Introducing the Juul

[LilWhiteClouder]

Where are the clones in this market? Oh yeah,

"Electronic cigarettes have been around for the last several years at least, but haven’t really caught on in that time."

Dear Pax Labs,

cigalikes suck. This thing looks like it sucks. Make a real APV. Make some high line mechs. High line rdas, rbas, rtas. Do your research on that equipment. Sell me for $50 bucks a pop. I'll probably pay it for the quality. Introduce some eliquid that tastes completely opposite of a Marlboro and market the flavor that way. S@!t, give me a nice fruity tobacco blend. Let me drip it in or fill it up. I am not feeling the idea of puffin on nic salts. Sorry to be a buzzkill.

LilWhite Clouder

 

[Oliver]

I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, I feel like super rapid nicotine delivery might be good for some smokers, but on the other hand I believe e-cigs actually enable smokers to become less nicotine dependent.

Also, this will sure cause a mess if it turns out we now have a product in "our category" which actually has "abuse-liability" - I.e a higher likelihood of creating nicotine dependence in tobacco/nicotine never-users.

 

[nicnik]

I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, I feel like super rapid nicotine delivery might be good for some smokers, but on the other hand I believe e-cigs actually enable smokers to become less nicotine dependent.

Also, this will sure cause a mess if it turns out we now have a product in "our category" which actually has "abuse-liability" - I.e a higher likelihood of creating nicotine dependence in tobacco/nicotine never-users.

Maybe enhanced nicotine available by prescription, only? Haven't thought through that, just throwing it out there.

 

[Oliver]

Funnily enough, I sat on a panel at the FDLI conference in DC last week in which Dorothy Hatsukami urged for exactly that!

 

[Stubby]

I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, I feel like super rapid nicotine delivery might be good for some smokers, but on the other hand I believe e-cigs actually enable smokers to become less nicotine dependent.

Also, this will sure cause a mess if it turns out we now have a product in "our category" which actually has "abuse-liability" - I.e a higher likelihood of creating nicotine dependence in tobacco/nicotine never-users.

The question that has to be asked is what is the goal. Is it decreasing, and eventually eliminating dependency, or is it to eliminate the risk associated with smoking. If it is the former then this would not be a good idea, if the later then this could be a real game changer, at least for those people for whom ecigs are not really working.

For myself, I simply support THR, and if this works for a fair amount of people then it is definitely a very good thing. This could easily become a bridge to vaping for some, or a long term replacement for smoking. The more choices on the market the better.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm wondering if this is something akin to WTA liquid, in which case, good, some people need that. I take issue at two points though, one, a cigalike is not cutting edge technology, no matter what you put in it, and two, you need to be transparent about what exactly is in your liquid. I understand proprietary recipes and all that, but the last thing we need is claims of an e-cig/liquid designed to be more addictive.

 

[nicnik]

Funnily enough, I sat on a panel at the FDLI conference in DC last week in which Dorothy Hatsukami urged for exactly that!

That might've been why that popped into my head. I vaguely recall reading something about that. There's a new thread linking to a really good article where a cardiologist endorsed an enhanced delivery of the nicotine, but didn't say anything about prescrition, only:
Great article from MD "Does the Risk of E-Cigarettes Exceed Potential Benefits? No" | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[nicnik]

When I started vaping, I wasn't feeling the quick buzz, but it all started working for me when I discovered that if immediately before a drag, I draw in some vapor without inhaling and letting that out slowly through my nose, I would get a bit of an immediate effect. I was using an automatic at the time and that worked out as a great way to do a primer puff. It helped me a lot, and I continued doing that and gradually began to unintentionally forget to do it. These days, I once in a while do it as an unneeded, enjoyable, but maybe helpful extra.

I think perhaps that at least for me, sinuses deliver more quickly than the mouth.

 

[twgbonehead]

When I started vaping, I wasn't feeling the quick buzz, but it all started working for me when I discovered that if immediately before a drag, I draw in some vapor without inhaling and letting that out slowly through my nose, I would get a bit of an immediate effect. I was using an automatic at the time and that worked out as a great way to do a primer puff. It helped me a lot, and I continued doing that and gradually began to unintentionally forget to do it. These days, I once in a while do it as an unneeded, enjoyable, but maybe helpful extra.

I think perhaps that at least for me, sinuses deliver more quickly than the mouth.

Well that's a very interesting statement.

When delivered through smoke, it seems that the freebase form of nicotine is absorbed much more readily by the lungs. This, apparently, is why most cigarette tobacco has ammonia (a strong base) added to it. But the particles of vapor are too large to get deep into the lungs, where they could be absorbed rapidly.

In the salt form, nicotine is (I believe) more readily absorbed in the mouth and nose, although the absorption takes longer.
This is the case in most e-liquids; they are slightly acidic which turns the nicotine into it's salt configuration. Little absorption in the lungs, but better (and slower) absorption in the mouth and sinuses.

I believe what I have said above is completely true, but I am not a chemical engineer or chemist. (Or Doctor, or nearly everything else that might be relevant). Kind of like Glantz.

 

[nicnik]

Well that's a very interesting statement.

When delivered through smoke, it seems that the freebase form of nicotine is absorbed much more readily by the lungs. This, apparently, is why most cigarette tobacco has ammonia (a strong base) added to it. But the particles of vapor are too large to get deep into the lungs, where they could be absorbed rapidly.

In the salt form, nicotine is (I believe) more readily absorbed in the mouth and nose, although the absorption takes longer.
This is the case in most e-liquids; they are slightly acidic which turns the nicotine into it's salt configuration. Little absorption in the lungs, but better (and slower) absorption in the mouth and sinuses.

I believe what I have said above is completely true, but I am not a chemical engineer or chemist. (Or Doctor, or nearly everything else that might be relevant). Kind of like Glantz.

I'm very interested in that part about acidic e-liquids. I'm going to experiment and see how it might affect me.

BTW, I was only comparing nose absorption vs mouth, not vs lungs.

 

[twgbonehead]

I'm very interested in that part about acidic e-liquids. I'm going to experiment and see how it might affect me.

BTW, I was only comparing nose absorption vs mouth, not vs lungs.

Yeah, I was also trying to make it relevant to the original thread, about the Juul, which claims it gives a "nic rush" much more similar to a cigarette.

Although I am not an expert, and not to be trusted, I've read a lot of stuff on the internet (which is all true). I did read a study that concluded that while the lungs were better at absorbing nicotine in "freebase" form (alkaline) the mucous membranes in the mouth and nose were much more effective at absorbing the salt form (acidic) but that this absorption occurred much more slowly.

But now that I've posted this on the internet, it has to be true, right? (Sorry for the sarcasm, I really try hard to get to the truth and I believe that what I say is not BS, but it's so hard to tell these days....)

 

[Stubby]

Yeah, I was also trying to make it relevant to the original thread, about the Juul, which claims it gives a "nic rush" much more similar to a cigarette.

Although I am not an expert, and not to be trusted, I've read a lot of stuff on the internet (which is all true). I did read a study that concluded that while the lungs were better at absorbing nicotine in "freebase" form (alkaline) the mucous membranes in the mouth and nose were much more effective at absorbing the salt form (acidic) but that this absorption occurred much more slowly.

But now that I've posted this on the internet, it has to be true, right? (Sorry for the sarcasm, I really try hard to get to the truth and I believe that what I say is not BS, but it's so hard to tell these days....)

You may have it reversed. Acidic nicotine is not well absorbed via the mucus membrane (mouth and nose) but is absorbed via the lungs. Alkaline nicotine (or tobacco) is better absorbed via the mouth. Swedish snus always has an alkaline base to it (essentially baking soda) to freebase the nicotine so it is better absorbed. If that wasn't done you would have to do large amounts of snus to get a satisfying hit of nicotine. The more alkaline the snus is the better the nic hit.

Pipe and cigar tobacco is also alkaline which is why you don't have to inhale to get a nic hit.

Just guessing on this, but perhaps Pax has simply freebased the nicotine so it is better absorbed. Contrary to what some may think, this would not really be a bad thing. You would simply need a lot less nicotine to get the same satisfaction.

 

[LilWhiteClouder]

Not sure why I like the description of "freebase" nicotine, but a really interesting way to describe the nic salts. The last few posts have been very informative as I have never really done research on the way nicotine is "delivered" to the body, just enjoyed the buzz. Also, sorry about my rant above to Pax labs about the Juule. Kinda hypocritical considering I started vaping on the Fifty-One cigalike that came out a few years ago, and I am currently using the VUSE because my office forbids vaping inside. Still would rather be blowing thick white clouds instead of transparent little puffs of vapor. On a more positive note, I just received my Wu Tang house of Mods 18650 "El Sigilo" a few mins ago!! Cannot wait to test the nic delivery from this thing!

 

[DC2]

Kind of like Glantz.

I've read a lot of stuff on the internet (which is all true).

You were on a roll yesterday!

 

[twgbonehead]

You may have it reversed. Acidic nicotine is not well absorbed via the mucus membrane (mouth and nose) but is absorbed via the lungs. Alkaline nicotine (or tobacco) is better absorbed via the mouth. Swedish snus always has an alkaline base to it (essentially baking soda) to freebase the nicotine so it is better absorbed. If that wasn't done you would have to do large amounts of snus to get a satisfying hit of nicotine. The more alkaline the snus is the better the nic hit.

Pipe and cigar tobacco is also alkaline which is why you don't have to inhale to get a nic hit.

Just guessing on this, but perhaps Pax has simply freebased the nicotine so it is better absorbed. Contrary to what some may think, this would not really be a bad thing. You would simply need a lot less nicotine to get the same satisfaction.

This is where I get confused. And as I said, I am not a chemist, or biologist; just trying to sort out what I've read.

One of the major additives in cigarettes is ammonia. And the reason for adding it is supposedly that it greatly enhances the absorption of nicotine. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that the ammonia enhanced the absorption in the lungs, when it might actually enhance the absorption in the mouth and nose?

I did read a great paper on this, but can't, for the life of me, find it again that spelled out the difference. The part I do remember well is that the mucous membranes like one type, the lungs like the other. I could very well have it backwards!

Thanks, Stubby!

 

[twgbonehead]

You were on a roll yesterday!

Thanks, DC2!

Probably explains why I was wiping sesame seeds off my .... this morning.....

 

[caramel]

Let there be choice. The market will sort it out.

 

[nicnik]

This is where I get confused. And as I said, I am not a chemist, or biologist; just trying to sort out what I've read.

One of the major additives in cigarettes is ammonia. And the reason for adding it is supposedly that it greatly enhances the absorption of nicotine. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that the ammonia enhanced the absorption in the lungs, when it might actually enhance the absorption in the mouth and nose?

I did read a great paper on this, but can't, for the life of me, find it again that spelled out the difference. The part I do remember well is that the mucous membranes like one type, the lungs like the other. I could very well have it backwards!

Thanks, Stubby!

I just looked up ammonia acidity info and quickly found this: "Although ammonia is well known as a weak base, it can also act as an extremely weak acid." So more of a base than acid, I guess. Didn't read any further. This may help back up what you originally were saying, twgbonehead.

 

[nicnik]

Let there be choice. The market will sort it out.

That's probably best. I've thought a bit more about the idea of speedier absorbed nicotine forms being available by prescription only, and I think that would not be as helpful.

 

[Stubby]

This is where I get confused. And as I said, I am not a chemist, or biologist; just trying to sort out what I've read.

One of the major additives in cigarettes is ammonia. And the reason for adding it is supposedly that it greatly enhances the absorption of nicotine. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that the ammonia enhanced the absorption in the lungs, when it might actually enhance the absorption in the mouth and nose?

I did read a great paper on this, but can't, for the life of me, find it again that spelled out the difference. The part I do remember well is that the mucous membranes like one type, the lungs like the other. I could very well have it backwards!

Thanks, Stubby!

It does get a bit confusing and I am certainly no expert. I am very certain that for good mucus membrane absorption (mouth and nose) it has to be a base (alkaline).

Something to keep in mind when looking into this type of thing is that a lot of the information is coming from the ANTZ. The propaganda gets pretty thick. When you start reading about how BT is doing this or that to make cigarettes more addictive, questions have to be asked as to the source of that information.

For the last dozen years of my smoking career I used high quality, relatively unprocessed (compared to standard cigarettes) roll your own, and I didn't notice one iota of difference in dependency. Most of the processing that BT does with cigarettes is not to make them more addictive, but to make them more consistent. Tobacco is going to differ from year to year, and even region to region. That is not what they want. Inhaling smoke from tobacco is plenty addictive. It really doesn't need any help with that part.