E-cigarettes: New smoking draws little fire

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Even though it was below the fold, the headline in Thursday's Style section of The New York Times jumped off the page: "Smoking Is Back, Without the Stigma."

It was a piece that would explain the whole e-cigarette phenomenon to semi-judgmental nonsmokers like myself who had heard about "electronic cigarettes," but have yet to fully wrap our heads around the subject.
Because I'm not the hippest person in the world, I've yet to be in the presence (as far as I know) of someone who lit up and smoked an actual e-cigarette.

"E-cigarettes have ushered in a generation of smokers who needn't cower in doorways," the article's subhead read. The piece then opened with a description of an outdoor party in Brooklyn featuring bikini-clad women and sweaty guys in muscle tees "puffing away as they danced" without any concern about "the law and decades of anti-smoking campaigns."

It was not the most decadent description of a party I've ever read, but I could see the reporter's point. It was definitely an unusual sight. In a town presided over by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the politician most responsible for the laws that pushed smoking out of most of New York's bars, restaurants and workplaces, one half-expected SWAT sharpshooters to descend on the site the reporter described as a "smoker's paradise."

Appearances to the contrary, the revelers were in full compliance with the letter of the law, though the spirit of the law was definitely taking a beating, judging by the presence of so many smokers blowing "vapor" clouds without a care in the world.

Because electronic cigarettes aren't a tobacco-based product and didn't exist when Mayor Bloomberg enacted his decade-old anti-smoking initiative, they're not covered by the city's strict laws. The FDA doesn't regulate them. That's why New Yorkers can -- and have been -- lighting e-cigarettes in public with impunity.

"E-cigarettes, which use a nicotine solution instead of tobacco and emit a smoke-like water vapor, are already popular in Asia and Europe but are only now catching on in the land of the Marlboro Man," the story said. "One major draw is that they allow smokers to indulge in places where their habit had been circumscribed or outlawed."

The product is reusable and comes with a charger, a flavored nicotine cartridge and paper to mimic the look of a real cigarette, including a "red tip" to indicate heat where there is none. The smells, stained teeth and health woes associated with tobacco aren't an issue. Even the "smoke" is a watery vapor with no negative second-hand effects, as far as we know.

Whenever e-smokers, who are increasingly called "vapors," are approached in bars or restaurants to put out their cigarettes, some make a gesture of pressing them to their foreheads to indicate they aren't real.

Who knows -- half a generation from now, we may find out that e-cigarettes are even more dangerous to our health than the witches' brew of chemicals in tobacco-based cigarettes, but the science isn't there to support that contention, yet. Still, there has to be some level of addiction involved if nicotine is present.

We should all be wary of accepting the assurances of an industry that has lied continuously for decades about the safety of its product despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.


cont at
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...arettes-new-smoking-draws-little-fire-698723/
 
E-cigarettes are not safe. They still contain nicotine, which is what causes heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes. Nicotine is what constricts the blood vessels of tobacco users.
 
Last edited:
E-cigarettes are not safe. They still contain nicotine, which is what causes heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes. Nicotine is what constricts the blood vessels of tobacco users.

Of course they're not 100% safe, but they're safer than cigarettes.

Because they use only nicotine (other than the glycerin/flavourings), is there any real '2nd hand smoke' issues with them?
 
Surely someone soon will be using it as a drug delivery system for substances other than nicotine.
 
Lets not forget it will help eliminate forest fires in drought and dry climates! How many people actually butt their cigarettes or place them in a butt-tray when they're driving. No they flick them out the window.

You don't flick an ecig out the window.
 
Last edited:
Of course they're not 100% safe, but they're safer than cigarettes.

Because they use only nicotine (other than the glycerin/flavourings), is there any real '2nd hand smoke' issues with them?

It's mostly absorbed by your lungs. Any excess nicotine from the exhale would be oxidized and harmless by the time it made it 18 inches from your face.
 
Of course they're not 100% safe, but they're safer than cigarettes.

Because they use only nicotine (other than the glycerin/flavourings), is there any real '2nd hand smoke' issues with them?

Yes. Somebody can inhale the vapor if they are near somebody that's smoking an e-cigarette.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and challenge the notion that nicotine alone causes heart disease.

Nicotine replacement therapy is found to cause no adverse cardiac events here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22727182

and here (free full text):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319366

and probably elsewhere.

If nicotine isn't the cause of strokes, heart attacks, and heart disease in cigarette smokers, then what causes those conditions? I thought that nicotine constricts the blood vessels, which causes those cardiovascular problems and stroke risks.
 
If nicotine isn't the cause of strokes, heart attacks, and heart disease in cigarette smokers, then what causes those conditions? I thought that nicotine constricts the blood vessels, which causes those cardiovascular problems and stroke risks.

It's definitely a good question. It's pretty tough for me to find the answer because many of the search terms I'm using in pubmed lead me back to tobacco, not nicotine alone. Typing ["nicotine replacement" heart disease] into pubmed produces some results for nicotine alone, but all of the studies seem to be short-term. I also suspect that some of them were sponsored by the nicotine patch industry.

But nicotine's pharmacological activity alone isn't necessarily enough to cause heart disease in the absence of other risk factors. Caffeine is also a vasoconstrictor, but does it cause heart disease?

It's also relevant that tobacco smokers tend to get very little exercise. That alone is a huge risk factor for heart disease.
 
Perhaps nicotine alone doesn't cause the issues, but other things in the smoking of tobacco do, with the addition of nicotine. A combination of factors. I have no idea. I wonder if one or two cigarettes a day would significantly increase risk. Why doesn't marijuana? Or does it? The medicines in it counterbalance? Just questioning.
 
Laika said:
Any excess nicotine from the exhale would be oxidized and harmless by the time it made it 18 inches from your face.

Er...why would nicotine oxidize if it's being vaporized rather than combusted?

ebola
 
Perhaps nicotine alone doesn't cause the issues, but other things in the smoking of tobacco do, with the addition of nicotine. A combination of factors. I have no idea. I wonder if one or two cigarettes a day would significantly increase risk. Why doesn't marijuana? Or does it? The medicines in it counterbalance? Just questioning.


Marijuana has far less harmful chemicals in it. THat is not to say that smoking it is fine, use a Vape if you can. But smoking pure Cannabis v smoking Tobacco, well, there is no comparison. Cigarettes are far worse for you due to all the toxic chemicals. And for what ? Nothing....

Worst drug I have ever done is Tobacco.
 
Er...why would nicotine oxidize if it's being vaporized rather than combusted?

ebola

I suppose I'm only assuming and probably using the wrong words then. But if a silica wick carries the propylene glycol containing nicotine to a heating element that has a 1.8 ohm coil on it while powering the coil at around 3.8 volts, what sort of reaction is happening at that heating element? And what becomes of the vapor that comes off of it? Does it just "vaporize" rather than oxidize?
 
Does it just "vaporize" rather than oxidize?

Exactly. It's a moot point though, as again, you're absorbing the vast majority of the nicotine, and the presence of some residual propylene glycol or glycerin in the air is hardly hazardous. For a non-smoker to ingest an active dose of nicotine, you'd need a room that's somehow the equivalent of 'hot boxed' with e-cigs. I don't know if even this would do such, as it could be that the particulate matter in smoke-proper lingers in the air for a lengthier period than PG or G vapor.

ebola
 
I suppose I'm only assuming and probably using the wrong words then. But if a silica wick carries the propylene glycol containing nicotine to a heating element that has a 1.8 ohm coil on it while powering the coil at around 3.8 volts, what sort of reaction is happening at that heating element? And what becomes of the vapor that comes off of it? Does it just "vaporize" rather than oxidize?

You first need to work out what temperature the coil reaches. All I know from college physics is that 2.2 amps of current runs through the coil, but I'm sure I've forgotten the formula that gives you heat, and I think you have enough data to calculate temp.

When is the assignment due?
 
Top