Big Tobacco Is Starting To Cash In On Vaping
- Thread starter LoveVanilla
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This is clearly a different class of device, closer to cigarettes than to e-cigarettes since this device clearly uses tobacco whereas e-cigarettes do not have any tobacco in them. It is erroneous to call this device a e-cigarette.
I agree, not an ecigarette and I don't see it getting past the FDA, no new tobacco products and all.
This new product that isn't an ecig is the very thing the vaping industry is being accused of creating and being harassed over. Hooking a new generation on tobacco and all that. This new product is the very thing the ANTZ think vaping is but isn't.
Yes, be sure to note the (no doubt intentional) sleight of hand, "... the so-called tobacco vapor category".
Last edited:
I cringe every time I see the term "nicotine-laced liquid" in one of these articles ... 
Every journalism student learns the power of words with heavy negative connotations. "Laced", when hyphenated with any substance or chemical, is immediately associated with contamination or poisoning, without the knowledge of the recipient ...
I don't credit each of these "writers" with the wit to understand this, most will just mindlessly pilfer phrases from previous articles. But someone originally had the malicious intent to misinform the reader ...
I guess I will have to start referring to my device specifically as a "liquid vaporizer", to distinguish it from "tobacco cookers", and to point out that the liquid is not "-laced" with anything ...
Every journalism student learns the power of words with heavy negative connotations. "Laced", when hyphenated with any substance or chemical, is immediately associated with contamination or poisoning, without the knowledge of the recipient ...
I don't credit each of these "writers" with the wit to understand this, most will just mindlessly pilfer phrases from previous articles. But someone originally had the malicious intent to misinform the reader ...
I guess I will have to start referring to my device specifically as a "liquid vaporizer", to distinguish it from "tobacco cookers", and to point out that the liquid is not "-laced" with anything ...
Actually it is an e-cig as it uses electronics to heat tobacco. I don't know how you could call it anything else. The only real difference is vapor products heat a liquid with nicotine extracted from tobacco, and this uses whole tobacco. The heat not burn concept has been around for quite some time and it is arguable as to which came first.
As for the ANTZ, well they make all kinds of claims that are off into la la land. The ANTZ are what they are, anti nicotine and tobacco. Doesn't really matter to them.
I don't know why people who vape are so threatened by this. It is another tobacco harm reduction product, along with chew, dip, snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff, and probably a few others. It may not be your preferred choice but I would guess it would be for others. I guess choice is okay, only as long as it is your preferred choice.
Totally disagree with you Stubby and I'm not getting into that debate about nicotine being a tobacco product, we've all been down that road here to many times to count. The arguments for both sides are valid so no resolution is impossible, imo. But in the "traditional" sense, no, ecigs do not contain actual tobacco so this product is something completely different from what everyone has come to know as an ecig. Ecigs were invented to get away from tobacco, not nicotine.
Last edited:
Heat not burn was first. Was first exposed there existence in 2003 when a younger classmate was searching for using them with something which can not be discussed here. Computer class at a small technical collage and we had recently been warned to not search for porn or anything illegal. My thought at the time was "hmm, wonder if that would work with tobacco?" Wish I had followed up on that thought...
I suppose if we"re talking device only, then the label ecig would apply, but not the content. People are using the devices for things other than eliquid so maybe vaporizer or ecig is appropriate. But in terms of what people genetally think of as an ecig then this new product is something diffrent.
It certainly is nothing at all like I vape. To me it looks like a new slant on pushing the chemical laden tobacco in their stinkies on people. This time they are just doing it electronically, but you can bet they have a great many tons of chemical laden tobacco to get rid of that has been sitting since they started losing money to vaping, and that's what this is about.
This time you don't need a Bic lighter, you just push the button. It's a bit more convenient to get poisoned the same way.
This time you don't need a Bic lighter, you just push the button. It's a bit more convenient to get poisoned the same way.
The more I think about this the more I wonder if this tobacco filled vaporizer will end up proving there is a difference between eliquid with nicotine and actual tobacco.
Actually I am not threatened by this product as it is harm reduction. I do take issue with them calling it a e-cig since the first thing the antiz is going to do is overheat it and issue a paper that paints the image that E-CIGS CONTAIN TOBACCO or that the vapor has the same chemicals as cigs. It is not a problem with the product it is a problem with the media and antz acting like they are the same, which they will if it helps them demonize and control both products.
Oh, is it? Do we know what's in that tobacco they are stuffing into it? This is from the same folks that gave us thousands of toxic chemicals in cigarettes. Let's just mull that over...
This is not the first so called " heat not burn " cigarette in the market. RJR Reynolds ( Nabisco ) had one called " Premier" in the late eighties. It was a spectacular failure.
Has Philip Morris Learned from Heat-not-Burn Tobacco's Past?
'Smokeless' Cigarette's Hapless Start
Has Philip Morris Learned from Heat-not-Burn Tobacco's Past?
'Smokeless' Cigarette's Hapless Start
Ecigs were invented to get away from burning, at least first and formost. It's at least related.
Broken link seems excessive.
Last edited:
Ecigs were specifically created to replace cigarettes. There, I think that's nice and precise. And I don't think that link in the OP is working, it isn't for me.
Or just as likely (or perhaps more so) prove that there isn't a whole lot of difference between vaping nicotine in liquid and whole tobacco. It is the burning tobacco that creates the toxins in cigarettes, not tobacco. There is a very good chance the difference would be so trivial as to be insignificant.
I would be for a reduced harm product if it does turn out to be an actual reduced harm product. If it turns out to be anything like the products mentioned in the articles Mazinny shared I don't see it being successful even if it does reduce harm. Or if the tobacco is doctored in anyway that wouldn't be to cool. It really doesn't sound appealing to me personally, I have an image of soggy limp tobacco bits in my mind.
I would like to know how whole tobacco would fair in a vaporizer though. What it would produce as far as chemical reactions go and things like that. The same type of testing that's going on with eliquid now. I lean toward the two being different enough and producing different chemical reactions because there's plant matter involved.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
