• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Is No Longer a Good President

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This may be my limited experience since I'm one of those all-too-rare people who is neither a smoker nor bothered by smoking, but seems to me that most people who use e-cigarettes are not quitting smoking, but rather using them to smoke in situations and places where they could not otherwise smoke cigarettes. There commonly seems to be an initial statement about switching to e-cigarettes as "quitting smoking", but I can't think of a single person who hasn't gone back at least partially to tobacco. That doesn't bother me - it's your body - but it does undercut your argument about keeping people smoking. If my experience is typical, then e-cigarettes are allowing additional nicotine intake rather than cutting smoking per se. (Of course, obviously this is not an issue about which I feel strongly either way, so my experience may be completely atypical.)

Actually, the vast majority of e-cig users have quit smoking. Dual users have in almost every case cut down on the number of cigs they smoke. There is a lot of survey data on this. Example:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4356

Complete substitution of smoking was reported by 81.0% of participants (former smokers) while current smokers had reduced smoking consumption from 20 to 4 cigarettes per day

And to your point about convenience being the main factor:

The most important reasons for initiating EC use for both subgroups was to reduce the harm associated with smoking and to reduce exposure of family members to second-hand smoking.

And here's something else. With dual users who continue to smoke while using e-cigs for convenience, the number 1 reason they have not yet completely transitioned is because they are concerned about the health risks of e-cigs.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

The most important finding was that the strongest predictor of dual use was high risk perception for e-cigarettes. Although expected, this is a very important finding because it shows that misinformation and exaggeration about e-cigarette risks is discouraging smokers from making a complete switch.

This is what happens when people feel the need to exaggerate health risks. These people probably think it's OK to exaggerate out of an abundance of caution, but that rationale simply does not apply here. This propaganda is causing more people to smoke.
 
Last edited:
Can't believe how many so called intelligent people (especially you pretend liberals) believe this bullshit is about health or saving the children, especially comparing e-cigs as a gateway to smoking just like they would blame marijuana as a gateway to hard drugs, when it's all about corporate profits in danger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411658/big-tobaccos-war-vaping-gregory-conley
Big Tobacco’s War on Vaping
It’s lobbying state governments to impose taxes and regulations on its competitors.

By Gregory Conley — January 16, 2015
When the success of America’s largest companies is threatened, they often turn to the government for a helping hand. They have been doing that for at least the past century. In recent years Congress gave more than $1 trillion in bailouts to banks, car companies, and credit lenders in the midst of great financial turmoil. But that kind of generosity isn’t the only way Uncle Sam has helped many of America’s biggest companies maintain market share. Using the growing bureaucracy’s powerful regulations, many corporations have worked hand in hand with government to snuff out competition.


A recent example of this offensive is Big Tobacco’s actions against the thousands of small startups that are helping people quit smoking. Cigarette companies are spending millions of dollars to push product bans, higher taxes, and expensive regulations on their competitors.


The cigarettes sold by Reynolds American Inc. and Altria (formerly Philip Morris) are highly taxed and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and over the past several years cigarette consumption has declined more rapidly than forecast by analysts and shareholders. Electronic cigarettes (“e-cigs,” or “vapor products&#8221😉 have accounted for a significant portion of this reduction. These battery-operated and smokeless devices represent a free-market solution to a grave public-health problem. As alternatives to cigarettes, which kill more than 400,000 people each year, vapor products are far less hazardous.


When Reynolds and Altria decided belatedly to enter the e-cigarette market last year, the two companies chose to develop and manufacture only e-cigs that are known as “cigalikes.” Cigalike e-cigs are designed to look, feel, and taste like traditional cigarettes. These products have cartridges that are pre-filled and sealed and must be thrown away or recycled after several hours of use. Cigalikes work for some smokers, but they generally suffer from poor battery life, inadequate nicotine delivery, a lack of flavor options, and high prices that make switching to vaping with these products nearly as expensive as smoking cigarettes or even more so.


Premium vapor products (PVs) evolved out of consumer frustration with the limitations imposed by cigalikes. PVs are larger than cigalike e-cigs and tend to look more like sonic screwdrivers than traditional cigarettes. Small bottles of nicotine-containing or nicotine-free e-liquid are used to refill PVs with any flavor and nicotine level the consumer desires. Studies are unsurprisingly finding that users of these fill-it-yourself vapor products are significantly more likely to quit smoking than those who use cigalike e-cigs. Many ex-smokers credit the ability to switch between a variety of flavors as being a prime reason for their being able to quit.


At the moment, the largest player in the cigalike market is Reynolds, which still makes by far most of its money selling cigarettes. Its cigalike product, Vuse, was launched nationwide last summer in tens of thousands of convenience stores and gas stations. Unfortunately for Reynolds, sales of PVs and e-liquid surpassed cigalike e-cigs in 2014. Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog estimates that the PV and e-liquid market in the U.S. is about $1.5 billion and rapidly growing, compared with a stagnant $1 billion market for cigalikes.


Even before this news broke, Reynolds had devised a vapor-product regulatory strategy to protect its cigarettes and cigalike e-cig products from thousands of smaller PV and e-liquid competitors in several states. To raise costs on and limit the number of competitors in the market, they lobbied for all vapor products to be taxed in South Carolina, Michigan, Oklahoma, and other states and for the same regulatory and licensing regimes that apply to cigarettes to be imposed on vapor products.
Reynolds also has urged the FDA to ban all PV and e-liquid products as well as most flavored vapor products. That’s right. A company that made $4.6 billion in profits in 2013, selling products that cause cancer, illness, and disease, asked the FDA to ban the products that are both preferred by consumers and proven to help people quit smoking.


In Big Tobacco’s war on these innovative technology products, it’s not just adult smokers and ex-smokers who will suffer at the hands of misguided regulators and lawmakers. Most of the sales in the $1.5 billion vapor product market are taking place in the more than 5,000 specialty retail outlets (“vape shops&#8221😉 across the country. These new businesses are occupying what may otherwise be empty storefronts. They are also providing local jobs, paying sales and income taxes, and improving communities by helping reduce the toll from smoking.


Reynolds’s push for more-coercive taxation, burdensome regulations, and even bans on their competitors make sense, as no company wants to see its consumers switch to products it doesn’t sell. Unfortunately, if the FDA and state lawmakers merely accept the agenda being pushed by Reynolds and other large cigarette companies, public health and market freedom will suffer. It’s time lawmakers and bureaucrats realize this and stop trying to protect cigarette companies from consumer choice.


— Gregory Conley is the president of the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit that advocates for and is partially funded by small- and medium-sized businesses in the vapor-product and electronic-cigarette market.
 
Can't believe how many so called intelligent people (especially you pretend liberals) believe this bullshit is about health or saving the children, especially comparing e-cigs as a gateway to smoking just like they would blame marijuana as a gateway to hard drugs, when it's all about corporate profits in danger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411658/big-tobaccos-war-vaping-gregory-conley

Good article. If Big Tobacco has its way, there won't be anything left on the vapor market except those crappy, over-priced cigalikes they sell.. All competition will be eliminated.

Your article doesn't mention that Big Pharma is also involved. They have a multi-billion dollar product portfolio with their patches, gum and lozenges with which ecigs directly compete. Big Pharma makes huge donations to NGO's like the American Cancer Society, and a number of these organizations have been bad mouthing e-cigs on their websites using misleading and cherry-picked information.
 
Theres no such thing as a gateway drug.
And even if there were, it would not be e-cigarettes or marijuana. It would probably be caffeine.
 
What does that saying mean? Yes I tried to google it.
More of a joke than a saying. Wine bottled in the year I was born would be way more than I would pay for a bottle of wine.

Regardless of what the point or social norms around cigars are, there are people who smoke cigarettes in moderation too. Even if that moderation is dictated by weaknesses in will power or heightened stress. So it seems silly to be comfortable with or even in favor of banning cigarettes or e-cigs entirely but then talk about cigars being fine in moderation. If your stance is that less tobacco is a good thing why not oppose all of it?

At any rate, the NIH disagrees that cigars are fine in moderation:

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cigars-fact-sheet

Especially when considering that they likely the worst effects of the three in terms of second hand smoke.

And while their delivery mechanism makes them less addictive than a comparable number of cigarettes, they can still kick addictions - which may manifest as people smoking cigarettes, but the cigars would nonetheless be at fault.

From wolfe's posts it seems like we have a pretty good idea of what's in e-cigs, I don't really think the whole argument that they could be arbitrarily dangerous seems credible. That's not to say that I would support people to get into e-cigs from nothing but the claims that it's an effective step down from cigarettes seem reasonable.
My position is not that less tobacco is better. Health wise that is true, but I support an adult's right to put what into her body whatever she wishes, as long as that substance does not present an inherent threat to others and she does not behave in such a way as to make it a threat to others.

I don't see how we can have a pretty good idea what is in e-cigarets though when the liquids are mostly house concoctions by small businesses. Again, I have zero problem with that, I just don't understand why people who are all for intrusive government are so incensed by this one.

Actually, the vast majority of e-cig users have quit smoking. Dual users have in almost every case cut down on the number of cigs they smoke. There is a lot of survey data on this. Example:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/4/4356

And to your point about convenience being the main factor:

And here's something else. With dual users who continue to smoke while using e-cigs for convenience, the number 1 reason they have not yet completely transitioned is because they are concerned about the health risks of e-cigs.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

This is what happens when people feel the need to exaggerate health risks. These people probably think it's OK to exaggerate out of an abundance of caution, but that rationale simply does not apply here. This propaganda is causing more people to smoke.
Good info, thanks. As for the health risks though, how do we know they are negligible if the people mixing the liquids are unregulated and the liquids untested? Smoking tobacco typically takes decades to kill, and e-cigs are in their infancy of development and adoption.

Again, I am not in favor of the FDA's thinly veiled efforts to kill e-cigs. I am just not seeing why this is inherently any different from them killing unpasteurized milk. Left wing government decides what you don't need and kills it. I don't accept the argument that killing e-cigarettes necessarily drives people to the more dangerous tobacco though. People CAN quit smoking if they so choose. Smoking is hard to quit, but nothing like alcohol or heroin where at full addiction, stopping can actually kill you.
 
Back
Top