Join 3,415 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Can iDrag be far behind?
July 17, 2008 5:18 PM   Subscribe

It looks like a cigarette. It smokes like a cigarette. But it's actually the e-cigarette, and it might be the future of smoking.

Insert a cartridge containing a mixture of nicotine and propylene glycol. When you inhale, a microprocessor senses the air flow and activates an atomizer, which vaporizes the nicotine mixture. It's tarless, it's smokeless, and it's just so... future-y!

Of course, nicotine isn't exactly health food in and of itself.

You can join the throng, learn more about the technology, and, of course, read the inevitable blog.
posted by showbiz_liz (80 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
If it doesn't annoy people in the street, I'm not interested. That's the only pleasure I get from smoking any more.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:26 PM on July 17, 2008 [10 favorites]


more
posted by nedpwolf at 5:30 PM on July 17, 2008


Meh. I'll wait for cigarette 2.0 to come out to take up smoking. I'm really looking forward to Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man poking my friends on Facebook and the inevitable cigarette/toilet paper mash-up.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:46 PM on July 17, 2008


The cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208)
I'm sure this will be a huge hit. /sarcasm

Pseudo-cigs delivering vaporized glycerine with nicotine have been around for years, maybe decades. The latest failure was the Eclipse cigarette in the US.
posted by mullingitover at 5:47 PM on July 17, 2008


mullingitover - I thought the same thing in re: the cost, but that's slightly under a month of cigarettes if you have a pack-a-day habit in NYC.
posted by griphus at 5:48 PM on July 17, 2008


Would this be an inconspicuous way to consume hash oil?
/asking-for-a-friend
posted by nowonmai at 5:55 PM on July 17, 2008


The latest failure was the Eclipse cigarette in the US

According to your link the Eclipse was something quite different from this.

I like the idea of these things: people get to satisfy their nicotine addiction AND their oral fixation, they do so without inflicting carcinogens on anybody in the same room and without emitting a nauseating odor (well--at least that nauseating odor). Of course it would be better for you to give up nicotine altogether, but then, that's none of my business.

If these things became widely available it would once and for all put a stop to the stupid argument that smoking bans are the product of busybody killjoys who don't really care about public health but just want to force people to "behave." At last we could say "no, please--I truly don't give a stuff about you poisoning yourself; as long as you're not poisoning me and/or filling the room with noisome smoke, you go right ahead!"
posted by yoink at 6:05 PM on July 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


They've tried this several times to no avail. Who knows, maybe this is the magic bullet.

he cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208) apiece


I'm assuming this is a typo, or ain't nobody gonna buy these things.
posted by zardoz at 6:07 PM on July 17, 2008


Hmmph. Same thing as the lower-tech (suck air through a nicotine-soaked sponge in a capsule, basically) Nicorette inhaler smoking cessation thingy that I used to help quit back in 2000. They were more expensive than cigarettes, but not much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:07 PM on July 17, 2008


The cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208) apiece

Pshaw! I can buy a whole pack for that much...
posted by wfrgms at 6:07 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I like the idea of these things: people get to satisfy their nicotine addiction AND their oral fixation, they do so without inflicting carcinogens on anybody in the same room and without emitting a nauseating odor (well--at least that nauseating odor). Of course it would be better for you to give up nicotine altogether, but then, that's none of my business.

That was the big thing for me with the inhalers way back when, especially when out drinking. The whole habitual, take-a-drag, do something with your hands tic was taken care of, and you got some nicotine in the bargain as well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:09 PM on July 17, 2008


dang. i don't care a whip stitch about annoying people in public and being able to smoke in a bar or restaurant. as someone who didn't wait for cigarette 2.0 to come out before taking up smoking, i was hoping this was going to be the miracle easy stop smoking cure. as if.
posted by msconduct at 6:12 PM on July 17, 2008


This is a ridiculous idea.

Everybody knows you can't smoke e.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:16 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


The cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208)
I'm sure this will be a huge hit. /sarcasm


Okay, I'm not a smoker. BUT. While you can buy a whole pack for that much, if this actually lasts longer than multiple packs of cigarettes wouldn't it be cost effective?
posted by miss lynnster at 6:22 PM on July 17, 2008


What yoink said. Would but that I could favorite his/her words thrice.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:23 PM on July 17, 2008


Of course it would be better for you to give up nicotine altogether....

Nonsense. Nicotine is great for you. Improves concentration, increases your capacity to learn, and staves off dementia in the elderly. It's the smoke that kills you.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:31 PM on July 17, 2008


turgid dahlia: "If it doesn't annoy people in the street, I'm not interested. That's the only pleasure I get from smoking any more."

Ditto. Its not for pleasure anymore. This is fucking war.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:33 PM on July 17, 2008 [8 favorites]


I like the idea of these things

spoken like a true non-smoker.
posted by brandz at 6:35 PM on July 17, 2008


I've actually seen one of these in action and its hard to think of a downside. I have a good friend who decided to take the plunge and completely replace his pack-a-day habit with it. He's able to "smoke" anywhere in public now, the long-term cost is less than half that of cigarettes, and he's really happy with how much better his lungs feel.

And unlike other cigarette substitutes in the past, this one actually tastes fairly good (I took a hit or two from it; has a faint sweet flavor) and there's no shortage of nicotine. The thing is a little big and heavy, compared to cigarettes, so from a tactile sense, you feel like you're sucking away at a bic pen. So some further improvements in the size should be made.

They should make a version of the nicotine cartridges which doesn't produce the fake smoke. My friend has had to explain over and over again to people that he isn't really smoking and so the fake smoke just seems like more trouble than it's worth.

I think this will be a huge success.
posted by pandaharma at 6:36 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Er, it looks like this thing is meant to be "smoked" over & over. It's not like you're paying $208 for a cigarette that's gone in 5 minutes.

I guess I'm the only one who thinks these things look hilariously awesome. They look like the cigarettes the Kraftwerk robots would be smoking. I'll probably say "holy shit" out loud the first time I see someone with one of these things in their mouth, and I'll definitely buy that person a drink.

Currently, smokers just look like sad addicts. These things make smokers look like SILLY addicts. Big improvement.
posted by the bricabrac man at 6:39 PM on July 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


Everybody knows you can't smoke e.

Everyone is wrong. I've heard.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:41 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is fucking war.

One where you guys have adopted self-imposed attrition.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:46 PM on July 17, 2008 [5 favorites]


I should qualify the cost breakdown of the device.

My friend acquired his for $80.00 from Crown 7 and the refill cartridges are $10.00 per pack of 5. Each cartridge lasts around 2 days and so the refill pack is almost equivalent to a carton.

He's here with me now and wanted me to say that it was painless switching to the e-cigarette because the company managed to nearly perfectly replicate the sensation of smoking, namely the way the lungs feel with every inhalation. that fullness that smokers would know so well.
posted by pandaharma at 6:48 PM on July 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


Currently, smokers just look like sad addicts.

Wrong. Every single one of us looks like James Dean. For the ladies, smoking makes you look like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction. Remember that, kids.
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:49 PM on July 17, 2008 [13 favorites]


Yeah that'll work as well as Popeye Cigarettes.
posted by autodidact at 6:50 PM on July 17, 2008


I'm going to wait for the plug n play model.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:54 PM on July 17, 2008


If these things became widely available it would once and for all put a stop to the stupid argument that smoking bans are the product of busybody killjoys who don't really care about public health but just want to force people to "behave."

(speaking as a non-smoke: not non-smokerist.) I actually think that there probably are a lot of busybody killjoys out there, which would make this deliciously awkward for them if it caught on. There'd be no excuse to busybody.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:00 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


My friend acquired his for $80.00 from Crown 7 and the refill cartridges are $10.00 per pack of 5. Each cartridge lasts around 2 days and so the refill pack is almost equivalent to a carton.

Hmm, that sounds pretty cost effective. I might get that as soon as I get a paypal account.
posted by puke & cry at 7:12 PM on July 17, 2008


More history.
posted by nanojath at 7:19 PM on July 17, 2008


e-cancer.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:45 PM on July 17, 2008


Finally, a reason to take up smoking!

I knew there must be a solid, sensible, sound, sane and rational reason to smoke, and this just may be it!

And at only $208- I'm hooked already.
posted by mattoxic at 8:02 PM on July 17, 2008


With apologies to Woody Allen: "I used to be a cigarette addict. Now I'm an e-cigarette addict."
posted by subgear at 8:07 PM on July 17, 2008


The #1 reason this product wouldn't catch on is because it prevents smokers from having an excuse to leave work for a few minutes to take a break. I know at least one network admin who took up smoking so that he would have an excuse to leave the room rather than beat the crap out of his boss. Maybe if they could make the smell so pungent you'd have to go outside, but then they'd have to sell little packets of fake butts for smokers to litter on the ground while they are taking a break.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:30 PM on July 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


These must have been making some headway in the domestic Chinese market because they mention on in-flight announcements telling you you can't smoke that they're not allowed either. Anyway, with Zhongnanhai Tens available at a bargain CNY3.8 for 20 if you buy by the carton and widespread acceptance of public smoking, they won't be getting my yuan. I could represent the UK at the Olympic chainsmoking event, but that's another gold I think the hosts have in the bag.
posted by Abiezer at 8:34 PM on July 17, 2008


My friend acquired his for $80.00 from Crown 7 and the refill cartridges are $10.00 per pack of 5. Each cartridge lasts around 2 days and so the refill pack is almost equivalent to a carton.

Yeah - I just made an inquiry as to whether they'll ship to Canada, and whether there's a hefty levy/tax (although they do have a store in Alberta...).

Propylene glycol seems safe enough (it's also in sex lube =); about the only way it'll hurt you is if you drown in it or eat enough of it to raise your serum levels of it to some insane level. I guess one could potentially get ill by chainsmoking a fistful of these things, though.

I wonder if there's a control mechanism to prevent the element from getting hot enough to "crack" any of the ingredients into harmful breakdown products?
posted by porpoise at 8:45 PM on July 17, 2008


Freebase nicotine
posted by hortense at 8:46 PM on July 17, 2008


Did someone just get laid? (electronically that is, you know, like netsex...)
posted by Eekacat at 8:54 PM on July 17, 2008


That 'how stuff works' link is the most retarded health advice ever. "Eating a cigarette could harm a toddler, so nicotine is bad."
posted by Cosmo7 at 8:57 PM on July 17, 2008


I noticed last time I was on a plane (last week, Delta, STL to CVG in case anyone cares), when they went through the usual "no smoking, Feds will get you" lecture, they also specified that you couldn't use smokeless tobacco either.

Now I'm not a personal fan of chewing tobacco — it's pretty downright disgusting, frankly — but so are a lot of other things people do on planes. (I mean, we don't have a nose-picking ban...although perhaps we should.) I'm not really sure where the airlines or the FAA get off banning smokeless products that have no effect on anyone but the user.

I support indoor smoking bans because I really hate being around smoke, but I'd vigorously defend anybody's right to ingest nicotine if it's done in a way that's not harmful to others. However, I think the "busybody killjoys" have already gotten to work.

Look for the first sign to be sneaky phrasing; changing "indoor smoking ban" to "indoor tobacco ban," for instance, or "smoke-free workplace" to "tobacco-free workplace." While it might seem like an innocuous enough change, it's a huge difference in motive: one bans a behavior, the other a substance. If you let that slip through, the obnoxious nannying prats of the world win.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:00 PM on July 17, 2008 [8 favorites]


From my cold dead hands.
posted by brundlefly at 9:09 PM on July 17, 2008


Cold dead lips?
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:16 PM on July 17, 2008


Look for the first sign to be sneaky phrasing; changing "indoor smoking ban" to "indoor tobacco ban," for instance, or "smoke-free workplace" to "tobacco-free workplace."

These signs already exist here in South Carolina, and I believe that all primary and secondary schools in the US are tobacco free zones. (That part I have no issue with.) I'm aware of two municipal parks in the Columbia area with signs declaring them tobacco free. Ironically, though, there are wooded parks in the area that are not under a smoking ban.
posted by crataegus at 9:35 PM on July 17, 2008


There's fake smoke? I can smoke again without the cancer?

Thank you, baby Jesus.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:36 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Everybody knows you can't smoke e.

Sure you can, and the hit is incredible.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:41 PM on July 17, 2008


what did baby jesus have to do with it?
posted by CitizenD at 9:46 PM on July 17, 2008


what did baby jesus have to do with it?

Didn't he die for your cigs or something when he got older?
posted by porpoise at 9:49 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Interesting how it's legal vaporize tobacco but not marijuana. It kind of establishes an equivalence of uses, though. Nicotine has much better lobbyists, apparently.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:51 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


There's fake smoke? I can smoke again without the cancer?

No guarantees mate. At least one study on Snus (swedish style tobacco) indicates an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (2x if I'm reading correctly) with no smoke involved.

Still from a public health (and littering) perspective I'd think smokeless tobacco is a good thing.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:51 PM on July 17, 2008


Well, I don't need it to be health food.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:58 PM on July 17, 2008


Ubu: My friend would beg to differ...
posted by pompomtom at 10:07 PM on July 17, 2008


I'm aware of two municipal parks in the Columbia area with signs declaring them tobacco free.

With good reason.

1) Butts are bad. And most of us smokers aren't so good about tidying up our butts.

2) Tobacco is an excellent insecticide, and most parks are probably wanting to be pretty careful about what does and does not get killed there.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:48 PM on July 17, 2008


dirtynumbangelboy: I think those are all good and valid reasons why the parks are "no smoking," but I'm not sure they justify a ban on tobacco, or the use of non-smoking tobacco products. There's a fairly substantial difference between the two.

"No smoking" or "no spitting" are quite legitimate; "no tobacco use" doesn't seem nearly as defensible as a general policy (except maybe in schools). If it's the behavior that's problematic, regulate the behavior, not the substance. If people can find a way to ingest the substance without being obnoxious, more power to 'em.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:59 PM on July 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Non-spitting non-smoking tobacco products are (relatively) new, and it takes legislation time to catch up.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:05 PM on July 17, 2008


I've been testing one of these - the Supersmoker - and the website is worth checking out for the sheer awesomeness of the promo video. When I first saw it I thought it was a parody :)

Terrible videos aside, it's an interesting device, but I'm not sure whether it's worth getting unless you're using it as a stop-smoking aid - and even then, I'm not sure whether it's going to be effective. If you're getting the nicotine, you're getting the sensation of smoking and you're getting the feel of a cigarette in your hands, what part of the smoking habit are you actually breaking?

The supersmoker's been marketed over here (the UK) as a way to get round the smoking ban, and while they're legally correct - there's no tobacco, so it's perfectly legal to use it indoors - I don't fancy your chances of, say, getting it through airport security or using it in an airport without causing all kinds of trouble. And that's a shame, because long-haul travel is the ideal environment for these things - you're not in a position where you can nip outside. I've lost several Zippo lighters to airport security in the UK even though they're allowed on-board, because the security man either didn't know or didn't care that the rules had been changed (Zippos were banned for a while, then unbanned, and may have been re-banned).

I think the big problem with the e-cigarette, Supersmoker or whatever brand you look at is that they've made a mistake by trying to make it look almost like a real cigarette. At best, if you use one in an indoor space you're going to have countless arguments with people who think you're smoking; at worst, you'll be ejected. E-cigarettes may be legal, but they don't address the "management reserves the right to refuse admission" thing - not least because if other people see you "smoking" and getting away with it, they might light up real cigarettes. Or at least, the proprietor of wherever you are might see it that way. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but everybody I've discussed this with agrees that e-cigarettes are so rare that you'd better expect a lot of confrontations if you use them in public places.

Despite all that, they're very clever. If you're a smoker, they're the closest you can get to a real cig - the taste is like a sweeter Marlboro Light and the cartridges are available in a range of strengths from "not really a smoker" to "I can't believe I'm not already dead" - and if you were to swap your normal smokes for an e-cigarette you'd save a lot of money and massively reduce the crap that goes into your lungs.
posted by Kasino72 at 12:34 AM on July 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Overall these things are great ideas, and it's a shame they didn't catch on decades ago. The utter lack of carbon monoxide, among other really nasty chemicals, is great, and for people who have no intention of quitting this at least minimizes harm.

I found it interesting to learn that nicotine is a natural antipsychotic, which is why schizophrenics tend to self-medicate with them. My pet theory is that all habitual non-social smoking is a form of self-medication for psychotic tendencies.
posted by mullingitover at 1:07 AM on July 18, 2008


If I'm not getting any polonium when I smoke, I just don't really see the point.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:28 AM on July 18, 2008


The cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208)

Available here 2 for 29.84 shipped anywhere. Includes charger and 10 refills.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:55 AM on July 18, 2008


That's $US.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:55 AM on July 18, 2008


Even more than nicotine addiction, a MUCH harder habit to break is the sanctimonious buzz that many people get from dictating the behavior of others. Since it isn't the object itself -- but the chance to proselytize against the behavior -- that is at the heart of this, I strongly suspect that the nanny brigade will stay up late scrambling to find some flimsy pretext to ban these as well. Probably something to do with children ("Oh, kids will think you're smoking.), or whatever. Or maybe like they'll be classed as "drug paraphernalia" and outlawed by most municipalities much like bongs or waterpipes.
posted by RavinDave at 4:04 AM on July 18, 2008


Uh...I just quit smoking 55 days ago (55 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes), thank you, and don't want to tempt fate.
posted by paddbear at 4:14 AM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Nice work paddbear. Keep on!
posted by pompomtom at 4:39 AM on July 18, 2008


The Crown 7 seems ideal for smoking cessation, as they sell four different levels of nicotine: High, Medium, Low, and Zero.

I want the pipe, but it doesn't come in any good flavors.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:23 AM on July 18, 2008


No guarantees mate. At least one study on Snus (swedish style tobacco) indicates an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (2x if I'm reading correctly) with no smoke involved.

Former smoker and current Swedish snus user here (discussed previously).

From what I've read, there does appear to be an elevated risk of pancreatic cancer with snus, about twice the risk of a non-tobacco user IIRC, yet only about half the risk of a smoker.

Yet, we also have to bear in mind the numbers involved. Pancreatic cancer is actually one of the rarer forms of cancer--a smoker in particular is far more likely to die of lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease first. The problem is that pancreatic is one of the most deadly cancers, because the early stages of it mimic so many other diseases. By the time it can be isolated, it is usually too late. So the one-year mortality rate for pancreatic is about 95%.

But statistically speaking, even with an elevated risk of it, you're actually very likely not to develop it.

But on the other hand Pavarotti got it, and Patrick Swayze got it. So there you go..it certainly is a risk.

For myself, I try to balance the one vice I have(tobacco) with as many good things as I can.
posted by spirit72 at 5:55 AM on July 18, 2008


The cigarettes sell for around 1,600 yuan ($208)

That caught my attention right away, but that's the 'device'.
Cartridges on the site sell for $4.99 and are supposedly equivalent to 2 packs.

Around here cigarettes are selling for $5/pack, so if you smoked a pack a day, this thing would pay for itself in 3 months.
posted by MtDewd at 6:51 AM on July 18, 2008


Plus, I could get my Propylene Glycol habit back.
Been missing it since they took it out of Mountain Dew some years ago.
posted by MtDewd at 7:06 AM on July 18, 2008


iDrag is already here! Witness for yourselves the USB eCig.
Just plug with your computer with the USB, it lets you enjoy and satisfy those tactile taste sensations without any risk and dependence on tobacco while you are working with your computer.
But why doubt when the picture tells thousand words. Sexy woman inhales the cigaratte, you enjoy through USB.

I can vouch that this is a legitimate site. I did a lot of research on "E-Cigarettes" around 6 months ago and ended up buying the e-cigar and a bunch of cartridges. I had no complaints, however, I sadly lost the e-cigar the day after I bought it and went back to making cigarettes. I'm thinking of getting another one so I can at least use up the cartrigdes I still have. The same company also sells the e-cigarette, e-cigarillo, e-pipe, e-minicig, and e-pack. The e-pack is new and pretty interesting - there's an aluminum cigarette pack (yes), and a e-cigarette that goes in it. The pack has a 1200mAh battery and charges the 120 mAh battery (equivalent to ~2 cigarettes) on the e-cigarette in ~30 minutes.

As someone who's tried just about every tobacco product imaginable and found nothing close to the satisfaction of a cigarette, these things come really close.
posted by nTeleKy at 8:41 AM on July 18, 2008


Are the cartridges standardized? It's looking like there are a lot of manufacturers.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:04 AM on July 18, 2008


RavinDave: Even more than nicotine addiction, a MUCH harder habit to break is the sanctimonious buzz that many people get from dictating the behavior of others. Since it isn't the object itself -- but the chance to proselytize against the behavior -- that is at the heart of this, I strongly suspect that the nanny brigade will stay up late scrambling to find some flimsy pretext to ban these as well.

RavinDave, as a strong proponent of anti-smoking legislation, I can assure you that public use of a device like this wouldn't trouble me in the least. I know it's the easier to tell yourself that you're sticking up for your rights against nosey nanny-staters than it is to admit that your addiction is forcing you to behave in a way that violates the rights of others to clean air (a pretty basic right, and one which I suspect most smoker-MeFites would urgently rally around if the entity doing the polluting were, say, a corporation rather than their own good selves). Trust me--just as nobody cares if you're wearing a nicotine patch, nobody will care that you're sucking on an odorless, smokeless nicotine-delivery tube.

I do think, though, that something needs to be done to make them visibly distinct from cigarettes--otherwise people will, quite rightly, get upset when they see someone walk into a "non-smoking" area with a white cigarette-sized tube in their mouths.
posted by yoink at 10:04 AM on July 18, 2008


No sale. Just don't see how sitting several rooms away in my local coffee house, with three sets of foyer-style doors between us and independent air systems even vaguely impacts your rights. Unless you're talking about your "right to whine".

And how are people "quite rightly" offended by seeing someone with a "plastic tube" in their mouth in a no-smoking area -- unless they are unfettered hypochondriacs?
posted by RavinDave at 10:39 AM on July 18, 2008


No sale. Just don't see how sitting several rooms away in my local coffee house, with three sets of foyer-style doors between us and independent air systems even vaguely impacts your rights. Unless you're talking about your "right to whine".

The right of workers to a workplace that is clean and safe, perhaps?

And I'm a smoker, so don't start with the 'neener neener nannystate' BS.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:00 AM on July 18, 2008


No sale. Just don't see how sitting several rooms away in my local coffee house, with three sets of foyer-style doors between us and independent air systems even vaguely impacts your rights. Unless you're talking about your "right to whine".

Um, if you can figure out a way in which the only people in that room are fellow smokers, I'm all for it. See--whine free. Please note that "the waiting people can choose other jobs" is regarded only as a valid statement by the whiniest people on God's good earth: nicotine addicts temporarily deprived of a fix.

And how are people "quite rightly" offended by seeing someone with a "plastic tube" in their mouth in a no-smoking area -- unless they are unfettered hypochondriacs?

Perhaps you need to have a smoke and relax a little? Go ahead--as long as the smoke isn't being forced on anyone else, I don't care. Now--calmer? The point I was making was that if you see someone walk into a non-smoking space with a white cigarette-sized tube in his/her mouth, you are going to be quite justified in concluding that they are smoking a cigarette. In order to save people the hassle of having to explain over and over again that "no, I'm not smoking a cigarette, see--this is a smokeless nicotine inhaler" I was suggesting that they do something to make them obviously not cigarettes (e.g., color them green?). I wasn't suggesting--and, I believe, that this would be clear to anyone who wasn't having a little whine-fest about their precious smoker's rights--that people should actually be prevented from using these devices in non-smoking areas.
posted by yoink at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2008


"regarded only" = "only regarded"
posted by yoink at 11:26 AM on July 18, 2008


nowonma saidi : Would this be an inconspicuous way to consume hash oil?
/asking-for-a-friend


Inquiring minds want to know.

(I think probably not, because of the dispersal system of nicotine which is a fairly light liquid, and hash oil, which is...well, not so much.) That said; I'm willing to be proven wrong on this one.
posted by dejah420 at 11:37 AM on July 18, 2008


Good for you paddbear!!!
posted by vito90 at 11:38 AM on July 18, 2008


Do they come in clove?
posted by lekvar at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2008


pricey! will these taste as nasty as Eclipses did, too?
(of course, i smoke unfiltered Bali Shag...)
posted by dunkadunc at 8:34 PM on July 18, 2008


I tried the Crown7 for a while, and it's a good first step, techwise, but on the whole it didn't do it for me. It just doesn't feel enough like smoking a cigarette. It's big -- six inches long -- and much heavier than a cigarette (I don't have a scale here, but it's only a little lighter than this tin of Altoids on my desk). Maybe if you were used to smoking a huge cigar or something it would be all right.

Besides that, the smoke is too sweet; it doesn't taste like a cigarette at all. And, visually, there's not nearly enough smoke -- I had to really drag hard on the tube to get more than a little wisp, rather than the good puff of smoke I expect from a real cig. (Admittedly, this might be due to the fact that it's largely water vapor, and I live in the desert. Someone in a more humid location might get better results?)

Anyway, I'd really really love a good e-cig, but it's got to approximate a real cigarette MUCH closer in size, weight, flavor, and quantity of smoke before I'll find it useful.
posted by rifflesby at 10:35 PM on July 18, 2008


I also tried the Crown7. I had almost exactly the same experience as rifflesby.

The main problem was the volume of vapor: I need to feel the "impact" of the smoke against my throat, if I'm to believe I'm smoking.

I was mad disappointed.
posted by Netzapper at 6:10 PM on July 19, 2008


I lost both of my parents to cigarette smoking -- one to cancer, the other to emphysema. I don't think you really need the impact.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:20 PM on July 19, 2008


Err... if the point is to help someone quit the dangerous aspects of smoking by replacing the bad thing with something rather less bad (along the same lines as heroin/methadone), then yes, you need to get as close as possible to the actual sensation.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:28 PM on July 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


« Older More worries in New Orleans, this time from the Po...  |  The Wu-Tang Clan ain't nuthin ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments