5 ms·

I used to run a custom e-cigarette company. We sold it this summer. My take away was that the federal government eventually will get involved and start regulat

I used to run a custom e-cigarette company. We sold it this summer. My take away was that the federal government eventually will get involved and start regulating the shipping of these items. Unfortunately the stuff people are getting now is mostly made in China and you can't be too certain of what the heck you are getting when you take a big inhale and just taste the apple flavoring or whatever. Who knows what chemicals are used to make them. Most of the testimonials I received was from people that were able to quit smoking because of my product, but I definitely got some complaints as well. The biggest benefit of the e-cig is that is is little to no smell. Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems. It is an interesting market though where it seems like new types of e-cigs are coming out all the time. Another thing about e-cigs is that people are making them into e-joints. This is very popular especially in medical marijuana states. Before they banned synthetic marijuana, we were developing a synthetic marijuana e-cig. Would have been fun to have around, but ultimately I am glad not to be filling in mass them any more!

300bps 13y ago
Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems. If you were flying on an airline based in the United States, you violated their rules. http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-in-planes-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-i... Beyond that, what gives you the right to put other people's health at risk? You have either judged them safe or decided you don't care about the risks. You can't make that decision for other people and you're not in a position to know what genetic or other disorders that someone might have that make them more susceptible to any kind of tobacco (ex: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficiency http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficie...). How is this any different from me walking onto a plane with a clump of asbestos fibers and waving it over your head on the plane?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - 300bps 13y ago
    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 Chinese manufacturers are putting into their vapors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal worrying about second hand risks strikes me as being completely crazy. Irrational name-calling. For decades a tobacco industry told us that cigarette smoking and second hand smoking were completely harmless. What credibility do they have to rest on? It's not even the slightest bit crazy to want fewer chemicals in the air you breathe especially when they are put there for no discernible benefit. EDIT I see you deleted your response, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Alex3917 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Alex3917
    - praxeologist 13y ago
      In 2009, the FDA tested some ecigs from China and found traces of DEG. This was used to raise fear, yet the amount of DEG was within the FDA's own tolerances as "safe". You probably use myriad products from China which aren't highly scrutinized and aren't up in arms about the safety of those. I have an ecig company and the ingredients in my liquid are 100% American sourced. I have never worked for a tobacco company. Ecigs helped me quit smoking and my motivation is to help people quit and improve their lives. There is no reason to be concerned about secondhand vapor. This is a recent study for you to read: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... We can compare the secondhand exposure from ecigs to something like grilling a steak and grilling clearly has a greater risk to give you cancer.
      - 300bps 13y ago
        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.htm 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, "My product is 100% natural." It might be accurate but ignores the fact that things like arsenic and bacteria and all kind of other harmful things are natural. There is no reason to be concerned about secondhand vapor. I'm going to trust the FDA over you.
- mst 13y ago
  > 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 actually made with rat poision", so your 'strawman argument' claim down thread doesn't make any sense to me. > I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. I fear that this statement elsethread - combined with your sneering tone anc crusader's mindset - indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing the matter clearly but rather in rationalising your hatred of the thing you blame for your mother's death. That would be a shame; under the thick layer of condescension I think you actually have some valid arguments, although it's a little difficult to tell for sure.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    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.htm 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 in half of the samples tested. Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested. You appear to just be taking all the claims that these e-cigarette companies are reporting at face value. Just like people used to take what the tobacco companies said at face value. I won't fall for it. Are e-cigarettes safe than regular cigarettes? Maybe? Probably? Are they safe though? I have no idea and neither do you or anyone else.
    - mst 13y ago
      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.
- peterwiese 13y ago
  faggot

300bps 13y ago

Definitely hit them on airplanes before with no problems. If you were flying on an airline based in the United States, you violated their rules. http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-in-planes-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-smoke-e-cigarettes-i... Beyond that, what gives you the right to put other people's health at risk? You have either judged them safe or decided you don't care about the risks. You can't make that decision for other people and you're not in a position to know what genetic or other disorders that someone might have that make them more susceptible to any kind of tobacco (ex: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficiency http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficie...). How is this any different from me walking onto a plane with a clump of asbestos fibers and waving it over your head on the plane?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- 300bps 13y ago
  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 Chinese manufacturers are putting into their vapors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal worrying about second hand risks strikes me as being completely crazy. Irrational name-calling. For decades a tobacco industry told us that cigarette smoking and second hand smoking were completely harmless. What credibility do they have to rest on? It's not even the slightest bit crazy to want fewer chemicals in the air you breathe especially when they are put there for no discernible benefit. EDIT I see you deleted your response, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Alex3917 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Alex3917
  - praxeologist 13y ago
    In 2009, the FDA tested some ecigs from China and found traces of DEG. This was used to raise fear, yet the amount of DEG was within the FDA's own tolerances as "safe". You probably use myriad products from China which aren't highly scrutinized and aren't up in arms about the safety of those. I have an ecig company and the ingredients in my liquid are 100% American sourced. I have never worked for a tobacco company. Ecigs helped me quit smoking and my motivation is to help people quit and improve their lives. There is no reason to be concerned about secondhand vapor. This is a recent study for you to read: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... We can compare the secondhand exposure from ecigs to something like grilling a steak and grilling clearly has a greater risk to give you cancer.
    - 300bps 13y ago
      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.htm 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, "My product is 100% natural." It might be accurate but ignores the fact that things like arsenic and bacteria and all kind of other harmful things are natural. There is no reason to be concerned about secondhand vapor. I'm going to trust the FDA over you.
mst 13y ago
> 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 actually made with rat poision", so your 'strawman argument' claim down thread doesn't make any sense to me. > I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. I fear that this statement elsethread - combined with your sneering tone anc crusader's mindset - indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing the matter clearly but rather in rationalising your hatred of the thing you blame for your mother's death. That would be a shame; under the thick layer of condescension I think you actually have some valid arguments, although it's a little difficult to tell for sure.
- 300bps 13y ago
  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.htm 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 in half of the samples tested. Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested. You appear to just be taking all the claims that these e-cigarette companies are reporting at face value. Just like people used to take what the tobacco companies said at face value. I won't fall for it. Are e-cigarettes safe than regular cigarettes? Maybe? Probably? Are they safe though? I have no idea and neither do you or anyone else.
  - mst 13y ago
    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.
peterwiese 13y ago
faggot