Do you want all eyes in the room focused strictly on you? Do you want vague potential health benefits? Well, kids, toss out those cancer sticks and replace them with a thin tube of plastic containing a lithium-ion battery that heats liquid nicotine into a stream of vapor. Welcome to the future of smoking.
This week, Ryanair (the preferred budget airline of most every European student) announced they will start selling no-smoke cigarettes on flights. The cleverly named "Similar Smokeless Cigarettes" aren't precisely the same as the vaporizer-based electronic version, but there's nothing like a planeful of folks sucking on something that resembles a cigarette to bring smoking back to the mainstream.
Sure, the chemicals inside might numb your tongue after a while, and heaven forbid you drunkenly attempt to crush out the $80 glorified smoke, but what price vanity? Start sucking on a smokeless smoke, exhaling a sweet nothing of a vapor, and, I can attest, all eyes will focus on you. Better yet, whip out your laptop and plug your cigarette into the USB charger. People will talk. But they likely won't talk for long. Pseudo-rettes are on their way to the mainstream.
In late July, the FDA released its evaluation of the technology. The study was a fairly straightforward undertaking to determine the "nicotine content and other impurities" of two brands of electronic cigarettes. "The Center [of Drug Evaluation and Research] is concerned that in addition to nicotine delivery, the vapor may also provide other potentially harmful volatile components," reads the study background.
Scientists tested for tobacco-specific carcinogenic impurities and they found them, at very low levels. Meaning, on this count at least, that e-cigs are less harmful than ordinary cigarettes. Some e-cigarettes sell nicotine-less cartridges and in some of these, researchers discovered, there are in fact "very low amounts of nicotine present." This is tantamount to discovering there are trace levels of alcohol in O'Douls. Surely there are other ways to get your oral fixation.They also found some rather unsavory chemicals, including diethylene glycol, which is an ingredient in anti-freeze. The amount is hardly toxic, but the mere fact has sent the opposing sides into respective tizzies. Despite their eponymous origins, e-cigs are currently unregulated, meaning they can be purchased by anyone willing to pony up the $50 or more e-cigs run. This children-might-smoke-it claim is one of the biggest guns in the e-cig opponents' rack. Most manufacturers sell cartridges filled with "exotic" flavors like rose and chocolate and cigar and, oddly enough, green tea -- proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, goes the argument, that these are targeted at kids.
Fans, meanwhile, have latched onto every imaginable tack, from the green angle (fewer butts!), to the conspiracy (Big Tobacco is keeping them down!), to a bound-to-backfire defense of e-cigs' smoking cessation potential (nicotine gum and the like is regulated by the FDA). The last boasts defenders in high places. In April, there was a small congressional brouhaha of sorts after one senator called for a ban until the FDA could verify the device's safety and another fought back insisting no action should be taken, that they were effective means of quitting smoking.
Which leaves the two sides at a stalemate. The fallout of the FDA's report, despite the fairly benign findings, has been a predictable groundswell of political fervor. Connecticut's attorney general has issued a warning, Oregon's has filed a lawsuit, one county in Long Island has voted to ban them. Facebook has banned ads, PayPal has cracked down and just last week Amazon reportedly announced to merchants their sale was prohibited.
The manufacturers are fighting back, and the fans are rallying, and only time will tell which side will win. Likely, the makers will cave and start submitting for regulation, the e-smokers will grumble about Big Tobacco and nanny states, and within a few years no one will blink at a smoker puffing away at a cigarette that needs to be charged.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.
I smoked for 6 years and used e-cigs to quit. It took about two and a half months using high, then med, then low nicotene levels. I still have one around with fluid that contains no nicoteine just in case I get an urge. It worked for me and I have recommended e-cigs to many others who are trying them and having a varying degree of success. I will be pretty upset if they ban or over regulate these. Currently it is cheaper to quit using e-cigs, but the FDA will likely tax it until its no longer cost effective. I dont understand why they would want to keep people from a valid choice of quitting.
It is refreshing to see an airline take this approach. For many smokers, sitting through a flight not doing anything can be a cause for smoking (at least trigger the urge).
The electronic cigarette can defiantly solve the issue here and if some folks can quit tobacco using electronic cigarettes, so be it!
I picked mine up from Eko Cigs.
Saying these are aimed at kids is B.S. People like various flavors period.
To give that ignorant opinion is unbelievable for a source supposedly dedicated to science and facts.
I quit tobacco by using these, and did 3 months of research before I bought one.
Can't stand the taste or smell of an analogue cigarette now.
The nicotine must be extracted from tobacco so yes there will be some ingredients found in the liquids that are also found in tobacco.
It looks like you did no research at all, and simply quoted the FDA's crap.
If you did you'd know that the two companies who manufactured the liquids found to contain Diethylene glycol, were from China, and were found to have used farm grade Propylene glycol
It's china and we know about their standards for these things already.
This led to the contamination. They have said to have tightened up controls and now only are supposed have switched to using vegetable glycerin, and have eliminated Propylene glycol entirely.
Old stock is still being sold of course and who knows what rules some of their companies will abide by.
Any doubts in the new PG free liquids from China? , then buy it from a US manufacturer.
As far as tobacco companies being behind some FDA's opinions.. well if you don't know the history of the FDA then do some reading: money means everything.
Plus why are tobacco companies doing research on e-cigs while claiming they would prefer smoking just be banned completely?
I find the skepticism here at PopSci, often to be like the young people on that tube site, crying fake over every video they see.
Everyone knows the FDA has never lied or done anything wrong, no one there has ever taken jobs or money offered by big corporations etc., to look the other way to pass a drug or hurry it through without proper testing , or refuse something due to lack of $$...
Anyone should know that the process of combustion produces poisonous things. Vaporizing some nicotine and USP grade glycerin probably made from soy, compared to the thousands of harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke seems preferable to me, and my now clear lungs.
And getting down to zero amount of nicotine is pretty easy too.
Even if my kid was influenced by the ads (which I don't approve of , same with alcohol ads that suddenly were unbanned some time ago) and started using an e-cig, I wouldn't be very concerned.
And if they were aimed at kids , why no mention of the flavors in any ads I've seen in three months or more of researching them before I purchased one?
There far are worse things to do to yourself these days, like actually smoke , drink, drugs, bad foods etc.
The main point being that if you vaporize something reasonably safe,(the FDA has approved nicotine and glycerin both for human consumption) as opposed to inhaling smoke from combustion of nearly anything, you don't have to die, or be someone's sick burden later in life.
Kinda sounds like more fun to me.
If used to quit smoking, great.
If used to reintroduce nicoteen addiction to a growingly post-tobacco world, then, no thanks.
Theres nothing wrong with nicotine, which is about as bad as your daily cup of coffee, its the other hundred or so chemicals found in cigarettes that really affect you and result in dangerous side effects.
from Grand Prairie, Texas
...There's plenty wrong with nicotine. Having a short half-life of roughly 2 hours, it's no wonder why it's so addictive. Not to mention just 60mg (a drop) is enough to kill a person.. But lucky for the cigarette smokers, there's only about 9mg within each one, and only 1mg of which you, the smoker, inhale--the other 8mg is burnt out on the side-stream for the population to enjoy.
Anything is toxic in a large enough dose, even water. If these don't smell, and don't pollute, I honestly don't see why you are complaining. Nobody is asking you to use it. Stop being so concerned about things that don't effect you.