Vape News

Simply because quitting smoking cigarettes is more than just pure willpower. Smoking cigarettes are psychologically addicting, socially addicting, and physiologically addicting. An SF gate blog states that:

The "Knocked Up" star, 31, has battled with her addiction to tobacco since she was 24 years old, but vowed to quit last year after admitting she had become "a slave" to her habit.

Heigl was also pushed to stop smoking after becoming a mother to adopted daughter Naleigh in September.

But she hasn't completely snubbed her dependency on nicotine - she was snapped puffing on an electronic cigarette on the set of her new film "One For The Money."

The device provides inhaled doses of nicotine through a vaporized solution so users don't have to breathe in harmful smoke.

Read more:

It's interesting to see celebrities use electronic cigarettes. This will give e-cigs more press attention, be it negative or positive. I would think that if someone disliked such as Lindsay Lohan started vaping, it would create a backlash against the devices.

E-cig users must become an organized political force. If not, then the government will keep on regulating e-cigs and it will result in millions of vapers returning to analogs.
I remember the very first ad that I saw for electronic cigarettes. I was browsing music on myspace (back in the myspace era) and an ad for Gamucci popped up:
Looking at this ad now, it looks pretty ridiculous. To me, this is not what e-cigs are about. We do not vape for image. We vape to quit cigs, and eventually, we come to truly enjoy vaping as a hobby in itself. However, many companies have tried to capitalize on culture and lifestyle to sell their brand. For example, when the UK banned smoking indoors in 2006, companies sought to fill the void of being able to smoke inside bars and clubs. Gamucci's marketing strategy is to purport that their device allows you to still enjoy smoking inside and maintain the cool smoker's image.

Let's take a look at the marketing strategies of other e-cigarette brands:

1) Appeal to image

As conveyed through the Gamucci example, "image" is based on the perceptions of others. In certain thought-communities in which smoking is prevalent, such as young club-goers, cigarettes are seen as a crucial social element and pastime.

2) Appeal to convenience

 This incorporates all the "smoke anywhere" type ads. These marketing ploys mention how e-cigarettes circumvent the smoking bans that are becoming more and more common around the entire globe. Appeals to convenience also mention how you no longer need to use a lighter to "light up" and may mention how there is no smell or second-hand smoke

3) Appeal to health

This is probably the biggest selling point, but also one of the reasons why e-cigarettes are getting so much heat from health organizations like the FDA. This marketing strategy argues that with electronic cigarettes, you can still smoke, but without any of the negative health consequences. Even though several toxicology studies reveal how healthy e-cigs are, the health effects are not tested for the long-term. Based on my research, I know that e-cigs are better for you than analogs and who can argue against that? The problem with OVERLY appealing to health is that it elevates e-cigs to a drug/delivery/nicotine replacement therapy device, which has to be regulated by the FDA. I argue that the most responsible e-cig companies do not make definitive claims about their health effects and instead sell them as devices for adults looking for a less harmful alternative to tobacco products (in a future article, i will examine several scientific studies about e-cigarette health). In other words, I believe it isn't the brand's job to educate the consumer about the health consequences of smoking or not smoking, much how the alcohol companies do not educate their customers about alcoholism !!

4) Appeal to cost

Most electronic cigarette brands argue that their products will save the consumer money. A lot of them make outrageous claims, such as how one cartridge = one pack of cigs. This is not true. What is true is that the consumer can expect to be dropping about half as much money on their nicotine fix, granted a larger sunk-cost of purchasing the devices and a maintenance cost of buying atomizers, batteries, and e-liquid/cartridges.

When shopping for e-cigs, it is important that the consumer is conscious of these marketing ploys so that he or she can separate a brand's actual selling points and value from the filler that almost every e-cig brand regurgitates.
Theres so many brands on the market right now. Which ones are the ripoffs? Sometimes the line is unclear. And other times it's obvious. Let's take a look at an obvious rip-off:

Prado Electronic Cigarettes

First off, here's a shot from their website:
If that doesn't look like an obvious rip-off, then I don't know what is. It looks like a fucking pron website, gambling website, or something else that will take your money with little return.

Their website title is That really sounds like a porn website and has nothing to do with e cigs. Also, wtf is up with the "hot chick". Looks fucking ridiculous.

A few more annoying things about their website:

-When you try to navigate away from it, a pop-up notification asks, "Are you sure you want to leave th website?!?!?"
-There is no store. You have to fill out personal information before you can do anything. You can't even see their products
-The youtube video on the bottom right corner of the screen
-The appeal to authority: "Dr. Sanjay Gupta Chief Medical Correspondent of CNN says, "This is becoming quite popular! Nicotine in and of itself is used to help people stop smoking..."and... "We had somebody who's a smoker try this and they were actually pretty surprised at how much it did feel like smoking, you do have the device that looks like a cigarette, your putting it to your mouth and puffing it like a cigarette. ..he was actually really surprised at how much it felt like a cigarette."

The sad thing is that google searches for Prado e-cigs result in mostly ripoff reports for the devices, such as this one:When I called to complain and discuss returning the ECIG4FREE. They actually laughed. No Returns, No Free Trial. I received the Prado cigarette with no instructions or booklet of any kind. No receipt. I had to figure out how to put it together. I received it Feb. 20, 2010. on Saturday. Today is Feb. 23, 2010 Tuesday.

Order placed 1/25/2010 $9.90 Charged to my account. FREE Trial 30 days on the website. 10 days according to Jake, the minute your credit card is approved.

NO Refunds. No Returns. They told me not to waste my time or shipping costs returning the product, they would only return it to me. The first charge was $9.90 then 2/12/10 they charged $149,000 to my card. 2/19/10 they hit my card again for $69.90.  They told me that I could not refund the product I have not even received yet. Or remove the charge.

 Today is the first day I tried and it taste bad, the cigarette is heavy and no way would even resemble a cigarette.

I thought it would help with trying to cut back. Wrong! It has a terrible taste and what part of any of this is a Free Trial?

Total Charges $229.70 I just hope the letter I sent will stop future charges. They sent refill cartridges according to Jake, that I have not received yet. But, I was billed for them and could not cancel, return, or void.

I think a lesson to all of us that would like to try something for Free should understand it will be at great cost in the end. If you think you can try it for free! Remmber, NOTHING IS FREE!

I guess the good thing is that it looks like they actually shipped the device to this poor guy. If you are looking to buy an e-cig that is not a ripoff, I suggest start reading up and getting educated on a place such as an online forum, in which people are not motivated by money (usually) to push a product.
Moving beyond nicotine?

Looks like companies are trying to capitalize on the potential to vaporize other substances besides nicotine in their e-cigs. Theoretically, you can vape just about any drug; it just has to be in the right form.

From the article:

Ads for the new product seemingly invite users not only to violate laws against smoking generally in public places, but also laws against the use of marijuana itself, suggesting that you can now smoke weed in public without attracting attention: "the latest buzz in the pot world: Vapor Rush . . . Vapor Rush is a new way to smoke bud that allows you to smoke anywhere without a lighter, smell, shake, smoke and unwanted attention."  Users are invited to get high from "three different varieties [of marijuana]: haze, bliss and rush . . .taken from potent sativa and indica strains of cannabis."

Hmmm, it seems that this could be a potential setback for e-cigarettes. If people begin seeing them as a hippy-stoner drug delivery device, then it could incite protest towards e-cigarettes. However, there is huge potential for those who enjoy smoking marijuana.And to make things even more complicated (or more stupid), these companies are trying to sell devices that are designed for smoking weed. I'm calling bullshit on this one. I would think that vaping bud out of a prodigy v3 or a mod would be the best way to go. Furthermore, the website claims that the user can buy cartridges at their local dispensary. Based on my research, I have yet to find a dispensary that sells these cartriges. The best that one can do is make their own marijuana e-liquid. For example, form doing a google search, I found that users have successfully vaped marijuana out of an e-cig for quite some time:

One user from the grasscity forums posted this:

hash oil tends to clog my atomizer. But if you dont mind cleaning it your self and taking the risk (ie have a spare on hand) give it a try it gets you high.

The better solution i have found is to dissolve the oil in a glycerine tincture similar to the diy e-liquids. I put 1 tsp glycerine to 1/2 gram of oil to maintain potency. I use a coffe warmer to heat it to speed the mixture. This still clogs the atomizer eventually but no more then standard e-liquids in my opinion.

In conclusion, people have been experimenting with the potential to combine hash oil with a substance like Propylene glycol. 

With marijuana legalization up on the ballots in California next election, it might be yet another idea that e-cig companies can capitalize on. But it is not yet clear whether or not this is a good or bad thing for the world of vapes and the public's acceptance of e-cigs.
It has already happened in New York in which e-cigarettes have been banned. I recently stumbled across a news article:
"Chicago -- Testing and safety information on electronic cigarettes is limited, the American Medical Association said, and the devices should be restricted.The AMA House of Delegates adopted policy at the organization's Annual Meeting in June recommending that e-cigarettes be classified as drug delivery devices that are subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, state legislatures should prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes and all other nicotine devices that are not FDA-approved, and the products should be covered by smoke-free laws, the policy says.

"I want them subject to [FDA] regulations so people know exactly what they're inhaling," said Atlanta internist Sandra Fryhofer, MD, a member of the AMA Council on Science and Public Health.

The FDA said it detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, during examination of a small sample of cartridges from two leading e-cigarette brands. In several other samples, the agency identified carcinogens in the cartridges, including nitrosamines, which can be found in tobacco smoke."

Courts have ruled that the FDA is not allowed to regulate e-cigarettes. Now, politicians are clamoring to get them to regulate it again. Sure, some of us may think that this a good thing. But not if they stop shipments from China, or even outright ban them. 

Also, New York law states no longer allows for the sale of e-cigarettes until the FDA tests them. This disregards mountains of scientific evidence and toxicology analysis that proves that they are safer than analogs. 

To give them a little credit, it's true that no long-term study has been done concerning their health effects. But whats so bad about 2 or 3 carcinogens that they may potentially find in e-cigs as opposed to the thousands found in analogs? Why not target tobacco rather than a safer alternative? 


Here's an excerpt from a "news" article I found about electronic cigarettes:

MIAMI, June 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Since the concept was first developed almost seven years ago, Green Smoke has capitalized on advances in technology to develop its patented design and catapult the electronic cigarette into the global market, as consumer awareness and demand increases.

electronic cigarette is a personal, battery-operated vaporizer that mimics traditional cigarettes offering smokers interested in switching an array of benefits.

When the product was first introduced, it generally had heavy batteries that did not hold a charge well. The shape and design resembled that of a pen with a slick plastic surface. The quality and consistency of the smoke volume and nicotine delivery system also varied. Moreover, every time users wanted to refill their e cigarettes they had to juggle several small components, including the atomizer (the part of the device that produces the vapor), a liquid nicotine solution, the battery, and other mouth piece components.


Although it should be obvious to the educated customer, a lot of e-cig companies are putting out fake news through companies like PR Newswire. This is certainly not anything new. A ton of companies have done fake news ad campaigns. Ads like "natural sexual enhancement" have shown up in magazines for years that feign authenticity.

However, the problem is that in the e-cigarette world, we get a dispraportionate amount of fake news and it's hard to break through all the clutter. Most of the news is what we already know. E-cigs are a safer alternative to cigarettes, they don't smell, you save money... you know the story. But companies like BluCig, puresmoke (not to be confused with puresmoker) and gamucci purport that their product is somehow patented and innovative.

People in the know (mainly people who browse realize that all this is just marketing and branding. In reality, there are about three standard atomizers that are all produced in china. Companies repackage and rebrand the chinese-made products into something chic, stylish, fashionable, and avant-garde when in reality, they are overpricing their products and providing shitty customer service.

I've heard many bad stories about e-cig websites (i'll come up with a comprehensive list soon) in which customers get stuck on some sort of subscription-model service in which they are shipped overpriced catridges. Also, many people's first introduction to e-cigs is at malls, in which some uneducated salesman tries to wheedle people into buying their $100 crappy e-cigs that break in about a week.

So I'm urging all vapers to get educated and be wary of fake news. This post is a rant, and I am not yet informing the reader of which brands to buy/avoid (save that for a post to come shortly). Get educated, read the forums, and tell your friends.
If you've stumbled across the page, chances are you know what an electronic cigarette or personal vaporizer is. This is not to be confused with herbal vaporizers.

Here's an interesting note about that: for the longest time, the community called personal vaporizers "e-cigarettes" or "e-cigs". I believe that nowadays, they are moving towards the word "vape" as to not confuse the uneducated public that gets up-in-arms when they hear the word "cig". Vape is certainly more accurate, but the marijuana community has been using that word for far longer than the e-cigarette community. I personally do not have a preference and you will be hearing that word used interchangeably.

Nothing is actually being smoked, but rather, vaporized. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to call these devices a "cigarette" because there is no tobacco in them. More and more, PVs are no longer looking like cigarettes and have developed their own culture that is completely separate from tobacco use.

So if someone asks you "what is that you are smoking?" Here are a few things you might say:

1) "It's a nicotine inhaler."
-This is one of my favorite responses. There is no confusion here. Merely inhaling nicotine cannot really be confused with smoking it. It gives off the feeling that it is some sort of medicinal device.

2) "It's an electronic cigarette."
-Not a bad response either. One guy once replied to me, "Damn, even cigarettes have gone digital now!"

3) "It's a vaporizer"
-This is okay, but people often ask me, "So can you smoke weed out of it?"

4) "It's an e-cigarette"
-This is what I get: "Wait... you're smoking ecstasy?"