Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp

If I told you that you could smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and no longer face the risk of lung cancer or other ailments usually associated with smoking, would you believe me? Well, if claims by manufacturers of e-cigarettes are true, that’s exactly the case.

There are two sides to electronic cigarettes. On the one side, you’ve got organizations traditionally fighting against tobacco companies. On the other side, you’ve got traditional tobacco companies and new companies marketing this new nicotine-delivery system.

E-cigarettes are a big unknown when it comes to long-term safety. However, they are facing a barrage of attacks from organizations with much invested in what has become an anti-smoking industry.

In this article, we’ll explore the science behind these devices, and explore whether these really represent what the future of smoking is going to look like.

What Are Electronic Cigarettes

In 1927, an inventor by the name of Joseph Robinson filed a patent for what could realistically be considered the first generation design of the modern-day e-cigarette. It was a vaporizing device that electrically heated medicinal compounds so that patients could inhale the vapors for faster absorption into the bloodstream.

A number of patents were issued from the 1960’s through the next millenium, until in 2003, a Chinese man named Hon Lik – inspired by the death of his father to lung cancer – developed the world’s first actual electronic cigarette.



His patent best describes the process of how e-cigarettes work.

The present invention relates to an electronic atomization cigarette which contains nicotine without harmful tar. The electronic atomization cigarette includes a shell and a mouthpiece… The advantages of the present invention include smoking without tar, significantly reducing the carcinogenic risk. Furthermore, users still feel as if they are smoking and experiencing the same excitement, and the cigarette is no need to be lit and is no fire risk.

The first commercial version of these were released in 2006 in Europe, and then in 2007 in the United States. Today, there are over 250 brands of e-cigarettes with sales at nearly 1 billion units by the end of 2013.

What’s It Like To Smoke An EC?

With over 200 brands and varieties of these things in the market, you really have to pay attention to the nicotine dosages listed on the packaging to understand what you’re getting. There are even some that come with no nicotine at all.

Based on a large number of anecdotal experiences posted by users online and in social networks, the experience is clearly a little different than regular cigarettes. You need to peel a little sticker off a small air-hole so that when you take a drag, air can flow in and allow the vapor to escape the end hole into your mouth.

For many people who smoke the device like they do cigarettes, it may not work. Small drags held in your mouth before sucking into your lungs tend to dissipate so quickly that not much of the nicotine actually makes it into your lungs.

Apparently, the trick to actually getting nicotine into your system is to slowly suck the fog directly into your lungs — and a lot of it.

The deeper you drag the vapor into your lungs, the more you’ll feel the buzz. A long, deep drag on an e-cigarette will give you a kick that feels just like a real cigarette (if you haven’t smoked much before).

So, here’s the verdict after reading about the experience people have had with these devices.

  • Little to no aftertaste in the mouth once you’re done, even if you’ve used it for a while
  • No nasty cigarette smell on your clothes
  • Absolutely zero scent in the air during or after smoking
  • The required drag to get an equivalent “buzz” as cigarettes takes more than what’s advertised on the packaging
  • For some people, there can be some slight lung irritation or dry cough

The lung irritation is anecdotal, because most studies regarding short-term dangers of e-cigarettes show them to be far safer than real cigarettes. According to WebMD:

So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don’t burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you’d get from a real cigarette.

However, the debate with e-cigarettes comes down the the effects of long-term use, and whether the particulates found in the vapor could significantly impact human health or not. Then there’s the matter of nicotine addiction.

Science And Safety Of E-Cigarettes

What are the facts behind these devices? Are they truly safe alternatives to smoking, and the future of smokology? It’s hard to say.


The answer to that question varies, depending who you ask. The anti-smoking lobby is hard at work to discredit these devices as unsafe, while there is actually little to no evidence showing that’s really the case.

The common criticisms that anti-smoking advocates have of e-cigarettes are as follows, according to the group Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights .

  • E-cigarette vapor conains ultrafine particles that could “exacerbate respiratory ailments”
  • The aerosol contains trace amounts of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and nicotine.
  • There are metal nanoparticles in the aerosol, including chromium, nickel and tin.
  • Short-term use can, “increase respiratory resistance and impair lung function”.

In 2014, the FDA issued a proposed rule that e-cigarettes would be included as a “tobacco product” and fall under the same FDA regulations as other tobacco products, even though the device itself makes no use of tobacco whatsoever.

Researcher Monique Williams of the University of California provided the results of her research in 2013, which revealed that overall, the chemicals and particles found by a few studies were not consistently found by other researchers. Overall, she found EC’s were still much safer than cigarettes.

EC fluid and aerosol contain carbonyls, VOCs, TSNAs, and metals, and overall have fewer chemicals than conventional cigarettes. […] While many carcinogens are found in small amounts in EC fluid, aerosol, and exhale and may reduce cancer, the effects of EC products on cancer may not be known for many years.

She also found that performance and aerosol content varied significantly between brands.

There is also some confusion, and a manipulation of the facts by the anti-smoking activists, such as referring to the propylene glycol used in the EC fluids as the equivalent of “antifreeze”, leaving out the fact that propylene glycol is actually added to reduce the toxicity of antifreeze. It’s ethylene glycol that is the poisonous compound in antifreeze.


Propylene glycol is actually classified by the FDA and regulators in Canada and the UK as safe, and it’s been used in products like nebulizers, nasal sprays and cough syrups for years.

However, it’s true that the effects of long-term inhalation of propylene glycol are unknown. What is well-accepted, however, is that the inhalation of burning tobacco smoke is probably worse by several orders of magnitude.

Another manipulation of the data is the fact, repeated throughout the media, that a 2009 FDA analysis of e-cigarettes found carcinogens and diethylene glycol in the aerosol. However, the analysis involved a “small sample of cartridges” from only two brands — there are over 200 brands on the market.

Are E-Cigarettes The Future Of Smoking?

The real question here is whether these electronic devices are going to eradicate traditional cigarettes in the near future. Despite the best efforts of anti-smoking groups, it isn’t likely that the popularity and increasing adoption of these products is going to reverse any time soon.

The fact remains that e-cigarettes are far less dangerous than traditional cigarettes. Stories abound all across the Internet of people getting their lung capacity and their health back after switching over to these gadgets.

While it may be impossible for anti-smoking activists to promote smoking a new product in order to stop smoking a more dangerous product — the fact remains that e-cigarettes could potentially save many thousands of lives over the next few decades.

However, there is a caution that goes along with this product. The danger with saying that something is “safer” for existing smokers to use, does not mean that the product is “safe” for non-smokers to start using. Whether or not research ever proves that the components of the vapor are at all harmful — the fact remains that it is a device meant to deliver nicotine, a highly addictive chemical, into your bloodstream.

Addiction of any form is an unhealthy behavior, and one that could potentially take years to break. It’s a monkey that many people find impossible to get off their back — so why take the risk at all?

Do you feel that e-cigarettes will be the smoker’s choice of the future? Or is it just a passing fad? Share your thoughts or your own experiences with e-cigarettes in the comments section below!

Image Credit: Electronic cigarette Via Shutterstock, Diego Cervo/Shutterstock, librakv/shutterstock

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. carol.kane12
    May 26, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    E-cigarettes are slender, battery-powered devices that vaporize liquid nicotine to imitate conventional smoking. Using an e-cigarette can give a buzz similar to smoking cigarettes — only the buzz comes from vapor, not smoke.

  2. Brad Merrill
    December 2, 2014 at 1:23 am

    I'm just waiting for a movie to come out where the villain vapes.

    On a serious note, my father smoked 3+ packs a day for 30-some years, and quit cold-turkey with an e-cig about five years ago. He hasn't had one since. He's saved a ton of money and added years onto his life, I'm sure.

  3. Up in Smoke
    September 21, 2014 at 2:45 am

    Lol, I want an e-joint and an e-hookah pipe. :-D

  4. Bakhram
    September 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    In Canada or at least in Alberta, the Government has banned e-cigarette smoking in public places and said that it now views e-cigarette as a typical cigarette.
    I think it could be because people were getting stupidly bold about smoking e-cigarettes in meeting rooms, offices and other public places.
    Personally, I don't care - I smoke a pipe. The more I read about e-cigarettes, the more they sound like a miniature hookah :-)

  5. Rebecca P
    September 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    I'm not sure about everyone else, but it helped me kick my 15 year habit. Also, my dad's nearly 50 year habit, my boyfriend's 15 year habit, and a few friends multiple year habits. If you are determined, and try to scale down on the nicotine content of the juice, you can quit. I'm current'y on 0% nicotine. I may take a few puffs a day. And I'm pretty sure its just comforting for me to have it with me. I never crave it anymore. Matter of fact, I left it home today, and I'm pretty sure I may not think about it much at all. Bottom line is that it works. I'm living proof.

  6. Gary N
    September 8, 2014 at 12:03 am

    There are not two(2) sides of this debate.

    There are three(3) sides; the current e-cigarette companies, those against against any form of nicotine, regardless of the science and the current large corporate cigarette companies which wish to hamper current e-cigarette companies with the same requirements of big tobacco.

  7. Michael Gorman
    September 7, 2014 at 1:27 am

    I see Dragonmouth is one of those 'Cherry picker' debaters - he just selects portions of an argument to rebut that suits his 'I am right' bigotry. Yes the anti-smoking campaign has been going for a long time-but it has taken a different turn over the past 5 years, it is quite obvious that the herd has taken on the programming and everyone hates smokers . Your tiresome emphasis on the smell offending your poor sensibility is of course another red herring - your bad breath is no doubt equally offensive to others-the smell of car and diesel vehicle fumes is far more revolting than Tobacco. The simple point remains, electronic cigarettes are excellent devices, and enjoyable to use - the hysterical response from anti smokers is unwarranted.

    • Unknown
      September 7, 2014 at 4:54 am

      well said, the only thing is i don't believe it is 'i am right' bigotry as it is more of a 'I win' bigotry, for i am not sure he cares if he is right or not.

    • dragonmouth
      September 7, 2014 at 2:46 pm

      @Michael Gorman:
      "I see Dragonmouth is one of those ‘Cherry picker’ debaters – he just selects portions of an argument to rebut that suits his ‘I am right’ bigotry.
      Show me where I am wrong. Refute my arguments with facts, not innuendo.

      Obviously you are a smoker who feels put upon by non-smokers. Just as smokers insist on their right to enjoy tobacco, weed, hash, vape or whatever they want to inhale be respected so do non-smokers insist on their right not to have to breathe whatever smokers exhale. You want to smoke, You are perfectly free to do so in your house where you are the only one affected (we hope). Society's rights do trump individual rights in cases where individual's actions are harmful to society. Smoking in public places is harmful to the non-smoking members of society.

      Bringing up the car and diesel fume smells and my B.O. is a red herring on your part. You don't know whether I and other non-smokers are not out to ban the use of hydro-carbon fuels and other sources of air pollution.

  8. Unknown
    September 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    Ryan D,

    1st thank you for both reading and understanding what I getting across..

    the issue is a large one.
    allow me to retort.
    "I think that not allowing smoking them in public places is a safe approach, because there are still trace amounts of nicotine,"
    -i ask what makes it safe, from what i have read I would have to lip lock someone with 300 exhales before they would have trace amounts of nicotine in there system,,and as i stated before,,who ever say nicotine was bad,,It has been used for many positive mental benefits and has been said to be as additive and caffeine. i see no Starbucks protest.

    "and people who don’t want nicotine in their bodies should not be forced to breath it in just because someone nearby is addicted to it."
    -i agree the will of one should not be forced on another, but is a ban the only option. i think not. And for sure not a Fed ban.

    "They should not tax these products like they do tobacco products, but for the sake of public health, they should definitely be kept away from any place where non-smokers or children will be breathing the air. We’re still talking about nicotine here, however “safe” the vapor itself is."
    -for the sake of public health is a dangerous thought in it ways of who decides what is dangerous to the public,,should each person make that choice for themselves by way of being educated

    finally, if a town/state passed laws on this I would disagree and respect it, for not all towns/states would, for this is the will of we the people and people are diverse, and what passes one place would not pass another,
    and i could seek to move to place where the laws are more in line with mine in the pursue of happiness.

    but what we have here is the Fed telling the whole US what is good for we the people, this is unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional.

    this is the bigger issues.
    until we remedy this issues, we are only debating at what is the best way for Feds to beat slaves.

  9. Kathy
    September 6, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    I've just read your other comment, Ryan D, and can only agree with you about propaganda, and it's not just about e-cigarettes. Many people do blindly believe in everything that the media tells them. In the UK, the BBC has become very biased on almost every subject that matters and now I take everything I read and hear with a massive dose of salt! I just wish more people would take the time to do a bit of research instead of believing everything they hear - I think the world would be a healthier happier place!

    • dragonmouth
      September 7, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      "now I take everything I read and hear with a massive dose of salt!"
      Massive doses of salt can dangerously raise your blood pressure and ruin your kidneys. :-) :-) :-)

  10. Kathy
    September 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Ryan, thanks for your comments. I don't think I would feel so aggrieved by all the angst against smokers, or vapers, if the same venom was directed at drinkers, people who overeat, and drug-users. They are far more of a drain on resources yet contribute little to the cost.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:55 pm

      That's a very good point!!

      If unhealthy food was taxed at the rate of tobacco products, it would make it more expensive then healthy food -- leading to a healthier society in general. Yet, that isn't the case - and you're right, I suspect over-eating is a bigger drain on the health care system than smokers are (because there are just so many more of them).

    • dragonmouth
      September 7, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      "I suspect over-eating is a bigger drain on the health care system than smokers are"
      Probably true. However, over-eating is a victimless crime. If I gorge myself with food in you presence, my eating habits may be disgusting to you but you will not suffer any lingering health effects even after many repeat exposures. If, OTOH, I blow cigar/cigarette smoke in your face, you will partake of all the crap contained in the smoke with me. Repeated exposure CAN make you physically sick.

  11. Donna
    September 6, 2014 at 5:44 am

    I am less than impressed by e-cigarettes after catching a a few breaths of the vapour from someone using one near me in a room. My chest went tight and I coughed and felt as though I couldn't breathe. The vapour also smelled unpleasant to me. I don't know the brand sorry!

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      Other people in the thread have said the same. You must all have extremely strong olfactory senses, because when I tested one out, I could barely smell anything even inches from the vapor. I suppose if I stick my head in a recently expelled cloud of the stuff..... but in the same room? No way...

  12. Dee S
    September 6, 2014 at 3:35 am

    On the issue of banning vaping in public places: I agree that vaping should have the same rules as smoking.

    • unknown
      September 6, 2014 at 4:05 am

      OK Dee,
      Let me ask you why.
      why should Vaping be banded in public..
      why should smoking be banded in public.

      Is just an anoice to you, so let take the freedums of others,
      or do feel it is harming you in someway...
      if so where did you find this Info, did tv tell you.
      or did you look at the stuides yourself.

      can you not just move,,most smoker would glady go to an area to kind to your irritation.

      why do you agree., and what do you do in public that should be out law.

      for once you get all the smokes and vapors out,,you wont be allow there eirther, after all,, nature needs to be protected from you.

      see how this works,,it starts as a "for your safety" kinda thing.. ends with us all being baned

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm

      I think that not allowing smoking them in public places is a safe approach, because there are still trace amounts of nicotine, and people who don't want nicotine in their bodies should not be forced to breath it in just because someone nearby is addicted to it.

      They should not tax these products like they do tobacco products, but for the sake of public health, they should definitely be kept away from any place where non-smokers or children will be breathing the air. We're still talking about nicotine here, however "safe" the vapor itself is.

    • Dee S
      September 6, 2014 at 10:27 pm

      I agree with Ryan and would like to add this:

      Smoking is a choice. Whether we are addicted or not, it was our choice to start smoking in the first place. Granted when I started I was young and didn't realize the dangers, but I it was still a choice . The health risks involved not only effect us, but extend to anyone who is around us, thus taking their choice away! Should they be made to leave a public place because I have chosen to endanger myself with harmful chemicals? Yes, it goes beyond a choice for me now that I'm addicted, but do you see what I mean? Because I choose to smoke, I should have the right to harm anyone around me or make them leave a place they have a right to be in too?

      Would you put your child, mother, father, sister, brother etc... in a car with someone speeding, or who is drunk driving? Would you and your people swim in a lake filled with toxic waste? Would you breath tainted air filled with harmful chemicals???

      Do you see where I'm going with this?

      We have laws to protect the public. Drunk driving, speeding, carbon laws, toxic waste laws etc etc etc....

      Everyone has a voice.....everyone has a choice.....everyone has the right.....where would we be without it??

  13. unknown
    September 6, 2014 at 3:31 am

    1st i wish I wrote/spelled better, but I hope you can follow.
    The issue is bigger, i read the comments and most are on whats the best way to resrict the freedoms of others.
    The FDA like all gov,,want money/controll via laws/tax.
    nicotine has been used to help many yet we overlook this cause TV says it bad, and you get cancer,,,but they say the Waters good with all the toxics in it and eat the GMO's and don't forget you shot.

    While the FDA will tell you what is safe with vaping, they will let roiting meat into the US. spay it with a virus, pump with carbonmonoide so it looks freash and you eat.

    you have been brainwash if you think they care for you.

    Health poeple are not profitable,,Nixon tapes will tell ya.

    what ever power you give them,,there coming for you next.
    and make sure you disagree in your free speach zone.

    i don't know why I even wrote this,,If they dont remove it,,your'll
    never look it up for yourself.

    most are hope less,,so bring on the mindless, mert-less, slander

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:46 pm

      I'm glad you wrote it - well said! I think people really need to learn to think critically and ignore what the mass media tells them. Examining the facts to make your own decision is the path to making informed, educated decisions based on truth, not on propaganda. Thanks so much for your comment.

  14. Dee S
    September 6, 2014 at 3:22 am

    I have been smoke free for 3 months now after smoking for 38 years! I am now happily a confirmed Vaper. I have tried every smoking cessation tool out there. I have used the gum, the patch, the pill. I have had acupuncture, been hypnotized and even gone to Revene. Yes I said Revene and lets not forget going cold cure me of my smoking habit but failed every single time.

    I asked my family doctor and my surgeon about it and they gave my Vape a thumbs up! My family is ecstatic as are my friends. I feel amazing and only have mild cravings here and there. My nicotine level is 8 mg. This of course is extremely helpful, but it's the vaping sensation that's gotten me to this point as it really does feel like you are smoking a real cigarette without the smell and the awful taste.

    As for all of the lobbyists and the tobacco industry fighting over this, here's my take on it:

    The future risks of vaping far out-weigh the risks of smoking. The benefits of vaping are that I have quit this nasty habit of 38 years, I am not taking in all of the chemicals that I would with smoking and I can gradually reduce the amount of nicotine and then eventually quit vaping too!

    For smokers this is a revelation! I am truly grateful that I tried vaping and that it's working and I know that I will never go back to smoking, for real this time :)

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm

      Dee - that's fantastic news! Are you planning to eventually try easing down in the nicotine content until you're smoking the zero nicotine models? I wonder if that works on a psychological level...

    • Dee S
      September 6, 2014 at 9:59 pm

      Yes Ryan, that's exactly what I plan to do. I believe that my addiction to smoking is both to the nicotine and the habit/feel in the motion and the sensation felt while inhaling the smoke. I don't think people realize that it's not only an addiction to nicotine, but the habit and comfort in the act of smoking; hence psychological.

      For many years, I have not enjoyed the taste of smoking or the smell of stale smoke, but alas my addiction kept me doing something I hated. I first tried the ecigs you can buy for $10 at the gas station but was disappointed with them as they did nothing for me.

      I started researching the the actual e-cigs that contain nicotine and dove in. I was amazed when I tried my first puff. The sensation of inhaling, of the vapor hitting the back of my throat, actually felt like a real cigarette.

      Personally, I chose to opt not to use the tobacco tasting ejuice as I feel that sort of defeated the purpose of trying to quit smoking. And knowing this addiction is psychological, I wanted to take steps in removing the "smoking" habit, so this seemed appropriate.

      But in my heart of hearts, I know this time I will be successful as I need my vape less and less each week. Don't get me wrong, I still feel panic if my battery dies and I haven't another one charged, but baby steps, right? Next, I will eventually start decreasing the amount of nicotine. I may not need to reduce to 0 mg nicotine and wean myself or I may need to. I will cross that bridge when I get there. But, I will also let go of the vaping habit eventually. Can I just say "YAY"

      On the political issues, it's unfortunate that there is obviously a very successful option for people to quit smoking successfully with relatively fewer toxins/side effects, and yet high taxes are being discussed.

      It's unfortunate, as I feel we should celebrate the fact that so many people who CHOOSE to quit an incredibly invasive habit, who have failed time and again with other methods (and this is incredibly hard to admit to self, plus friends/families/colleagues that you've once again failed) (talk about psychological levels) , are finally able to kick the habit/addiction with vaping and yet are being made to feel dirty about it and insecure about the costs going outrageously out of control.

      For the unsupported Nay Sayers: Cut us some slack here. We are finally achieving something that we were never able to achieve...this is huge. Might I remind, my doctors have given two "thumbs up"!

      Ok, rant over Ryan lol thanks for the opportunity to be able to voice my opinions :)

  15. Robert J
    September 6, 2014 at 2:55 am

    Replace the nicotine juice with hash oil and enjoy.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:42 pm

      Why don't they sell that???? Or do they... Probably have to get it a state where the stuff is legal....

    • me
      September 7, 2014 at 2:10 am

      They absolutely do sell that in Washington state... It took us a little longer than CO to get going, but its full speed ahead now. I can't speak from experience in CO, but I'm sure they've got THC vape liquid too... I just wouldn't use it for smoking cessation... too much of a burn-out factor.

  16. Michael Gorman
    September 6, 2014 at 2:05 am

    There is an insidious element in all of this 'anti-smoking' program that has swept the western world over the past 5 years or so - aside from the obvious health issues - and this is the steady mind control project that has turned the thinking of ordinary people to that of hatred of smokers. It has been common knowledge that smoking id 'bad for you' for a long time, but the free choice of individual adults was always taken for granted - now of course if you smoke you are reviled, ostracized and pointed out as a heretic. The issue of free will and choice has been subverted. The same is being done with electronic cigarettes, because it 'looks like smoking' vaping is viewed with great suspicion , because it deflects the programming of 'hating smokers', it looks too much like Tobacco smoking even though it is less toxic than drinking fluoridated water - this 'unknown' element is being seized on and is a red herring - I have used Ecigs for 5 years and can attest to their efficacy in ceasing Tobacco smoking. ECigs are life savers, and are enjoyable to use-get over it.

    • dragonmouth
      September 6, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      "this ‘anti-smoking’ program that has swept the western world over the past 5 years or so"
      Anti-smoking campaign has been going on for 30-40 years. Look up C. Everett Koop.

      "aside from the obvious health issues"
      Very hard to get around them, isn't it?

      "the steady mind control project that has turned the thinking of ordinary people to that of hatred of smokers."
      So, according to you, the nasty smell on my clothes and my furniture, the yellow deposits on all surfaces of a smokers house and car, the brown gunk inside a smoker's computer are all a result of brain-washing campaign to create a hatred of smokers?

      Some years ago there were anti-smoking ads that said "Kissing a smoker is like licking an ash tray." Since I was a smoker at the time, I dismissed the ads as hyperbole. Then I went out with a girl who was a heavy smoker. Well, kissing her WAS like licking an ash tray. It was so bad that it made me quit.

      "The issue of free will and choice has been subverted."
      Free will and choice goes both ways. Your right to smoke ends at the tip of my nose. Why do I have to accede to YOUR right to smoke when you won't allow me MY right not to have to breathe in your smoke.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:38 pm

      "There is an insidious element in all of this ‘anti-smoking’ program that has swept the western world over the past 5 years or so" -- Well said Michael. The behavior toward e-cigs from anti-smoking advocates is revealing this now. It's very disturbing to see.

    • Ronald S
      September 7, 2014 at 1:06 am

      So far, dragonmouth has the absolute best response. Only an imbecile, a complete and utter fool, would disagree.

    • me
      September 7, 2014 at 2:35 am

      I get it. You feel as though you shouldn't be exposed to any possible toxic inhalant that you didn't choose to expose yourself to. Well, I don't drive, by choice. When a deisel engine belches a cloud of toxic sludge out of it's tail-pipe into my face, I often either retch right then or continue to be nauseus for the next 15-45 minutes... I suck the carcinogens the majority exude because that's the lifestyle they chose. Everyone (except possibly those that live out in the backwoods) is bombarded by toxicity they didn't choose to expose themselves to even within their own homes...

      Have you ever seen the amount of toxins and pharmaceuticals are in average American municipal drinking water?

      In this particular instance, with ecigs, I see and read that these devices are, more often than not, being used by chronic smokers that have tried everything else already to quit.

      Something that people who haven't ever had an addiction have trouble understanding that there are activities that go along with the actual digestion of whatever substance gets them off that become ritual. The infused, controlled breath is part of the smoking experience... the light glowing with every breath...
      These are things other nicotine replacement methods couldn't acchieve.

      Also, as far as the public spaces thing is concerned, I wouldn't be upset with a ban in places where people under the age of 18 are allowed to congregate...

      In all honesty though, if you can give somebody who wants to quit smoking any extra incentive to do so, it's better for everyone but tobacco companies, pharmaceutical treatments for COPD and the like, and tax collectors. If it means tolerating vaping in bars and clubs, is really that big a deal?

  17. Karen H
    September 6, 2014 at 1:32 am

    I have been vaping for over 3 years. I use 6mg nicotine liquid. You are able to buy any flavor in any mix of nicotine strength and any mix of VG and/or PG. They are what made it possible for me to quit cigarettes. The so called experts you see on TV about e-cigs are laughable. I spend $25 a month on my ecigs vs $150+ when I smoked.
    They can ban them in public places, that's fine. Other than that, leave them and us alone! The only reason for the gov't to get more involved is to get tax money. I worry the gov't will make vaping so expensive that it won't be affordable.

  18. Mary Withrow
    September 6, 2014 at 12:49 am

    I have read that most are causing headaches and other possible side effects in studies but thats just it, the evidence is not there yet. I am waiting to see those commercials for "dial a lawyer" if you used this product, lol. However you can not smoke them in many places already, which I thought was the purpose. I have tried them and they are not bad, some better than others and even seen the hemp which is sold on Amazon, lol The others that extracts from weed, lol- It's chancey either way. The goverment never keeps out of something that they can TAX

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      I believe the headaches side effect (experienced it myself actually), but it's the same headache I get if smoking a regular cigarette... I think it's more of a side-effect of nicotine than of vaping?

  19. dickhead
    September 6, 2014 at 12:19 am

    i was smoking my e-cig when a group of real cigs joined me. they befriended me. and, they said i was a faker. i joined them. ditched my e-cigs along the way :)

  20. Ronald S
    September 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    I'm still wondering why there even has to be a future for this garbage. Why not just, oh Idk, get rid of it all?

    • Gerry B
      September 5, 2014 at 11:29 pm

      That's what I like, someone who want to ban it all, no cigarettes they are unhealthy and kill people, e-cigs well the jury is still out on that issue but ban them anyway, but lets keep going, people get killed using cars so lets ban them, caffeine is unhealthy so ban coffee and tea and some soft drinks, alcohol is dangerous so lets go back to prohibition.
      I thought the US was one of those countries where freedom of choice was an enshrined right, but no, everyone seems to want to either legislate to account for their belief or tax anything that may hurt someone so that it's too expensive.
      I was a smoker for 45 years, tried everything to quit, e-cigs started in Feb this year and haven't bought a pack since.

    • Ronald S
      September 6, 2014 at 2:16 am

      So, what you're saying is... you can't reply to someone's comment on the internet without sounding like an arrogant, asinine jackass. Duly noted. On the flip-side, thanks for being the poster boy for why we actually need some restriction and regulation, particularly regulation on stupidity level and the restriction of what all things stupid people can use to intermingle with the rest of society. I'd be glad, because then you'd most certainly at least not have access to the internet. That alone is praise-worthy in my book.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:35 pm

      Yeah - but Ronald, he actually had some good points. Do you have any counter-points?

    • Ronald S
      September 7, 2014 at 1:03 am

      No he didn't, his only point was to blabber off a bunch of ridiculousness, attempting to make my comment seem ridiculous by doing so. None of the stuff he mentioned is even remotely close to a good point, not to anyone with any bit of intellect and/or common sense.

      "but lets keep going, people get killed using cars so lets ban them, caffeine is unhealthy so ban coffee and tea and some soft drinks, alcohol is dangerous so lets go back to prohibition."

      Cars are controlled by human beings. What we really need is to have better regulations on the drivers and the quality of manufacture for the vehicles. Caffeine is only unhealthy in very large doses, but sugar on the other hand (which he didn't mention) is far, far worse on the body. Get rid of sugars, HFCS, etc. Tea isn't even remotely close to being unhealthy, neither is coffee. Alcohol is only dangerous in abundance. More regulation on the manufacture, distribution and availability for consumption would fix this. Factually speaking, the only reason we ever came out of prohibition was because the federal govt. was losing money in large quantities because they could no longer regulate and tax the crap out of the alcohol. Added to that was that it caused people to become ill when consuming it in large amounts, which drove up medical costs, and big pharma got more money as a result. So the feds wanted in on that, and now we're in the boat we are presently with the endless sickness-for-profit cycle of the US Federal Govt., the FDA (includes all of the biotech companies, since the FDA board leaders were all big wigs of those companies & still profit from them), Big Pharma and we US citizens.

      The USA has many supposed freedoms, but I never once saw anywhere that it stated "Right to be stupid" as one of them. Use your brains for once, it might actually help.

    • mike a
      September 8, 2014 at 2:43 pm

      Ronald your first comment here was unlike someone who has not done their research. No wonder Gerry went off on you. But reading your earlier and later comments, I know you can do much better. Lets keep it like that, I do rather enjoy the other side of the coin (hearing all sides). So I was just wondering, can you relate? I mean have you smoked?

  21. me
    September 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Oh, and one more thing, the exorbitant additional taxation of tobacco products should NOT be allowed to be passed on to e-cigarette products - people who are trying to better their health and the health of those around them should not be penalized for doing so.

    • dragonmouth
      September 6, 2014 at 2:37 pm

      A similar argument can be made for health(y) foods. Why are they so much more expensive than mass produced food?

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      I've always wondered about that dragonmouth???

    • Robert
      September 9, 2014 at 2:55 am

      It's because mass produced food, like mass produced anything, has economies of scale.

  22. me
    September 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    I understand that people who hate cigarettes would be trepidacious about vaping, and that they have every right to demand it not happen on their own property. I do, however think that they should get over smokers vaping instead of smoking, regardless of where it happens in public. Those people vaping are people who aren't right outside the door smoking, creating a cloud that you will HAVE to pass through, in addition to the fact that they, like me, are likely using these devices to quit entirely, so over time, there will be less in general.

    I have also found that there are 100% vegetable glycerine carrier e-fluids that are less dangerous and more enjoyable to use than those with propylene glycol. I used to smoke 3 packs of Camel Wides a day 6 months ago, and now I'm down to 3ml's of fluid per day at half the potentcy of a normal cigarette, (1ml @18mgs = 1 cigarette,) so I'm at the nicotine level of 1.5 cigs a day.

    These devices will certainly save MY life.

    I do take issue with the candy-like flavorings that might entice children, and I certainly would agree with restrictions around marketing and even a 21 year old age restriction instead of 18.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm

      Would you mind sharing the brand that uses vegetable glycerine? I've never heard of that! What much safer/better alternative.

    • me
      September 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm

      The one I get is from a kiosk at a local shopping mall just outside of Portland, OR. The label is generic, showing only the flavor and miligram count. I can ask the next time I get some more and post it then, even though at that point people won't likely be finding this article. The best advice I can give for now is to search for "VG eliquids" in your prefered search engine.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 9:29 pm

      That would be great - thank you. I'll definitely look back when/if you post!

    • Ronald S
      September 7, 2014 at 1:13 am

      It's not just in regards to peoples' homes, I've seen many a time already where vapers try to bully stores and restaurants into letting them "vape" while indoors, because it supposedly isn't the same as "smoking" and therefore doesn't violate their no-smoking policies.

      It's created a whole new group of jackasses, or rather has given many already-existent jackasses a new way to be so. Not all vapers are like that, but there are quite a lot of them, from what I've witnessed. There's absolutely NO good reason that vaping shouldn't be regulated exactly the same as smoking, none.

  23. John Williams
    September 5, 2014 at 5:35 pm

    What is it with governments wanting to ban things and trying to keep everyone alive until they're 99. We should encourage people who take risks with their health and lives, overpopulation and unwanted immigration need all the help they can get.
    The West polices the world trying to spread "freedom" and "democracy" while fighting off religeous fundamentalist fanatics who are trying to ram their beliefs down everyone's throat. So its OK to fight people who ban booze and music and girl's education, but you'll notice all the beardy kalashnikov carriers are all smoking to a man.

    Why do we tolerate being told not to use stuff that is "bad" for us? Why can't people have the freedom to smoke, drink and gamble their way to an early grave if they want to?

    The greatest irritation of smoking was the smell and second hand smoke. Once again, science and technology have solved a problem, only for the health and safety industry to justify their own existance by pouncing on the solution!

    Once the smell and smoke are largely gone - it's really no longer your problem. If the vapourist chooses a lifetime of nicotine addiction, let him get on with it ....

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      John - I'm one of the biggest proponents of freedom that you'll find anywhere. However, there is one flaw in your argument. People who "smoke, drink and gamble" their way to an early grave unfortunately place an overwhelming cost on the general public in the form of health care costs during the process of them slowly dying from all of the medical maladies created by their life-long poor behavior choices.

      I'm not supporting banning anything - but I am supporting giving people an education using actual truth and facts about the health risks associated with tobacco products vs vapor products, and THEN let people decide for themselves. Guiding people to eventually make better health choices is at least the way toward eventually getting them off nicotine completely. It's like dragonmouth said up above - behavior modification has far fewer negative consequences than an outright ban on things.

    • Ronald S
      September 7, 2014 at 1:15 am

      "People who “smoke, drink and gamble” their way to an early grave unfortunately place an overwhelming cost on the general public in the form of health care costs during the process of them slowly dying from all of the medical maladies created by their life-long poor behavior choices."

      No, they do not, not even close. I'd honestly like to know exactly what this fallacy is based on. I know it's a baseless claim, but am interested to see what information this was supposedly based on, I'm curious.

  24. Kathy
    September 5, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    In the UK, the biggest fear of Government is that they are losing a fortune in taxes. Cigarettes and tobacco are subject to taxes that increase the cost by around 80%. The high duty was apparently to discourage people from smoking, now that smokers have become second-class citizens. If the powers that be really want people to stop smoking, they would ban cigarettes and tobacco completely. They don't want people to stop smoking because they need the tax revenue. Now that people have found a cheaper healthier alternative, one that is not currently taxed, Governments and anti-smokers, along with the big boys who make the useless gums and patches, are panicking.

    • dragonmouth
      September 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm

      "If the powers that be really want people to stop smoking, they would ban cigarettes and tobacco completely."
      While government is very happy with the taxes that it collects on aall sin products (tobacco, alcohol, etc) those taxes are really meant to disuade the users. The Prohibition in the United States proved that making a popular product illegal does not work and has many unintended nasty consequences. Behavior modification is has less unforseen unpleasant consequences.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      I agree Kathy - I think the biggest fear for most regulators right now is that people *actually* stop smoking cigarettes. There's now an entire litany of things funded by the income stream generated by people addicted to smoking tobacco products. Take away that income stream and those pet projects will no longer be funded.

  25. Sandy Bruce
    September 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    I am glad to see you write this article and pass along truthful information about E-cigs. I have been using them on and off since they came to the US. I told a buddy of mine about them back then. He is now one of the largest distributors is the state. He introduced me to some of the newest models and they are miles better then before.
    I have now used the ecig to stop smoking all together. My wife and I are going on 6 months without smoking. We use very low or no nicotine and none that taste like real tobacco e-cig products as well. We really only continue the use because we like the taste of some of the fruity and complex flavors.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:26 pm

      Wow, good for you Sandy. That's excellent - glad to hear they helped you completely kick the old cancer-causing habit!

  26. Xoandre M
    September 5, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    First: I am allergic to nicotine and tobacco.
    Second: I am biased and truly hate when someone near me lights up or when I unexpectedly encounter a cloud of smoke ash floating in the air.

    Third: I have visited people who VAPE, and there is an odd odor in the air when they exhale - it leaves a slimy residue in your mouth when you are breathing within 10 feet of the person vaping. I also got sick shortly after being near those people, so i am uncertain if it is the vape second-hand chemicals in the air or something else that caused me to get sick.

    Fourth: While Vaping is supposedly "better" than smoking, I still do not want to be exposed to anything that I am allergic to - no matter how microscopic the nicotine levels.

    Conclusion: Vaping should be regulated the same way as cigarettes.

    In Illinois, the rules are simple: No smoking inside public buildings. No smoking in entryways. No smoking within 15 feet of entryways to buildings. No smoking within 100 yards of federal buildings or hospitals. No smoking within 500 feet of schools.

    These rules should apply to vaping as well, to protect from UNCERTAIN chemicals that there has not been enough research on yet to determine if it is safer or not for people to inhale second-hand vape.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm

      As much as I support e-cigs to replace all cancer-causing cigarettes, I have to agree with you that they should be regulated EQUALLY as cigarettes are - simply because nicotine itself is highly addictive and dangerous for young children's developing brains and bodies. These need to be kept out of the hands of children -- and they pretty much are as far as I can see, they're locked in the same case as cigarettes at the store. I'm not sure I agree that they should be taxed at the same level as real cigarettes though, that seems counter-intuitive.

    • Ronald S
      September 7, 2014 at 1:22 am

      Funny how I was just thinking about the very issue of allergies. Sadly, more-likely-than-not, vapers who are former smokers will give you the same bullcrap about how they have the right to smoke/vape, and your right to breathe clean air doesn't trump it, despite the very fact that it does.

      Dbags are dbags, whether smokers, vapers, or neither of the 2, but when you get a dbag smoker who's now a dbag vaper, the dbag part is still there regardless.

    • Xoandre M
      September 7, 2014 at 6:24 am

      Legally, no one has any "Right to smoke" as no such right is provided for in any federal law. State and county laws may vary, but overall, there are no laws providing that any person has the fundamental right to consume a product that may cause harm to another human being in the mere act of consuming said product.

      People confuse the phrase "Right to vape" with "Choice to vape" (same a s"Right to smoke" with "Choice to smoke").

      There is no legal "Right" under any law.

      There is a "choice" to vape or smoke. The keyword is CHOICE - you have the choice, but you also have the choice to drink and drive, the choice to use birth control or risk infection or pregnancy, the choice to buy fast food or cook at home, the choice to go to work or call in sick and lose the money you would have earned that day, etc. These are choices. They are not "RIGHTS" - Rights are protections declared by law or legal document.

  27. Actingman
    September 5, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    I'll just chime in with one personal anecdote: I picked up a friend at the airport who uses the eCigs. This was at night, and on the highway, I could not see him in the passenger seat. Driving back I suddenly wondered why I was smelling wet newspapers. He was using his eCig. He was very surprised. He was convinced they did not give off an odor. He used them in the house during his short stay. I could smell it in my couch pillows for at least a week after he left.

    "Absolutely zero scent in the air during or after smoking"

    Not true.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm

      Well - here's another personal anecdote: I tested an e-cig as part of writing this article. I couldn't smell a thing, unless your nose is directly in the cloud of vapor, in which case I suppose it might smell, like one person in this thread described, like "wet newspaper". Nothing at all even close to the nasty, disgusting stench of real cigarettes.

    • mike a
      September 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm

      Also you never mentioned whether the e-cig was flavored. maybe you are smelling an afterthought of that. I am not saying you are wrong, just that you must consider all the factors.

  28. iMacMike
    September 5, 2014 at 1:28 am

    1 to 1.5 pack a day smoker for 25 years and I switched to e-cigs 14 months ago and have been tobacco free since. My nagging cough stopped within a month, food tastes better, and I don't have to go outside to vape. My SO has allergies and asthma so she is very sensitive to smoke, but my vapor doesn't bother her at all. Làstly, I was spending over $200 a month on smokes. E-juice and replaceable wicks only run $45 a month... I know people that spend that in a week at Starbucks.

    • Jason B
      September 5, 2014 at 6:16 am

      You have had the exact experience I have had!

      I absolutely love the eCigg for all of the reasons you listed. It was an amazing invention that went wide spread so that smokers could find a less damaging habit to replace smoking tobacco.

      And now it looks like they are going to take that away as well.

    • dragonmouth
      September 5, 2014 at 1:39 pm

      @iMacMike & Jason B:
      Are you guys ever going to quit? Or since most of the negative aspects of smoking have been removed, do you plan to continue smoking eCigs?

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:20 pm

      That's great Mike. Have you considered attempting to reduce to lower nicotine versions of the e-cig eventually? I've heard of people (actually, people in this very thread), eventually smoking ZERO nicotine e-cigs! Just goes to show how much of the behavior is psychological.

  29. dragonmouth
    September 4, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    "the fact remains that e-cigarettes could potentially save many thousands of lives over the next few decades."
    The fact remains that QUITTING would save way more lives over the next few decades.

    Full disclosure: I used to have a pack-a-day habit. Have been clean for 30 years.

    • Ryan D
      September 4, 2014 at 11:51 pm

      Wow - nice job quitting man. I smoked in college for a few months. Quit cold turkey and didn't find it very difficult....the taste and smell was just disgusting, despite the pleasure of nicotine.

      With that said, not everyone can quit as easily. So -- in a utopian world where everyone would be able to just quit - of course thousands of lives would be saved. That's kind of like saying if everyone ate well and exercised it would save thousands of lives. Well...yeah.

      These devices may be a way for people who would normally have NEVER quit, with one more option to finally work this addiction out of their lives for good. I read a friend post on Facebook that using these, for the first time in his life he was able to run without wheezing and without his chest hurting. That, my friends, is a pretty good start.

    • dragonmouth
      September 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm

      ALL smokers eventually quit, either because they give up tobacco or because they die.

      If eCigs are used to wean oneself off cigarettes, I'm all for them. But if they are being used as a "safe" replacement for regular cigarettes, that's replacing one addiction with another and eCigs should be banned or at least considered a medical device and controlled by the FDA. Whether through tobacco cigarettes or eCigs, an addictive drug (nicotine) is till being introduced into a human body.

    • Hollywood
      September 5, 2014 at 5:51 pm

      Everybody dies. Introduce me to people you know who are still alive from the 1700's. No? Then that statement means nothing.

      The vape solution that my wife uses can come in a nicotine content of 0 up to the equivalent of 2 packs a day. So, at 0%, how much of the addictive drug is being introduced to the body? Again, a statement that means nothing.

      As far as the FDA being the "be all, end all" of what's good for you, remember that these are the same folks who found thalidomide to be OK for "morning sickness".

      Really, when you think about it, it's Big Tobacco that stands to lose the most. Buying a vape system and getting off of cigarettes must have them quaking in their boots

      At the end of the day, you are an adult and should be allowed to make your own decisions.

    • MooseWizard
      September 5, 2014 at 8:35 pm

      "...if they are being used as a “safe” replacement for regular cigarettes, that’s replacing one addiction with another and eCigs should be banned or at least considered a medical device and controlled by the FDA. "

      So, let me understand this....the safer alternative should be banned while the deadly option is still available?

      Regarding "replacing one addiction with another," that is not true. The addition is nicotine whether you are smoking or vaping, only the delivery method (and associated risks) change.

      "Whether through tobacco cigarettes or eCigs, an addictive drug (nicotine) is till being introduced into a human body."

      Same with coffee and soda pop--caffeine is an addictive drug. Should we not ban those products as well?

    • dragonmouth
      September 5, 2014 at 9:32 pm

      "The vape solution that my wife uses can come in a nicotine content of 0 up to the equivalent of 2 packs a day"
      Wouldn't you rather she didn't use anything? Your wife may use the 0 setting while others may opt for the two pack a day setting.

      "So, at 0%, how much of the addictive drug is being introduced to the body?"
      Then why use it? Just to have something in your hand or mouth?

      "remember that these are the same folks who found thalidomide to be OK for “morning sickness”."
      They also banned it when it was determined to cause birth defects. Same with other drugs.

      At one time cigarettes were considered theraputic by the medical profession. Are you going to hold that over their collective heads? As new research is done and new facts come out, FDA and the AMA do change their viewpoint.

      "Buying a vape system and getting off of cigarettes must have them quaking in their boots"
      Maybe. They are the ones that manufacture the vape systems. As they lose cigarette sales they will gain vape sales. And based on your and MooseWizard's comments, Big Tobacco will not lose much revenue.

      "At the end of the day, you are an adult and should be allowed to make your own decisions."
      If someone makes self-destructive decisions, they are not an adult. Blaming Big Tobacco for nicotene addiction is disingenuous. They do not have flying hit squads that force people to start and continue smoking. Smokers ought to admit to themselves that they were the ones who stuck the cigarette in their mouth. Is it the fault of brewers and distillers that there are alcoholics? They and Big Tobacco only supply what people want. If there is no demand, the supply will dry up.

    • Ryan D
      September 6, 2014 at 3:18 pm

      Dragonmouth - they may die, but they'll die later. Simple logic really.

  30. Esteban
    September 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    I smoke in an 80+ year old pipe. Fags. Pun intended.

  31. Howard
    September 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    What concerns me is that people who "care" about your safety and health will want to ban/regulate/control these devices the same way they want to control/regulate drugs or guns or alcohol.

    You can either oppose the concept of the state controlling substances or be a cherry picker where you get to select which substances are "bad" and get banned/regulated for "our benefit".

    • Kannon Y
      September 4, 2014 at 8:59 pm

      What blows my mind is the hypocrisy. E-cigarettes, in all studies, are markedly safer than regular cigarettes - which are approved by the FDA. Yet even with the overwhelming preponderance of data showing this distinction, regulators intend on putting every e-cigarette device, peripheral and nicotine liquid through an expensive approval process. The costs will drive all small businesses out of the market, leaving big tobacco owned e-cigs (cigalikes) as the only products on the market.

      Big pharma has a dog in the race. So far, the most successful smoking-cessation products are e-cigs. This puts the technology in direct conflict with nicotine patch, nicotine gum and inhalers. Big pharma produces all three products and has directed a great deal of lobbying toward regulators.

      It looks like cherry-picking at its finest.

    • Ryan D
      September 4, 2014 at 11:44 pm

      It really is cherry-picking. I think it's a status-quo thing. There's smoking and there's not-smoking. There has never been a relatively safe middle-ground, and if this truly is as safe as it appears to be (as safe as nicotine addiction can be, that is), it's a situation that no one on either side of the old debate is prepared to deal with. That's why opinions are all over the map.

    • David P
      September 6, 2014 at 1:17 am

      I have never smoked but my father has been smoking for 49 years. He says he must have tried quitting every couple of years and never made it more than a few days. But 11 months ago he bought an E-cigarette and has not gone back to regular cigarettes. A few weeks ago his cardiologist told him his lungs looked better than they ever have and he says breathing is easier. Another benefit-my dad says he is experiencing flavors and smells he had forgotten about. So I have seen first hand the benefits of switching to E-cigs and I do not understand the hypocrisy of those screaming bloody murder about them.

  32. BathVaper
    September 4, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    For goodness sake, tobacco + fire = smoke; nicotine liquid + heat = vape!
    It's even in the dictionary:

    If governments can keep themselves from interfering too much (against the advice of the public health industry and their friends lobbying for both the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries), vaping could extend the lives of half the smokers expected to die prematurely.