Cigalikes Are Garbage

I know most of us are dooms day prepping for vapocalypse. But when you run out would you use the big tobacco cigalikes or just quit all together? I would quit before i put another dollar in there pockets!  

I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:

I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.

Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.

One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.

A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS

The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?

the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.

Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool

And how safe is it?

Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI

There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.

The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...

iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds

The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.

But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.

"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.

University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.

If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.

She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Just my

 

New research reveals 27 new deadly hazards from e-cigarettes | Anti-THR Lies and related topics


"A new study out of the University of Minnesota revealed the deadly effect of e-cigarette liquid on rodents. They dropped 55-gallon drums of e-cigarette liquid on rats, from varying heights. The found that for even relatively modest heights — no greater than those found in ordinary houses that are home to children — there was a nearly total fatality rate."  

Well, I just got back from a week in Orlando (Kids, theme parks) and I wanted to share what I saw.

Disney: What a pita! Vaping is restricted to smoking areas, and these are extremely rare and far out.
Universal: Awesome. Even though I (mostly) vaped in the smoking areas, they were all over the place, easily accessible.

I also have to say that we (both myself and the kids) were really disappointed in the Disney parks (Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios). Old, stale, lame. Universal was awesome (We went to the Islands of adventure park; wish I had done 2 days of universal and one of Disney, rather than the other way around!)

But that actually isn't the reason for my post. What impressed me is the number of vapers I ran into (in the smoking areas). And I didn't see a single cigalike! Several big-ego batts (usually with EVOD heads) but also some great gear! There was a guy blowing such beautiful vape that I had to go ask - he was using a Herkales (don't remember what his box mod was) and uses an Arctic for backup. And never heard of ECF! (Hopefully he's joined!)

But what stunned me was that:
a) Every smoking area I went to, 25 percent of the people there were vaping, not smoking.
b) Everyone I talked to (was only about 4 people) had just started within the last few months
c) Nobody was using crap gear, or gas-station cigalikes.

Icing on the cake: While I was on vacation, a tree fell on my house. Met the adjuster today, and guess what? While we were walking around the outside of the house, he pulled out his vape! (And he also started just 2 months ago!)

Maybe I don't get out enough, but I was amazed, and encouraged. I think, when the end-of-year numbers come out on vaping some politicians are going to be unpleasantly shocked.  

OK so lots of people are saying they've just started vaping, I wondered how most started. For me it was a guy at work showing me his ego pen and me thinking that looks a lot cooler than my tarstick, so I got one tried it, lost it, tried cigalikes, lost them, tried another ego, couldn't be bothered, then got an MVP 20w high VG juice and haven't looked back. Tbh health was never the issue for me quitting stinkies it was looking cool with an e CIG over an analog.  

I didn't really know how to do it. But, I recalled that it probably had to do with the first cigalikes I encountered, so I did a search on that. Share, share alike. Mine is more than 11-years old.
Did someone say bewildering? - another newbie here  

VAPING TESTIMONIAL
I smoked for over 50 years and it got to the point where I could barely breathe. I knew I had to quit but I also knew I had no will power to do so. Then 6 years ago I tried vaping and it literally saved my life. I still got my nicotine fix and could finally breathe easier and I was not inhaling all those harmful chemicals. I know taking anything into your lungs is harmful but vaping really is the lesser of two evils. And speaking of evils look at these statistics:
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year
68,557 people died in 2018 of an opioid overdose
in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun
In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes
30,000 deaths were the result of domestic abuse world wide in 2018.
There are 2,200 alcohol poisoning deaths in the US each year.
so in the last year 631,027 died of unnatural causes, extrapolated over six years that is 3,786,162 deaths
1978 to 1995 a total of 37 Americans were killed by falling vending machines
There have been six confirmed deaths connected to vaping across the US
of these two were from lithium batteries exploding and not the vaping itself
and two were from people experimenting by adding dangerous chemicals to their e-cigarettes.
So in reality only two people died due to vaping.
and you pick vaping as a just cause. Really? where are your values and priorities?
more people die each year from choking or acts of stupidity than vaping.
Of all these causes you could get behind why are you picking the least dangerous and offensive one? I think it's time people learned to pick their battles.
so, 480,000 deaths by cigarettes and why doesn't the government care? Here's why, because for every smoker that dies a new smoker starts. And tobacco is such a cash cow the government doesn't want it to disappear. In Canada the average taxes on a carton of cigarettes is 65%, in the US the taxes are around 45%. That's a lot of free cash. But, if people switch to vaping there are no taxes associated with it. There are no health concerns, it is purely greed.
Here is the thing about statistics: you can make up anything you want or manipulate the facts to get your point of view across. Why? Because they can't be verified. So all the government does is use scare tactics and people are gullible enough to believe it. They have no scientific proof to back up their claims, it is all BS.
Vaping is a much safer alternative to smoking, so why don't they shut down the tobacco industry? MONEY!! MONEY!! MONEY!!
I will defend vaping over cigarettes forever.  

Some of y'all may remember me, some not so fondly, but that's okay. I used to be a very frequent and outspoken contributor here.

I haven't posted in awhile. Mainly because I fell off the wagon big time after 5 years of vaping and felt like a hypocrite posting on these forums.

I've tried new vaping products in the interim and just haven't been able to stay away from the cancer sticks.

That changed for me yesterday after trying the Iqos device.

I tried one, bought one and haven't had an analog since.

For those wondering about these, especially those who are looking for that missing something with nicotine salts, WTA etc, give these a try.

They are basically a miniature dry herb vaporizer for tobacco.

You get that same instant rush from a cigarette, those same missing chemicals, and a very similar hand and mouth feel.

No harshness or coughing like from vaping either. And the taste is PHENOMENAL. I'm not a fan of tobacco flavors....have never smoked for the taste.... but this is the fullest, cleanest tobacco flavor I've ever experienced.

And the best part is, since nothing is burning like a cigarette, there's a big reduction in tar and harmful chemicals.

I will try to post a video review in the next few days if anyone is interested.

This is a game changer for me, even bigger than that first kr808 I tried over a decade ago....and if keeps someone else off of cigarettes, I think it's worth posting here  

The news of a looming flavor ban is sickening! As an adult former smoker who used ecigs to liberate myself from cigarettes, I am appalled!

It is not my fault that kids are vaping flavors and nicotine intended for adults.
It is not my fault that people are vaping dangerous chemicals in THC mixes.
It is not my fault that people who lack knowledge about vaping consider it on par with smoking.

Parents need to own up to monitoring their own kids! These teens would be smoking cigarettes if they weren't vaping- just as they were doing before vaping came along. Teen smoking numbers are down because of vaping. It is this teenage generation's alternative to cigarettes. This should be part of our national conjecture on the topic!!!

We (legitimate adult users of vaping supplies) need to stand up for ourselves!!! There are millions of us.

Let us be heard!

We need to stand together and protest around our country on the same days/times to have our voices heard.

I say we all go to our local city halls and/or right outside of our workplaces near smoking areas on the same day/time with signs of protest to demand that our opinions be heard.

I also say that we compile lists of pro-vaping and anti-vaping elected representatives so that we may be able to vote our haters out of office!!!  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293