Smoking gateway? Vaping gateway? Wont catch on? Thoughts?

[Stubby]

I can see this ending badly...

From what I recal, burning cigarette tobacco has some 8000 chemicals...

This may be vaporizing, but still brings up a concern.

UNLIT cigarette tobacco has some 2000 chemicals STILL.

Instead of burning ammonia(yes it is in unlit cigarette tobacco), now I am vaporizing it and getting the full effects of what problems may occur from that and anyother additive that we would be vaporizing.


This "kit" is just a marketing ploy to get a foot into the door in the world of vaping. And it WILL have dire consequences if used...

What is it with this rather bizarre fear of chemicals. We already know from the large amount of research on smokeless tobacco, that tobacco, and whatever natural chemicals are in tobacco, are not a problem. So what is it that you fear you would be getting that would cause a health concern?

 

[edyle]

This is just a revamped version of R.J. Reynold's old (circa 2000 or so) Eclipse cigarette. It was a flop then when we didn't even have e-liquid and it will be a flop now. I have to wonder where they get their ideas from. Somebody's getting paid way too much for junky work.

They're all setup to grow and sell tons of tobacco per month.
gotta find ways to offload that stuff.


Maybe they should start off by extracting from their tobacco to produce their own eliquid; and if that works out, expand the product line to other flavors.

 

[defdock]

What is it with this rather bizarre fear of chemicals. We already know from the large amount of research on smokeless tobacco, that tobacco, and whatever natural chemicals are in tobacco, are not a problem. So what is it that you fear you would be getting that would cause a health concern?

The ADDED chemicals they spray on the plant, is what "we fear"

Burning a cigarette burns off majority of the chemicals but we still get an amount of it.

Now "we" are vaporizing it and getting the "full dose" sprayed onto the tobacco since it is not being "burned off"

 

[defdock]

They're all setup to grow and sell tons of tobacco per month.
gotta find ways to offload that stuff.


Maybe they should start off by extracting from their tobacco to produce their own eliquid; and if that works out, expand the product line to other flavors.

This is exactly what big pharma should be doing with all that access tobacco. Instead of making "ecigs" and/or bs science stories, they should just join the game legitimately and take all the tobacco they are licensed to grow and make wta and ta juices. Alot of people still buy that stuff

 

[Stubby]

The ADDED chemicals they spray on the plant, is what "we fear"

Burning a cigarette burns off majority of the chemicals but we still get an amount of it.

Now "we" are vaporizing it and getting the "full dose" sprayed onto the tobacco since it is not being "burned off"

So your fear is the trace amounts of pesticides that might or might not be present. I hope you are eating an all organic diet.

And yet you have no fear of inhaling a good amount of flavorings, none of which have any long term testing for inhaling, and some of which are known to have issues. You are picking and choosing based on an agenda.

 

[defdock]

So your fear is the trace amounts of pesticides that might or might not be present. I hope you are eating an all organic diet.

And yet you have no fear of inhaling a good amount of flavorings, none of which have any long term testing for inhaling, and some of which are known to have issues. You are picking and choosing based on an agenda.

And you assume I'm vaping a flavor.

Regardless, with this device, you are still buying cigarettes from big tobacco. Just your not "smoking them"

About harm reduction:
Why choose to inhail tons chemicals YOU KNOW are pressent and most have Ill effect, when you have the option to only inhail 2-3 that are known to be safe and are used medical for ages.

Pg is in inhalers as well as vg. Menthol is know to be safe also.


Agenda aside. If you diy, do you put in ammonia in your juice? Do you put rat poison in your juice? What about chocolate(not the flavoring, but real cocoa)?

All sides can be played, even at a price point as I mentioned, your still buying their ciggarettes.

 

[Rabbit Slayer]

As a vaper I am unwilling to give BT any more of my $$
Only wish juice companies would start using nicotine from other sources

 

[Oliver]

SmokeyJoe, I certainly don't have the inside scope on this so know nothing about the politics, but you will have to explain why heat not burn is clearly not as safe as vaping. Heat not burn has been going on in the USA for some time from small manufactures and does have its fanbase.

I remember a review by TropicalBob from a few years ago and he was impressed with it.

Apologies - I don't have time to pull out the presentation just now, but Riccardo Polosa presented at an APPG (parliamentary meeting) in the UK a few months back. He pointed out that the spectrum of chemicals that are present in smoke is preserved in iQos, albeit at much greater levels. He compared this to vaping and showed that hardly any of the compounds present in iQos or smoke are present. There are other presentations available showing the same thing - I believe one by Steve Stotesbury of Imperial Tobacco has done the rounds and shows concerns (although, do note the vested interest there!).

It's worth noting that HnB is not "zero combustion" but something more like "partial combustion".

Like I said, I am ambivalent about this stuff. If it's safer, it's safer. I'm mainly worried about "muddied waters" and strategic plays by companies who must realise, by now, that they cannot own the vaping space without regulations that favor large incumbents and excise that makes vaping less compelling to consumers.

 

[Oliver]

And yet you have no fear of inhaling a good amount of flavorings, none of which have any long term testing for inhaling, and some of which are known to have issues. You are picking and choosing based on an agenda.

On this point - it's a fair one. But there's a critical difference: flavors are ingredients and not combustion by-products. And these ingredients can be changed to something the safety of which approaches zero.

FYI, I tried recently a new flavor line. This particular line is the first true "complex molecular design" in the industry: all synthetic ingredients, known to be of little or no concern from an inhalation toxicology perspective, and the flavors are boss.

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

So your fear is the trace amounts of pesticides that might or might not be present. I hope you are eating an all organic diet.

And yet you have no fear of inhaling a good amount of flavorings, none of which have any long term testing for inhaling, and some of which are known to have issues. You are picking and choosing based on an agenda.

So anyone with an opinion in opposition to yours has an agenda? Wow!

I think a person can have an opinion without an agenda.

 

[edyle]

On this point - it's a fair one. But there's a critical difference: flavors are ingredients and not combustion by-products. And these ingredients can be changed to something the safety of which approaches zero.

FYI, I tried recently a new flavor line. This particular line is the first true "complex molecular design" in the industry: all synthetic ingredients, known to be of little or no concern from an inhalation toxicology perspective, and the flavors are boss.

ok, i'll take a guess - Artisan?

 

[Stubby]

Apologies - I don't have time to pull out the presentation just now, but Riccardo Polosa presented at an APPG (parliamentary meeting) in the UK a few months back. He pointed out that the spectrum of chemicals that are present in smoke is preserved in iQos, albeit at much greater levels. He compared this to vaping and showed that hardly any of the compounds present in iQos or smoke are present. There are other presentations available showing the same thing - I believe one by Steve Stotesbury of Imperial Tobacco has done the rounds and shows concerns (although, do note the vested interest there!).

It's worth noting that HnB is not "zero combustion" but something more like "partial combustion".

It would be interesting to take a look at the numbers. I seriously doubt I would be able to make sense of them, but perhaps Carl Phillips or the like could give us a clue as to some comparisons.

I think we have to be a careful as to what we consider harmful. The line on smokeless tobacco thrown out by the antis is that there are 28 known dangerous chemicals in ST, but what they don't tell us is that they are far below the levels of any real concern. Below a given number they are largely irrelevant. The same could easily be true for heat not burn.

Throwing out the idea that heat not burn is significantly more harmful then vaping would be a mistake. Even snus, which is shown to have no measurable connection to cancer, has far more TSNA's then vapor. It doesn't matter as the heath outcomes tell us the real story.

 

[edyle]

heat not burn?

so what is it? roast? bake? cook?

if there's ash left, seems to me that's burn.

 

[ENAUD]

I just see it as a rather brilliant strategy to blur the line between smoking and vaping. In a way, the product really is an e-cigarette, which gives substance to the name given to vapor products from the get go. I also thought, when viewing the vid, they need a bigger battery

 

[Oliver]

It would be interesting to take a look at the numbers. I seriously doubt I would be able to make sense of them, but perhaps Carl Phillips or the like could give us a clue as to some comparisons.

I think we have to be a careful as to what we consider harmful. The line on smokeless tobacco thrown out by the antis is that there are 28 known dangerous chemicals in ST, but what they don't tell us is that they are far below the levels of any real concern. Below a given number they are largely irrelevant. The same could easily be true for heat not burn.

Throwing out the idea that heat not burn is significantly more harmful then vaping would be a mistake. Even snus, which is shown to have no measurable connection to cancer, has far more TSNA's then vapor. It doesn't matter as the heath outcomes tell us the real story.

I agree with much of what you say. I think I know what Carl would say about this too, but won't pre-empt him (note, he's not a biochemist).

What PMI is doing is to establish a series of "biomarkers" - read: "what happens to rabbits when you expose them" - so that they can estimate the harm in absolute terms. But, like everything in this game, the science will be politicised on every level possible, and the only guaranteed thing that happen is that waters get muddied.

As @ENAUD points out, it truly is in the tobacco industry's interest for the whole category to be muddied - assuming vaping is part of the category. From what I've heard, some parts of the tobacco industry were absolutely blindsided by the Public Health England announcement last week - truly, they fear vaping, but believe it's controllable.

They may be correct.

So far, I think it's probably reasonable to assume that vaping is safer than semi-combusted tobacco. But it is also correct to say that flavor compounds in e-cigs are a question mark.

The question is: Will smokers take to it, and will they take to it in such a way that they stop smoking completely? Even PMI stated last week at the GTNF that this is essential if smokers are to reap reduced harm benefits.

 

[Oliver]

I just see it as a rather brilliant strategy to blur the line between smoking and vaping. In a way, the product really is an e-cigarette, which gives substance to the name given to vapor products from the get go. I also thought, when viewing the vid, they need a bigger battery

In reality, I see it as a vanity project by the CEO. And as other commenters have pointed out, playing to the core strengths of the industry (shipping leaf tobacco).

I also think PMI have the biggest and smartest lobbying arm of the whole non-US tobacco industry, and they're going to employ it in the interests of their shareholders, whatever those turn out to be.

 

[Spencer87]

I suppose if this is less harmful than cigarettes, it is a good thing.
Personally, I feel a lot of it will fall down to marketing. In the USA, Smoking is fairly demonized. Not as much in Japan, where Smoking is still allowed indoors in most restaurants and bars. But it is possible. the thing I do see with this is convenience, Just like grabbing a pack of cigarettes.


From some of the initial videos that I have watched, which is not a lot, but there are a couple videos on youtube, Some people are actually seeming to prefer this to E-cigs...
Alot of the general outlook of E-cigs is that its a bunch of chemicals, Where as actual leaf tobacco is somehow more organic. Yea, I know how ridiculous that is, But one of the videos I watched actually stated that.
That kind of outlook may be the reason why this could be preferred by some people.
I would be interested to give it a TRY.... just to see what it is actually like. although, I dont wanna try it enough to go buy it for about 60$US dollars.
Plus it is kinda a risidual income thing. People buy that, Then they are stuck buying these cigarette things.... Which, as it turns out, Use a lot less tobacco, but, I assume, Cost the same amount for the consumer.

Its interesting, though. I am trying to look at it through a marketing perspective though...
For PMI, What is the benefit of trying this in markets where Vaping is not popular yet. to a lot of Japanese people, This would seem quite new. I wonder if this would be allowed in Singapore.

 

[Matty316]

Sound to me like an attempt from a BT company to damage the vaping industry by trying to get it associated even more with tobacco while trying to make money from it at the same time.

This is definitely something I won't be buying.

 

[Ryedan]

Yeah, this worries me too - I saw a news article on iQos recently in which the PMI rep referred to iQos as an e-cigarette.

Seems to me that the iQos is more accurately described as a e-cigarette than what we vape

 

[Spencer87]

Seems to me that the iQos is more accurately described as a e-cigarette than what we vape

Not really, I would refer to it as an actual cigarette. Just because the combustion method is different, And/or non existent, doesnt change the fact that it is still a cigarette. Nothing has changed from the makeup of the product. A cigarette(Now coreect me if I am wrong, Philosophy is not my forte) does not only become a cigarette once smoked.