Joyetech"s History of the Electronic Cigarette

A reader submitted a link to this graphic history of e-cigarettes from Joyetech. We’ve come a long way since 1963. Hell, we’ve come a long way since 2004.

 

Joyetech"s History of the Electronic Cigarette

PennLive.com Wants You

PennLive.com of Central Pennsylvania has placed a call out to vapers as they begin what they call a “lengthy project on e-cigarettes.”

“…We need your help. Do you use electronic cigarettes regularly? If so, we want to hear from you.”

Users of electronic cigarettes, even those who only use them occasionally, have been asked to email submissions@pennlive.com to help out with the project.

Do you use e-cigarettes? If so, we could use your help | PennLive.com.

PennLive.com Wants You

Pimp My Vape

 

“[Some vapers have] created hobbies out of rebuilding and customizing “mods,” metal tubes, similar to e-cigarettes, designed for “vaping” flavors and nicotine. By hacking these devices, they’re able to produce stronger flavors and — more importantly — create more impressive vapor clouds.”

There’s a great article on Mashable about the hacker ethic so pervasive in the vaping community, with users going hands-on to modify their vaping experience. It covers a wide range of topics, from vapers who create their own custom-flavored juices, to tweakers of rebuildable atomizers.

There are several inaccuracies scattered around the article that’ll be obvious to the more hard-core vapers among our readers, but it’s definitely interesting as an outsiders’ look into vaping’s “science-rooted” subculture: those of us who enjoy fiddling, rebuilding, customizing and fine-tuning our vapes.

Pimp My Vape: The Rise of E-Cigarette Hackers.

Pimp My Vape

Big Cities Lead in E-Cig Superstition

In another pro-ecig article from Forbes, Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health looks at how the superstitious fear of electronic cigarettes is being promoted by America’s big cities.

“Making e-cigs inaccessible for desperate smokers by inane restrictions will send this message: “Keep on smoking.” To those who say, “We just don’t know what might happen,” I respond, we sure do know what happens with the real ones: almost half a million dead American smokers every year.”

Ross is amazed that these places, where daily life is so completely based on technology and embracing the new, seem to be where all the baseless opposition to e-cigarettes is coming from. With Los Angeles, Chicago and New York all leading the charge to ban e-cigarettes, treating them exactly the same as tobacco, it is only in places like Wisconsin that we see governments making an effort to treat electronic cigarettes as what they are: a new product that has next to nothing in common with traditional cigarettes.

Ross takes oin all the arguments these cities have made: from claims that bans protect children, to the idea that electronic cigarettes are toxic, and counters them with facts and common sense, making the point that discouraging smokers from switching to electronic cigarettes could come at the cost of a great many deaths caused by smoking tobacco.

Big U.S. Cities Foment Baseless, Superstitious Fear Of Electronic Cigarettes | Forbes

Big Cities Lead in E-Cig Superstition

Have Bans Gone Too Far?

Monday’s Chicago Tribune contained an editorial from “recovering nicotine addict” Clarence Page, who believes that governments are going too far in banning e-cigarette usage.

Page cites bodies such as Chicago’s city council which, like Los Angeles and New York, voted to prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes in most indoor areas. These governments, says Page, most often cite the protection of children as their reason for passing laws against e-cigarettes. Exposing minors to e-cigarettes, they say, will get them hooked on nicotine, and could make them smokers.

“What next? Will government come after my nicotine gum and nonelectronic inhaler? If not, will there be a class-action suit by e-cigarette “vapers” claiming unlawful discrimination under the Constitution’s equal-protection clause?”

The problem with this logic, says Page, is that indoor bans in places like bars, where minors are not allowed, does nothing to further this cause, no matter how erroneous it might be. It’s a slippery slope, says Page, who worries that giving the government the ability to ban the use of a harmless device, even in places the children they say they’re trying to protect can’t enter, hand over far too much power over our lives. If nicotine vapor can be banned, how about nicotine gum and non-electronic nicotine inhalers?

Page, it should be noted, is not a vaper. Though he uses nicotine gum and a pharmaceutical inhaler as a former smoker, he has no loyalty to electronic cigarettes — he simply worries that we’re giving governments far too much control over our lives in allowing them to ban an activity that hasn’t been shown to harm anyone — not bystanders, and not even the vapers themselves.

Government going overboard in ban of e-cigarettes – Chicago Tribune.

Have Bans Gone Too Far?

Banned from Vaping at Home?

In a somewhat unusual article in DigitalTrends, Andrew Couts, a vaper, argues that refraining from vaping around others is “the right thing to do,” and explains why there’s a vaping ban in place in his house.

“Why? Because e-cigarette vapor might not be safe, [my wife] Jennifer says. Do I want to expose her and the critters to potentially dangerous vapor? Don’t I love my family?”

Couts has obviously seen the arguments of both sides, and while he admits that “not a single study on e-cigarettes has thus far shown that e-cigarettes pose a health risk to direct users or second-hand bystanders,” he defends his wife’s decision not to allow the use of electronic cigarettes in his home.

While Couts doesn’t go as far as saying that there should be laws enforcing this separation of vapers and non-vapers, he believes it’s just too early to subject loved ones to his vapor as a matter of etiquette and respect.

Is it courtesy or just unfounded paranoia? Let us know what you think.

E-Cigarettes Are Banned … In My House – And That’s The Right Thing | Digital Trends.

Banned from Vaping at Home?

California Could Ban Online Sales

A bill introduced Monday could ban the online sales of electronic cigarettes in California.

“There’s supposed to be age verification and notice. It’s not working. The next logical step is to simply ban sales through the Internet.”

–Roger Dickinson

AB1500, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) would prohibit direct sales of e-cigarettes over the Internet.

While Dickinson claims his bill is designed to protect minors from online retailers with inadequate age verification methods, he says forcing people to buy their electronic cigarettes from local brick-and-mortar retailers would net the state $24 million per year in revenue.

Online sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products would also be banned under the bill.

California Considers Banning Online Tobacco, E-Cigarette Sales | CBS Sacramento

California Could Ban Online Sales

UC Irvine Changes Decision, Bans Vaping

Reversing a decision to allow the use of electronic cigarettes on campus, the University of Irvine has now banned them.

The decision comes just weeks after the initial decision to allow vaping, one which deviated from that of the other nine UC campuses which do not allow the use of e-cigarettes on school property as of January 1.

UCI had previously said it had the authority to override the overarching UC policy on its own campus, but apparently has been overruled.

UC Irvine reversing course on e-cigarette use – San Jose Mercury News

UC Irvine Changes Decision, Bans Vaping

Chicago One Step Closer to Public Vaping Ban

Governor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to ban vaping in public spaces advanced closer to enactment Monday as Chicago’s city council pushed his plan forward.

An earlier plan had stalled, with city aldermen concerned that a provision that only e-cigarettes containing nicotine would be banned could prove difficult to enforce. The new plan makes no distinction between e-cigarettes with nicotine and those without it.

“You’re lumping it together in the same category even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm. You’re saying ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions later.’”

–Ald. Rey Colon

Despite the changes in the plan, some aldermen, such as Rey Colon of Chicago’s 35th District, are still not convinced. Colon believes regulating without regarding the lack of any known health risks is premature.

Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd District agreed, suggesting that a limit on sales to minors be enacted, but a ban on public vaping be postponed pending scientific evidence of a real health risk. Banning public vaping would force e-cigarette users into smoking areas, and Reilly explains “I… have friends and family members who are using (e-cigarettes) to quit, to get away from combustible tobacco that kills people.”

Chicago to ban indoor e-cigarette smoking – chicagotribune.com

Chicago One Step Closer to Public Vaping Ban

E-Cig Use During Golden Globes Called "Irresponsible"

Dr. Manny Alvarez of Fox News is seething over Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ use of an electronic cigarette on-camera during the Golden Globes telecast Sunday night.

“Many young people are easily influenced when it comes to picking up habits like smoking. Actors must maintain some degree of social responsibility if they want to be famous and stop promoting products that could be dangerous to the public.”

Calling her use of an e-cig during a comedy bit “irresponsible,” Alvarez says that celebrities promoting e-cigarettes sets a bad example for viewers.

His reasoning for this is that electronic cigarettes contain nicotine, which is, of course, addictive.  Also, according to Alvarez, there is “zero evidence as to the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes” — which, of course, completely ignores the growing mountains of data gathered to date, which hardly amounts to “zero evidence.”

Perhaps Alvarez would prefer that celebrities act as if cigarettes do not exist, rather than to be seen using an alternative that is clearly, despite the doctor’s assertion to the contrary, much safer than smoking. Sure, more people would die from smoking-related cancer, but Alvarez seems to think that’s a better outcome than seeing someone use an e-cigarette.

Dr. Manny: Using e-cigarettes during the Golden Globes was irresponsible | Fox News

E-Cig Use During Golden Globes Called "Irresponsible"

FDA Head Tied to Big Pharma

While electronic cigarettes have plenty of opponents, from overzealous health groups to politicians to misguided ex-smokers, we think the Motley Foool’s Daily Finance hits the nail on the head with their assessment of one of the industry’s worst enemies: Big Pharma.

“All in all, the new e-cig industry is rife with speculation and foul play. With politicians, regulators, and pharmaceutical companies all attacking the industry, which is in its infancy, things could be about to get very messy.”

With the tobacco companies jumping on board with e-cigarettes, much of the opposition now, and certainly the opposition with the most money, comes from major pharmaceutical companies whose anti-smoking products are being threatened.

The largest producer of such products, GlaxoSmithKline, has the pockets and connections to make life a lot tougher for manufacturers of electronic cigarettes. Of particular interest and concern is the FDA’s new chairman, Mitch Zeller, who has admitted that he works closely with Glaxo, admitting to the Wall Street Journal in 2009 that he “provides consulting support to GlaxoSmithKline consumer health through Pinney Associates on an exclusive basis on issues related to tobacco dependence treatment.”

As the fight on both sides of the electronic cigarette debate heat up and regulations are enacted, we can’t help wondering how this relationship between the FDA’s head and Big Pharma will influence what happens to vapers.

Electronic Cigarettes Have a Rich and Powerful Enemy – DailyFinance

FDA Head Tied to Big Pharma