1980's e-cig?

[need_2quit]

A friend said his father smoked a fake cigarette in the 80's that inhaled nicotine. He had to give it up b/c he kept lighting it with his lighter.

Could this be it? I don't have an account to login and see pictures:

Device for evaporation and inhalation of volatile compounds and medications - Patent 4303083

here are some other 1980's patents:

Patents: cigarette 1980

 

[Alan Richardson]

There was a product put out in the late 80's that fits your description. This product was introduced shortly after the RJR-Nabisco merger and was, to say the least, a major dissappointment. For a comical history lesson on this product, watch the movie "Barbarians at the Gate".

 

[fresca]

The Nicotrol Inhaler came out in the early 90s (1991 I believe). It looked like a freakin' tampon:

I had one prescription of it in the late 90s. It was awful... no decent drag or nicotine delivery to speak of... went back to analogs within a week.

 

[sherid]

If the link to these early devices can be established, then the FDA ruling and law against products released after 2007 will not apply to e cigs.

 

[TropicalBob]

This reads like just another patent for a vaporizing device. And the legal issue will revolve around whether it was marketed and sold prior to Feb. 7, 2007, not whether a patent was issued. That's spelled out in the bill that is now law.

Vaporizers -- for herbs, tobacco and what-have-you -- have been sold for decades. That might not be relevant to us. As the FDA defines e-cigs, they came to market after the cutoff date in the law. Course, the FDA will likely face further court challenges to its definition.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

If the link to these early devices can be established, then the FDA ruling and law against products released after 2007 will not apply to e cigs.

True - but it still has to be established that the PV isn't a drug delivery device - that's the crux of the SE/NJoy legal battle right now....how will these be classified???

 

[sherid]

True - but it still has to be established that the PV isn't a drug delivery device - that's the crux of the SE/NJoy legal battle right now....how will these be classified???

I think there are many developments in the works. Perhaps some devices will be classified one way and others differently. Who knows! In my gut, I truly feel that the key to it all will be with SmokeFree Innotec and Welcome to the Future - Smokefree Innotech Inc.

 

[ramblingrose]

If the link to these early devices can be established, then the FDA ruling and law against products released after 2007 will not apply to e cigs.

For what its worth, the European patent was granted prior to '07, and the filing for a US patent was in '06.

 

[cutiemax]

If those Nicotrol Inhalers are legal then the e-cig should be legal. i don't see that big of a difference in the two except the e-cig heats up and gives off vapor. there's another nicotene delivery device called aeros, they are a tube you cut both ends off then inhale through one end. Just one is supposed to last all day. these things are being sold here right in the US, so the FDA needs to get foreal and leave e-cigs alone

 

[cutiemax]

If they have to study them more to they are okay then fine do your research, regulate them, but don't make them illegal

 

[need_2quit]

there's another nicotene delivery device called aeros, they are a tube you cut both ends off then inhale through one end.

thx for the name of this device. my neighbor said he quit years ago (for awhile) on one of these and I never heard of them before.

the more devices we find pre-07 the better.

 

[need_2quit]

aeros smokeless cigarette FDA approved:

The Smokers Club, Inc. - Aeros Smokeless Cigarette

 

[dave8944]

There were smokless cigarettes around 1986 or 1987 put out by the major tobacco companies. I remember all the nicotine was in the filter and the end of the cigarette was just empty. You just sucked on it and the nicotine would evaporate from the filter into your lungs. It tasted awful, produced no smoke, and wasn't satisfying in any way. I bought a pack and I too would light them by mistake....they dissapeared real quick.

 

[Luke15_7]

True - but it still has to be established that the PV isn't a drug delivery device - that's the crux of the SE/NJoy legal battle right now....how will these be classified???

This is the part that just blows me away - a "drug delivery" device...

... then shouldn't the cups at Starbucks be considered a "drug delivery" device? (Ya, ya, I know - coffee is Politically Correct )

 

[bitey]

aeros smokeless cigarette FDA approved:

The Smokers Club, Inc. - Aeros Smokeless Cigarette

Thanks for the link. The news item has a link to the Areo Web page.

Quit Smoking, Stop Smoking Or The New - Aeros Smokeless Cigarettes

I don't know if I can post a link that works yet; but if not, just cut and paste.

It's amazing to me how they are distancing themselves from e-cigarettes. They state clearly that they are Not an e-cig and no heat is used. We all need to read this page because these are the people who currently have approval playing the government's game. This is important info because I suspect that this company is owned or will soon be owned by Big Tobacco.

 

[Vapinginmyboots]

Thanks for the link. The news item has a link to the Areo Web page.

Quit Smoking, Stop Smoking Or The New - Aeros Smokeless Cigarettes

I don't know if I can post a link that works yet; but if not, just cut and paste.

It's amazing to me how they are distancing themselves from e-cigarettes. They state clearly that they are Not an e-cig and no heat is used. We all need to read this page because these are the people who currently have approval playing the government's game. This is important info because I suspect that this company is owned or will soon be owned by Big Tobacco.

agreed after checking out that link. Gotta watch out for BT, no doubt in my mind.

 

[Vapinginmyboots]

Moreover, after thoroughly reading the investors section, I would NEVER buy from this company or affiliates. They are catering to not only BT, but Big Government. Trust me. This company is playing "the game".

 

[BRi7X]

That kind of looks like the nicotine inhaler Gwenyth Paltrow uses in the Royal Tenenbaums... haha.


(by the way, fresca is delicious.... i long for some black cherry citrus fresca flavoured e-liquid!)

The Nicotrol Inhaler came out in the early 90s (1991 I believe). It looked like a freakin' tampon:



I had one prescription of it in the late 90s. It was awful... no decent drag or nicotine delivery to speak of... went back to analogs within a week.

 

[tokarev]

This is the part that just blows me away - a "drug delivery" device...

... then shouldn't the cups at Starbucks be considered a "drug delivery" device? (Ya, ya, I know - coffee is Politically Correct )

Please...don't give them any more ideas! 8-o

TT33

 

[ramblingrose]

If those Nicotrol Inhalers are legal then the e-cig should be legal. i don't see that big of a difference in the two except the e-cig heats up and gives off vapor. there's another nicotene delivery device called aeros, they are a tube you cut both ends off then inhale through one end. Just one is supposed to last all day. these things are being sold here right in the US, so the FDA needs to get foreal and leave e-cigs alone

Nicotrol is made by BP, and has been through the FDA approval process. They have small amounts of nicotine, and it would be nearly impossible to have an accident that would expose anyone to excess nicotine. That they don't heat up, have additional chemicals (that are as of now untested for longterm inhalation) and emit vapor is also a significant difference.

I don't know what will happen to Aeros as FDA regulations are sorted out, but the manufacturer approached their marketing differently, as they make no claim to it being a smoking cessation device, and disassociate the product from e-cigs. Also, it's a contained product, which eliminates concerns about safety of bottles with nicotine in homes with children and pets. Their approach might keep them under the radar longer.