News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @12:16PM (#11637383)
> But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

Not really. The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.

The way it benefits them is that smaller players can afford the regulation less, ensuring the tobacco manufacturers can get a total lock on the market.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Thursday May 05, 2016 @03:56PM (#11639215)
> The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.

I'm curious what leads you to believe this? Perhaps they lead in the "gas station disposables" market, but almost no one uses those. Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:22PM (#11639387)
> I'm curious what leads you to believe this?

All the available sales data, such as this: http://www.journalnow.com/blu-ecigs-brand-has-lost-market-sh...

According to Nielsen data as of May 16, Vuse has a 35.7 percent U.S. market share as measured by all distribution channels for e-cigs. Vuse is available at more than 100,000 retail outlets nationwide.

Blu eCigs was second in market share at 22.7 percent, while Logic was third at 13.8 percent. Logic was bought recently by Japan Tobacco.

There is a lot of data missing from independent vape shops, yes. But the numbers we have indicate Big Tobacco is moving near a billion dollars worth of e-cigs a year.

> Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.

People serious about coffee buy their own beans sourced from great growers, get a grinder, etc etc. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.

And at any rate, parts and liquids sourced from independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites sounds exactly like the kind of thing that should be regulated and inspected.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:37PM (#11639485)
> Nielsen data focuses primarily on convenience-store sales. Data includes vaporizers, or open vapor products, but those are more frequently bought at vape shops and tobacco outlet stores.

> Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.

I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Try this: for the next few weeks when you're out and about, pay attention to the types of ecigs people are using in public, I guarantee you it isn't the tiny Blu or Vuse disposables; I see at least 25 people a day using ecigs in the wild, and I have literally never seen anyone using one of these disposables that is being reported on in that statistic.

Or if you are genuinely curious in discovering the correct answer to this question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=vuse&...

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=blu&r...

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:47PM (#11639550)
Possible you live in a bubble. (Or more than possible. I mean, you're treating Reddit as representative.) I've seen a couple of custom-assembled vapes out and about, and a hell of a lot of gas station disposables.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Forbo on Thursday May 05, 2016 @08:06PM (#11640697)
Anecdote vs. anecdote. Until manufacturers of non-disposable units start publishing their sales numbers, this is just spinning tires in the mud.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Thursday May 05, 2016 @05:04PM (#11639652)
> a hell of a lot of gas station disposables.

Based on the virtually unanimous opinion on reddit (or any other ecig forum for that matter) that disposables suck, as well as never seeing them in public, I find that "a little" hard to believe.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @09:03PM (#11640953)
Using e-cig forums as a measure of e-cig marketshare is like using headphone forums as a measure of headphone marketshare.

Most people don't have Sennheisers.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Friday May 06, 2016 @08:10AM (#11643358)
But my totally scientific survey of the Head-Fi forums says you're wrong!
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Friday May 06, 2016 @09:06AM (#11643657)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. One key difference that comes to mind: people that buy a pair of Sennheisers doesn't typically run out and try and convert all of his friends and relatives who are using Beats, whereas with ecigs it is quite common (maybe because in this case it involves, you know, life or death).
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by nyolfen on Thursday May 05, 2016 @07:03PM (#11640368)
seconding your anecdote. I use an ecig myself, and I live next to a college campus -- I'd probably say I see about five people a day using them. I have never seen someone using one of the cig-like disposable types.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by dragonwriter on Friday May 06, 2016 @03:00PM (#11645971)
> I use an ecig myself, and I live next to a college campus

And college campuses (and the areas around them) are totally a representative cross-section of the general; population on all things, including mechanisms of tobacco consumption, right?

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Friday May 06, 2016 @05:10PM (#11646749)
Do you have reason to think they wouldn't be representative?

Your tone makes it sound like you're kind of hostile to the very idea, do you have some personal attachment to the matter?

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by dragonwriter on Friday May 06, 2016 @05:28PM (#11646837)
> Do you have reason to think they wouldn't be representative?

The fact that they are demonstrably not representative of the general population by age, income, education, or, really, just about any other variable that has been studied makes it very unlikely that they'd be, except coincidentally, representative as far as purchasing patterns for any particular good for which a variety of options exists (unless its a good purchases nearly exclusively by college students, but that's clearly not the case here.)

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Thursday May 05, 2016 @06:17PM (#11640092)
No doubt. After all, it plainly doesn't suit your prejudice on the matter.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Thursday May 05, 2016 @07:39PM (#11640555)
My prejudice has no effect on reality though, does it? So what is the reality?
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mnky9800n on Friday May 06, 2016 @03:20AM (#11642285)
It's hard to take you seriously when your evidence is, "just look at all the people around you using real e-cigs not that cheap 7-11 crap."
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by mistermann on Friday May 06, 2016 @08:58AM (#11643616)
Judging product popularity by visible usage is a dumb idea? So if you see lots of people driving Toyotas, and only rarely (or never) see someone driving a Ferrari, you wouldn't take seriously someone who speculated that Toyota unit sales are higher than Ferrari?
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by dragonwriter on Friday May 06, 2016 @02:58PM (#11645967)
> try this: for the next few weeks when you're out and about, pay attention to the types of ecigs people are using in public

I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Who you encounter isn't a representative sample of the population, its skewed by your own age, location, socioeconomic class, etc.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by aab0 on Thursday May 05, 2016 @12:45PM (#11637667)
Bootleggers and Baptists... I wonder how all the hysterical anti-tobacco organizations, who see anything with nicotine in it as the second coming of tobacco smoking, feel about that? It should feel awkward.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @12:55PM (#11637753)
Well, I favor it. Just because it favors Big Tobacco doesn't mean it doesn't simultaneously do some good. Big Tobacco's self interest is, in this case, what I consider to be the general interest.

It was actually incredible to me that e-cigs got away with so little regulation for so long in the first place. The only thing I'm worried about is it's too little, too late: there are a lot of people now who are hooked on nicotine who weren't before, and the constant barrage of marketing claiming they are perfectly safe is only making matters worse.

And yes, I recognize that it possibly has some use in helping smokers quit or move to a nicotine delivery system that is most probably less harmful. If that's the justification for e-cigs, then limit sales to smokers.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @12:57PM (#11637781)
There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there evidence you can cite for that? That's a surprising statement.

E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use. Virtually none of my smoker friends stick with them for very long.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:06PM (#11637887)
> There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there evidence you can cite for that?

I said "who weren't before", i.e., there are new nicotine addicts who became addicted through e-cig usage (and probably would not have become addicted otherwise.) I did not say, and I doubt, that there are more nicotine addicts than before given the general downward trend in smoking.

I generally see two types of people vaping or using e-cigs: middle schoolers and smokers who want an additional fix, often in places they aren't allowed to smoke - for some reason a huge number of vapers, etc. think that no-smoking rules don't apply to them. I've seen people get violent over being asked to stop vaping in a no-smoking area twice.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:08PM (#11637914)
Can you present data to back this up? I would be surprised to learn that it was true. Middle schoolers, for instance, can get cigarettes even more easily than they can e-cigs†, and while vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

I guess I'm saying: I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking. Cigarettes already do a pretty amazing job of introducing people to smoking.

† As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping, but not entirely surprised to see them with a cigarette. If I saw a teenager vaping, "tobacco" would not be my first guess as to the intoxicant involved.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:30PM (#11638080)
> Can you present data to back this up?

I framed it the way I did because all I have is anecdotes. When I say "a lot of people are addicted to nicotine that weren't before" this is substantiated by my personal knowledge of around three dozen individuals.

> I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking.

There are more than three hundred million people in the US. E-cigs are a multibillion dollar industry. It would be astonishing if there was no one introduced to nicotine by e-cigs.

> vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

> As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping,

Some of this is probably cultural. I've never been to Chicago, but Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago. I live in a southern rural area, and from what a teacher friend tells me and from my own observation, about a third of local middle schoolers vape. I can definitely believe this is an outlier, but even that's too much, in my opinion, considering it didn't have to be that way. There are much fewer smokers, and that's been about constant.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:32PM (#11638105)
"Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago".

This city is practically made of sausage. Its official vegetable is bacon.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has gotten hooked on nicotine by way of e-cigarettes, but it's nowhere close to cigarettes. A 12 year old can get a pack of cigarettes and hand them out to their friends. Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:39PM (#11638171)
If we assume that childhood obesity is a reasonable proxy for health, then Chicago is healthier than my state: 25% vs 31%. [1] [2] (I use state because nobody is publishing statistics on the local level.)

> Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.

They just pass them around if someone doesn't have one.

[1] http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/CDP...

[2] http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/3593.pdf

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:40PM (#11638184)
They really don't.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Amezarak on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:44PM (#11638210)
I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what I see daily in front of the school.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @02:05PM (#11638405)
I remain skeptical. I did some research, and the reports I found suggest that e-cig usage among teenagers is rare relative to cigarettes, and that most teenage e-cig users are former cigarette smokers. And again, as a parent of two children in roughly this age group, what you're saying you see every day conflicts with my own experience.

I think you're wrong about the general argument you're trying to make about e-cigarettes.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Retric on Thursday May 05, 2016 @02:23PM (#11638560)
About 5 of every 100 middle school students (5.3%) reported in 2015 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 0.6% in 2011.

About 2 of every 100 middle school students (2.3%) reported in 2015 that they smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth...

Findings from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey show that current e-cigarette use (use on at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school students increased from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014, rising from approximately 660,000 to 2 million students http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-use...

PS: Why do you constantly say stuff like this when fact's are clearly not on your side?

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by WillPostForFood on Thursday May 05, 2016 @03:25PM (#11639004)
But note that on the page you cite it says that overall tobacco use in middle school has not changed since 2011. So kids are substituting a more dangerous product (cigarettes) for a less dangerous product (vaping).
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Retric on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:25PM (#11639408)
That's reversing a long term trend of decreasing tobacco use among middle school students. Current usage patterns mean e-sig users tend to go back to tobacco at some point. Thus e-sig's may in fact act like the mythical 'gateway' drug among middle school students.

During 2000--2009, the prevalence of current tobacco use among middle school students declined (15.1% to 8.2%), as did current cigarette use (11.0% to 5.2%) and cigarette smoking experimentation (29.8% to 15.0%)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a2.htm

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by tptacek on Thursday May 05, 2016 @02:38PM (#11638680)
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by collyw on Thursday May 05, 2016 @01:33PM (#11638117)
Smoking an vaping are different. Why should no smoking rules apply to vaping?
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Thursday May 05, 2016 @04:51PM (#11639577)
Because I don't want to breathe your diacetyl and propylene glycol mist any more than you want to breathe my cigarette smoke.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by jrockway on Friday May 06, 2016 @02:25AM (#11642077)
So are you also banning asthmatics from using their inhaler in public? You're getting secondhand propylene glycol from them too!

I don't smoke or vape, but I really don't see why vaping is so unpopular. Is it just "drugs are bad" again? I again don't get it, as nobody complains about seeing people drinking coffee in public. As far as I can tell, caffeine and nicotine are similar drugs with different delivery mechanisms. Except nobody is worried about high school students getting hooked on caffeine from flavored coffee beverages.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Friday May 06, 2016 @08:08AM (#11643353)
When asthmatics start leaving thick, persistent clouds of inhaler mist behind them as they walk, you'll have a point there.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by jrockway on Friday May 06, 2016 @06:22PM (#11647131)
I guess if you want to pollute, you have to make the pollution invisible, like cars do.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by collyw on Friday May 06, 2016 @07:30AM (#11643148)
But you will happily walk along streets with diesel fumes being pumped out? I don't suppose you might even contribute to those fumes yourself?
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwanem on Friday May 06, 2016 @08:01AM (#11643315)
Mind those goalposts, now. We're talking about no-smoking areas, not no-driving streets.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by collyw on Thursday May 12, 2016 @02:53PM (#11685818)
Isn't the assumption that smoking laws should apply to vaping moving the goalposts?
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by throwaway160303 on Thursday May 05, 2016 @10:21PM (#11641254)
I'm with you, and I also don't want to breathe the halitosis-infused mist expelled by my coworkers. Seems reasonable to me to have some legislation on the books to require people who work in a shared workplace to brush their teeth.
Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by nitrogen on Thursday May 05, 2016 @11:33PM (#11641503)
E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use.

Unfortunately my friends of friends who vape didn't get this memo. People who never would have picked up smoking are now addicted to vaping.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by Zigurd on Thursday May 05, 2016 @02:56PM (#11638818)
Assuming more people use nicotine than before, and you have no proof of that, regulating e-cigs without showing negative health effects is a bad idea.

It's also a bluenose idea: Kids are using a mind altering drug! OMG! Other than the approved ones like caffeine in Mountain Dew and Coke, which, with the sugar, are certainly more harmful than nicotine.

Re:Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them by snowwrestler on Thursday May 05, 2016 @02:29PM (#11638601)
They're pleased with the regulation. Example:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_05_0...