11 ms·

Indeed. It seems that two very different sects combine forces in the battle against e-cigs: traditional tobacco industry, who sees e-cig transition as a threat,

Indeed. It seems that two very different sects combine forces in the battle against e-cigs: traditional tobacco industry, who sees e-cig transition as a threat, and health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence). This unholy alliance seems unfortunately quite strong. I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody (except traditional tobacco providers).

Shivetya 11y ago
the tobacco industry only persist because government wants it too, it serves two benefits. Increased revenue from taxation and cynically because many users will pass away before their medical expenses get too high. Inhaling any burning substance cannot be good for you and there was really no standard on e-cigs to at least let people use them with some assurance
matthewcford 11y ago
I started using e-cigs without much thought on quitting entirely, however after about 7 months, I had even stopped vaping, haven't felt the need to smoke in over a year. Granted I did slowly reduce the nicotine content over time.
- splawn 11y ago
  I did the same. I understand being anti-smoking because cancer, but this whole anti-vaping movement seems way misguided. I mean sure, if over time we figure out that certain flavorings should be avoided, fine, ban their use. However, don't deny people an easy way out of smoking. baby with the bathwater cliche.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Exactly. There can be very many different flavourings and some are probably harmful, just like some food is harmful, particularly if used in excessive amounts. Or listening to music at loud levels is bad for your hearing, and still, earphones are not banned (and we don't even have mandatory fuses in earphones to limit the power emitted to ears).
Amezarak 11y ago
Traditional tobacco providers actually dominate e-cig market share in the US under different brand names. The most popular e cig brands blu and vise, are owned by Reynolds tobacco and imperial tobacco. Markten is owned by Altria, aka Philip Morris. If anything I'd be more skeptical of pro ecig articles given big tobaccos involvement. http://www.cspnet.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/nielsen-electronic-cigarette-sales-growth-declines http://www.cspnet.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/nielsen...
- snuxoll 11y ago
  What you find at Walgreens or convenience stores is not what I would call the "most popular". Having been around a large number of analog cigarette converts at my previous employer absolutely none of them would touch any of those with a ten foot pole, they weren't "cloud chasers" either, they used vape-pen devices sold by a local B&M shop. I don't have a large enough sample set, but I've never actually met anyone in person that vapes that uses a cig-alike sold by the big tobacco companies.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    I was measuring most popular by the reported sales and market share. I don't know what other definition could apply. I too keep hearing, mostly on the internet, that nobody uses them, but numbers are numbers.
- splawn 11y ago
  The FDA ban that they are trying to push through grandfathers in tobacco companies, so if they can generate enough scare and the ban succeeds they will make a TON of money.
jwr 11y ago
The transition is indeed an improvement, but there is a dangerous myth spreading: that e-cigarette smoke (as exhaled by smokers) is "completely harmless". I've heard people describe it as "just water vapor". Well it isn't harmless, and transitioning from a traditional tobacco cigarette to an e-cigarette doesn't mean you can just start smoking everywhere.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  In my experience, walking twenty paces behind a vaper vaping is even more unpleasant than walking four paces behind a cigarette smoker smoking.
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    I'm the opposite. I think the e-cigs often smell kind of good and the scent is quickly gone. Also the smell doesn't instantly get into my clothes. Different kind of particulates I guess.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    What do they put in those e-cigarettes then? :o. I've personally converted my ex-gf to e-cigarettes and I'm spending a lot of time around people smoking them, and not only I can barely see the smoke, I can't smell it even standing in front of a smoker and having them breathe in my direction.
    - Lewton 11y ago
      There's a breed of e-cig smokers that are doing what humans always do when they get a new hobby- take it to the extremes. I walked down the street a couple of weeks ago and saw massive smoke coming from around the corner. And when I smelled it I thought "Someone's really hitting that BBQ!". It was a guy standing on his balcony vaping. Releasing giant clouds of vapor. I'm all for vaping, but I imagine that the people who take it to the limits are gonna find out eventually that it can be unhealthy too (as anything done in excess)
      - 11y ago
Symbiote 11y ago
> health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence). The comment you're replying to cites the British Department of Health, who's final quote is > All of our local NHS Stop Smoking Services now proactively welcome > anyone who wants to use these devices as part of their quit attempt > and increase their chance of success From the middle "Despite this trend all current evidence finds that e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of smoking.". That's hardly a battle against e-cigarettes.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I think the GP didn't mean "authorities" as in "the government", but more as in "Food Babe-type pundits" - the usual "non-organic stuff gives you cancer" crowd majority tends to read and believe. Hard to avoid, as it's the kind of outrage-inducing content that's so loved by mainstream media.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  > The comment you're replying to cites the British Department of Health That statement is delightful; my experience is with what I see from the Finnish Ministry of Health, and they're nuts. In this case, the Brits are much more sane.
logfromblammo 11y ago
I think the scaremongering is more to keep non-smokers from trying vaporizers. If everyone who currently smokes traditional burnt-tobacco cigarettes switched to nicotine vaporizers tomorrow, the public health windfall over the next 2 to 30 years would be staggeringly huge. Cancer rates, particularly for lung cancers, would drop off a cliff. But since burnt-tobacco smoking has already been on the decline for a while, those who monitor and care about such things are concerned that vaporizers are not perceived as dangerous enough to keep that trend line going all the way to zero. The best course, really, would to refrain from prevarication or exaggeration with respect to the vaporizers, and keep up the pressure on burnt-tobacco cigarettes, as the health-destroying menaces that they are. If you smoke, switch now. Statistically speaking, you will live longer. Use whatever vaporizer flavors it takes to bury your desire to touch flame to paper. It will likely be easier for you to switch flavors later, if any of them turn out to be significantly more damaging than the others.
- LordKano 11y ago
  You're also describing the scare mongering that was employed against cannabis for the past 70 years. Unfortunately, overstating a risk is eventually perceived to be a lie. People stop trusting you when you're perceived to be a liar.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Unfortunately, overstating a risk is eventually perceived to be a lie. Unfortunately? Overstating risk is a lie. We can't be informed consumers without trusted sources of information. If we can't be informed consumers the market will always be inefficient. The market will tend towards more efficiency, so in this case people will discount untrustworthy information sources. If you want to change behavior, either increase (correct) market information if it will support your goal, or incentivize. Manipulating markets by reducing or confusing information never seems to work out well in the long run.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      When I see the claims made, I usually see weasel words attached(I just did that too). With the result being that a statement can be factually accurate while being completely misleading.
asift 11y ago
>This unholy alliance Classic "Bootleggers and Baptists"
LordKano 11y ago
I think you have missed a third party. Government taxing authorities. Despite the fact that they condemn the dangers of tobacco smoking, they also want the tax revenue and e-cigs don't provide that. Big tobacco will still make money from e-cigs because tobacco is needed to get the nicotine for the liquid. The people who just enjoy sticking it to smokers are upset and the governments that want the tax revenue are upset.
tripzilch 11y ago
> I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody. You forgot one group, although my guess is that if it's a significant number (I just have anecdata), we'll hear about it soon enough. With all these parties holding interest, they'll be up to their noses in statistics. It's the group of smokers that are trying to make a healthy life-decision, trying to quit their addiction[0], to quit smoking, but relapse because obviously electronic cigarettes keep both the nicotine addiction and the habit going. None of the people I know who tried to switch to e-cigs (for health, or any reasons actually) did not relapse to regular cigarettes. Starts with just one, for the flavour (because it does taste better, really does) and after a few weeks you'll never see the e-cig again. I'll ask around to see if any of them still even use the e-cig at all, maybe at home, but I kind of doubt it. Source: Am smoker and therefore hang out with other smokers outside a lot of the time. I can think of 4 or 5 people I know for which the above story holds, and truly not anybody that permanently switched to e-cigs, or went from e-cigs to full quit. Not even for half a year or so--which I would otherwise (without e-cigs) consider having "quit" to the extent that keeping it up after that is much more likely. So among my peers, people "switching" to e-cigs, can basically expect less than half a year of clean lungs before they relapse. Any health benefits of that short period goes up in smoke. That's what I don't like about e-cigs, it's like twitter-activism, it wastes people's will on something they think is helping, but really just lulls them into a false sense of effort. Another piece of anecdata: I know a lot more (than 4 or 5) people that actually managed to quit smoking. Now some of them didn't get addicted "real bad" (some people are just less sensitive to addiction), but some of them did, even relapsed some times, but keep on battling. Especially that last group, if they had switched to e-cigs instead, would be back inhaling burned leaves in no time. But I don't know how significant these experiences are. Maybe e-cigs will help further the social stigma of smoking, the unusualness of it, therefore in the end creating and cultivating an environment in which smokers can more easily kick their habit. But a method to quit smoking, it is not. Especially I have personally, not seen any heavy smoker / addict get any expected health benefits from them. So if e-cigs are good, they're only for "the greater good", I would never ever recommend a smoker that wants to "switch" to e-cigs for their health. "Just quit", I will tell them, e-cigs are just a temporary stop-gap to feel like you're "doing something good", while in the mean-time keeping your actual addiction alive and kicking. Even trying quitting for real and failing, seems IMO better than that (at least you'll gain experience in battling your willpower). [0] which is hard, and I'll just say that if you haven't experienced such addiction (and even many smokers and ex-smokers have not), you probably underestimate how it can grind will to dust

Shivetya 11y ago

the tobacco industry only persist because government wants it too, it serves two benefits. Increased revenue from taxation and cynically because many users will pass away before their medical expenses get too high. Inhaling any burning substance cannot be good for you and there was really no standard on e-cigs to at least let people use them with some assurance

matthewcford 11y ago

I started using e-cigs without much thought on quitting entirely, however after about 7 months, I had even stopped vaping, haven't felt the need to smoke in over a year. Granted I did slowly reduce the nicotine content over time.

splawn 11y ago
I did the same. I understand being anti-smoking because cancer, but this whole anti-vaping movement seems way misguided. I mean sure, if over time we figure out that certain flavorings should be avoided, fine, ban their use. However, don't deny people an easy way out of smoking. baby with the bathwater cliche.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Exactly. There can be very many different flavourings and some are probably harmful, just like some food is harmful, particularly if used in excessive amounts. Or listening to music at loud levels is bad for your hearing, and still, earphones are not banned (and we don't even have mandatory fuses in earphones to limit the power emitted to ears).

Amezarak 11y ago

Traditional tobacco providers actually dominate e-cig market share in the US under different brand names. The most popular e cig brands blu and vise, are owned by Reynolds tobacco and imperial tobacco. Markten is owned by Altria, aka Philip Morris. If anything I'd be more skeptical of pro ecig articles given big tobaccos involvement. http://www.cspnet.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/nielsen-electronic-cigarette-sales-growth-declines http://www.cspnet.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/nielsen...

snuxoll 11y ago
What you find at Walgreens or convenience stores is not what I would call the "most popular". Having been around a large number of analog cigarette converts at my previous employer absolutely none of them would touch any of those with a ten foot pole, they weren't "cloud chasers" either, they used vape-pen devices sold by a local B&M shop. I don't have a large enough sample set, but I've never actually met anyone in person that vapes that uses a cig-alike sold by the big tobacco companies.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  I was measuring most popular by the reported sales and market share. I don't know what other definition could apply. I too keep hearing, mostly on the internet, that nobody uses them, but numbers are numbers.
splawn 11y ago
The FDA ban that they are trying to push through grandfathers in tobacco companies, so if they can generate enough scare and the ban succeeds they will make a TON of money.

jwr 11y ago

The transition is indeed an improvement, but there is a dangerous myth spreading: that e-cigarette smoke (as exhaled by smokers) is "completely harmless". I've heard people describe it as "just water vapor". Well it isn't harmless, and transitioning from a traditional tobacco cigarette to an e-cigarette doesn't mean you can just start smoking everywhere.

dsr_ 11y ago
In my experience, walking twenty paces behind a vaper vaping is even more unpleasant than walking four paces behind a cigarette smoker smoking.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  I'm the opposite. I think the e-cigs often smell kind of good and the scent is quickly gone. Also the smell doesn't instantly get into my clothes. Different kind of particulates I guess.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  What do they put in those e-cigarettes then? :o. I've personally converted my ex-gf to e-cigarettes and I'm spending a lot of time around people smoking them, and not only I can barely see the smoke, I can't smell it even standing in front of a smoker and having them breathe in my direction.
  - Lewton 11y ago
    There's a breed of e-cig smokers that are doing what humans always do when they get a new hobby- take it to the extremes. I walked down the street a couple of weeks ago and saw massive smoke coming from around the corner. And when I smelled it I thought "Someone's really hitting that BBQ!". It was a guy standing on his balcony vaping. Releasing giant clouds of vapor. I'm all for vaping, but I imagine that the people who take it to the limits are gonna find out eventually that it can be unhealthy too (as anything done in excess)
    - 11y ago

Symbiote 11y ago

> health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence). The comment you're replying to cites the British Department of Health, who's final quote is > All of our local NHS Stop Smoking Services now proactively welcome > anyone who wants to use these devices as part of their quit attempt > and increase their chance of success From the middle "Despite this trend all current evidence finds that e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of smoking.". That's hardly a battle against e-cigarettes.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I think the GP didn't mean "authorities" as in "the government", but more as in "Food Babe-type pundits" - the usual "non-organic stuff gives you cancer" crowd majority tends to read and believe. Hard to avoid, as it's the kind of outrage-inducing content that's so loved by mainstream media.
ptaipale 11y ago
> The comment you're replying to cites the British Department of Health That statement is delightful; my experience is with what I see from the Finnish Ministry of Health, and they're nuts. In this case, the Brits are much more sane.

logfromblammo 11y ago

I think the scaremongering is more to keep non-smokers from trying vaporizers. If everyone who currently smokes traditional burnt-tobacco cigarettes switched to nicotine vaporizers tomorrow, the public health windfall over the next 2 to 30 years would be staggeringly huge. Cancer rates, particularly for lung cancers, would drop off a cliff. But since burnt-tobacco smoking has already been on the decline for a while, those who monitor and care about such things are concerned that vaporizers are not perceived as dangerous enough to keep that trend line going all the way to zero. The best course, really, would to refrain from prevarication or exaggeration with respect to the vaporizers, and keep up the pressure on burnt-tobacco cigarettes, as the health-destroying menaces that they are. If you smoke, switch now. Statistically speaking, you will live longer. Use whatever vaporizer flavors it takes to bury your desire to touch flame to paper. It will likely be easier for you to switch flavors later, if any of them turn out to be significantly more damaging than the others.

LordKano 11y ago
You're also describing the scare mongering that was employed against cannabis for the past 70 years. Unfortunately, overstating a risk is eventually perceived to be a lie. People stop trusting you when you're perceived to be a liar.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Unfortunately, overstating a risk is eventually perceived to be a lie. Unfortunately? Overstating risk is a lie. We can't be informed consumers without trusted sources of information. If we can't be informed consumers the market will always be inefficient. The market will tend towards more efficiency, so in this case people will discount untrustworthy information sources. If you want to change behavior, either increase (correct) market information if it will support your goal, or incentivize. Manipulating markets by reducing or confusing information never seems to work out well in the long run.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    When I see the claims made, I usually see weasel words attached(I just did that too). With the result being that a statement can be factually accurate while being completely misleading.

asift 11y ago

>This unholy alliance Classic "Bootleggers and Baptists"

LordKano 11y ago

I think you have missed a third party. Government taxing authorities. Despite the fact that they condemn the dangers of tobacco smoking, they also want the tax revenue and e-cigs don't provide that. Big tobacco will still make money from e-cigs because tobacco is needed to get the nicotine for the liquid. The people who just enjoy sticking it to smokers are upset and the governments that want the tax revenue are upset.

tripzilch 11y ago

> I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody. You forgot one group, although my guess is that if it's a significant number (I just have anecdata), we'll hear about it soon enough. With all these parties holding interest, they'll be up to their noses in statistics. It's the group of smokers that are trying to make a healthy life-decision, trying to quit their addiction[0], to quit smoking, but relapse because obviously electronic cigarettes keep both the nicotine addiction and the habit going. None of the people I know who tried to switch to e-cigs (for health, or any reasons actually) did not relapse to regular cigarettes. Starts with just one, for the flavour (because it does taste better, really does) and after a few weeks you'll never see the e-cig again. I'll ask around to see if any of them still even use the e-cig at all, maybe at home, but I kind of doubt it. Source: Am smoker and therefore hang out with other smokers outside a lot of the time. I can think of 4 or 5 people I know for which the above story holds, and truly not anybody that permanently switched to e-cigs, or went from e-cigs to full quit. Not even for half a year or so--which I would otherwise (without e-cigs) consider having "quit" to the extent that keeping it up after that is much more likely. So among my peers, people "switching" to e-cigs, can basically expect less than half a year of clean lungs before they relapse. Any health benefits of that short period goes up in smoke. That's what I don't like about e-cigs, it's like twitter-activism, it wastes people's will on something they think is helping, but really just lulls them into a false sense of effort. Another piece of anecdata: I know a lot more (than 4 or 5) people that actually managed to quit smoking. Now some of them didn't get addicted "real bad" (some people are just less sensitive to addiction), but some of them did, even relapsed some times, but keep on battling. Especially that last group, if they had switched to e-cigs instead, would be back inhaling burned leaves in no time. But I don't know how significant these experiences are. Maybe e-cigs will help further the social stigma of smoking, the unusualness of it, therefore in the end creating and cultivating an environment in which smokers can more easily kick their habit. But a method to quit smoking, it is not. Especially I have personally, not seen any heavy smoker / addict get any expected health benefits from them. So if e-cigs are good, they're only for "the greater good", I would never ever recommend a smoker that wants to "switch" to e-cigs for their health. "Just quit", I will tell them, e-cigs are just a temporary stop-gap to feel like you're "doing something good", while in the mean-time keeping your actual addiction alive and kicking. Even trying quitting for real and failing, seems IMO better than that (at least you'll gain experience in battling your willpower). [0] which is hard, and I'll just say that if you haven't experienced such addiction (and even many smokers and ex-smokers have not), you probably underestimate how it can grind will to dust