cigarettes. Trace amounts of impurities in 2 of 10 samples tested? Both below the allowed amounts of impurities in other stop-smoking devices? This is a worry? Given the several *dozen* known and measured carcinogens in regular cigarettes this is still coming out far ahead.

Saying these are dangerous is like saying:
\"Paintball guns are dangerous because they cause bruises, so go ahead and keep shooting each other with real guns.\"

I found this editorial from Dr. Michael Siegel (a professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Boston University) particularly interesting.
[www.emailwire.com]

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SugarMag
October 1, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I were still smoking I would smoke the e-cig if I was out where smoking is banned, like bars and coffee houses. (really anywhere with walls)


Last I heard you could smoke the e-cig indoors.


It's easier being an ex-smoker though, really.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mecharine
October 1, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldnt vaporized nicotine be even more addictive? Its a nearly pure concentration in an easily absorbed vapor.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 2, 2009 9:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mecharine: The nicotine doesn't cause the addiction.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pixel
October 2, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mecharine: a very low percentage of the vapor is nicotine, about 1.6% fromt what I could find. It is actually less nicotine than in a regular cigarette.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
VOIDMunashii
October 1, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I could get one that doesn't actually have the chemicals in it, and just produces a steady stream of steam so that it looks like a real cigaretter, I totally would. Smoking is nasty, but it still looks cool.


It would make a nice costume prop too.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
October 1, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VOIDMunashii: You can buy zero-nicotine cartridges and \"juice\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
olivia2.0
October 1, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Soooooooooooooo...I just quit smoking! By reading this book (I know, sounds unbelievable, but I think it's working) called \"Allen Carr's EasyWay to stop smoking.\" And, i mean, it's just a BOOK so I recommend that to anyone who's trying to quit smoking. However, don't these E-thingys have nicotine in them?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TonySwank
October 1, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've never smoked and never will, but I've started to see these around a little since Houston instituted a smoking ban. These are allowed indoors at bars and since not all bars have patios it's a way to still get your fix. I will say the first time I saw one being used I was pointing it out the everyone I was with, I never thought people would actually use them.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
FabianN
October 1, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My Girlfriend got these and they are great. The whole scare behind it is coming from the fact that the tobacco companies loose money from this (note: Tobacco farmers are not the tobacco companies)
And we can't have people stop smoking real, american ciggerates, now can we?


These are far healthier than normal cigs because it uses a heating elemet to heat the air which then vaporizes(steams) the nicotine. You then get nicotine steam. There arn't any of the weird and funky chemicals that the ciggerates are loaded with. No tar-one of the big cancer causers.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sgtcody
October 1, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I too am a little aggravated with the negative slant in this poll.
I have been using my personal vaporizer (as the \"vaping\" community likes to call it) for about a year now and I feel so much better. I have every confidence that vaping is several orders of magnitude safer than smoking tobacco. Lately it's become even safer as the nicotine liquid manufacturers have started producing liquid using 100% pharmaceutical-grade ingredients.
I can tell you that vaping does the job of getting nicotine into your system just as well as a cigarette. I know, I was smoking two packs a day for 25 years. If you can't seem to quit smoking using traditional methods or if you are like me and don't really want to quit, this is the way to go. The links crouton976 provided are indeed the best sources I have found so far. Oh and crouton, you gotta try out the Janty Stick, it's fantastic. I get a whole day outta this thing on one battery and two carts!
The FDA statement was a hit-piece, total bullshit bought and paid for by Phillip-Morris and big pharm.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Thricebanned
October 1, 2009 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Winners never quit and quitters never win.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SunnyLea
October 2, 2009 3:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm smoking one right now.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SunnyLea
October 2, 2009 4:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"But health concerns have led to warnings from the FDA that the fakes contain cancer-causing ingredients. Oops.\"

You might want to look into that a little more. They found one carcinogen in minuscule amounts in one brand in one cartridge.

Even if it were true across the board, I'd take 1 carcinogen over dozens.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 2, 2009 6:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Smoking sucks. It's too expensive. And they just banned Djarums.

Firstly, if you're not a smoker you shouldn't comment. I can tell you off the bat the bad guy here is the Gov. as far as taxes. Though...the companies that include crazy additives are also douchebags.

While it's not good to smoke, nicotine isn't the problem (it never was). The problem is the additives (which I won't get in to).

The FDA refused to allow e-cigarettes with liquitine (liquid nicotine) and now won't allow e-cigs with water?!? These are the same guys who let drug companies sell products with side effects that make you crap your pants and see pink elephants.

Is it worth than smoking? Probably not. And my advice (as it always is) is: SMOKE EM if you GOT EM! The FDA is a political entity not a health safety entity.

Oh and...regarding the djarums...FDA...Go F-yourselves directly in the ear. They banned djarums so now they sell them with CIGAR tobacco...that's much much worse.

Disclaimer: I've been smoking (legal) tobacco for about 4 years on and off again. Generally cigarettes but I enjoy cigars and white trash cigars (black & milds).

Oh and...US Gov...CUBAN CIGARS are the best in the WORLD and I can still find them in the US (at cigar clubs); legalize them so everyone else can enjoy them. Idiots.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AlarmBell
October 2, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

does it come with an e-lighter?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WIL-VAPE
October 2, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I rolled my own until they added another $25.00 in tax to a pound of tobacco. This was totally outrageous. It now would cost me almost as much to make my own as it would to buy them but at least I wouldn't be smoking the FSC's ones. I smoked for over 40 years. My son smokes the FSC ones and when he's in my house, I can't hardly stand the smell of them. I switched to the e-cig. At least they haven't started taxing the hell out of them yet. The ironic thing is, the FDA wants to ban them because they found a very small amount of a harmful chemical in one out of 19 samples that they tested. What about all of the **** that's in cigarettes ! Especially the deadly chemical in the FSC cigarettes ! They don't give a damn about them because of all the tax money.

After they tested the e-cig, they come out with their propaganda scare tactics and said that there was chemicals in them that are in anti-freeze. First of all, it was a very very small amount in one cartridge that came from China, it was not the norm. Secondly, they compared them to NRT's,(stop smoking aids),like the gum and the nicotine inhaler. Now if they would have compared them to FSC's, the e-cig would have come out smelling like a rose.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mrearly2
October 3, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The controllers in government and elsewhere are insistent upon reducing the costs for the insurance companies. Banning smoking cigarettes, cigars, etc., would help immensely. Of course, that doesn't address the widespread problem of people killing themselves with junk food and lack of exercise. So, I suppose they'll soon be legislating against the many fat people, and with upcoming rationed \"health-care\", many others will die along the way...
If we were actually free, the government couldn't legislate the regulation of smoking, eating, etc., except for Federal employees and those residing in the many Federal Zones.

Reply
","");