Wikipedia

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Heading

CBD cigarette unclear whether can be ecigs

[edit]

As I neither smoke nor vape I am confused. The “Further information: CBD cigarette” kind of implies that a CBD cigarette could be an ecig. Can it be clarified here and there whether that is right? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2025

[edit]

Change "E-cigarettes entered the European market and the US market in 2006 and 2007.[181]" to "E-cigarettes entered the European market and the US market in 2006.[1]" The source for citation 181 to the CASAA timeline and the cited original primary source within that page:

which the AUG 2006 entry cites --> https://rulings.cbp.gov/search?term=m85579&collection=ALL&sortBy=RELEVANCE&pageSize=30&page=1

The current citation does not cite any verifiable source for the 2006 claim, while the CASAA version shows it's homework. Policynut (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done CASAA is an advocacy association for vapers, so I'm not exactly sure this is an independent source. Whenever possible, we want to base our articles on independent sources. Besides, a tariff ruling does not mean that the items already arrived in the United States. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2025

[edit]

Since there isn't a description of an "e-hookah" or "e-shisha" without linking it to BLOW brand, request to change this:

BLOW started selling e-hookahs, an electronic version of the hookah in 2014.[431] The handle of each hose for the e-hookah contains a heating element and a liquid, which produces vapor.[432] Gopal Bhatnagar, based in Toronto, Canada, invented a 3D printed adapter to turn a traditional hookah into an e-hookah.[433] It is used instead of the ceramic bowl that contains shisha tobacco.[434] Rather than the tobacco, users can insert e-cigarettes.[434]

to this:

E-hookahs or e-shishas are electronic alternatives to traditional hookah smoking. Businesses like AIR Global have patented several electronic shisha technologies that focus on harm reduction without compromising on the experience, like OOKA, which, unlike traditional shisha, does not rely on charcoal combustion to heat tobacco and instead uses electronically controlled heat to vaporize specially designed pods containing authentic molasses. This approach eliminates the need for charcoal, resulting in a cleaner experience with reduced harmful emissions.

Similar to other innovations in e-hookah systems—such as BLOW’s electronic hookahs and modular adapters that convert traditional hookahs to vapor-based use, OOKA reimagines the traditional hookah ritual through modern technology. By integrating a pod-based system and intelligent heat regulation, OOKA and similar e-shishas exemplify the shift toward combustion-free alternatives. 5.195.236.34 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That is promotional content. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (It's possible that there would be a consensus instead for e-cigarette, but no reason was given for that alternative.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette → VapeVape – “Vape” is the common name for this object and has even been the term used in reliable sources such as news articles and you would never hear someone in person refer to this as an “electronic cigarette” or “e-cigarette” so “electronic cigarette” is no longer known as the common name. “Vape” is also an official term for this object and not a slang at all. Articles on wikipedia are named by common names and not official names. Prothe1st (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status quo or Vaping? (WP:GERUND) My impression is that "vape" is ordinarily a verb. See, for example, Smoking. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vape is used as a noun to refer to the device. My sense is that this is informal but it does appear in publications alone or as a synonym.[2][3][4] This article covers the device and the behavior so naming it after either seems fine. The subject of this article is probably the primary topic for vape and vaping unqualified, though it can refer to cannabis and other drugs. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose. I was surprised by the Ngram which shows vaping and vape have been more common for a while. Google Scholar since 2021 has 21,100 hits for electronic cigarette; 17,000 for e-cigarette; 16,300 for vaping; and 16,100 for vape. Looking just at publications since 2024, electronic cigarette remains in the lead and only drops to 20,900 (also surprising) while the others have larger drops. Note that many sources use multiple terms so raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I pasted the 426 (!) references from the article in a document and did a text search. I found 142 instances of e-cigarette; 102 of electronic cigarette; 37 of vaping and 23 of vape. Overall, I find electronic cigarette is still the best term. It's not likely to "astonish" and reliable source still favor this term, even if informal usage favors vape. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Electronic cigarette is also more precise/unambiguous. See: Vaporizer (inhalation device). My sense is that nicotine vapes/e-cigs is the primary topic for vape/vaping but that would need to be established if this change is to be considered. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Myceteae, "vape" can refer to a vaporizer of various substances, but vape is a redirect to electronic cigarette instead of vaporizer (inhalation device) because the term typically refers to these electronic simulators of nicotine smoking. That this article currently ends with a electronic cigarette#cannabis vaping section to lead readers to CBD cigarette as the second-most common type of vaping shows that the current structuring of these related articles appropriately disambiguates an overarching term. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate move to E-cigarette, but oppose proposed move due to vagueness of "vape", which can also refer to vaporizers of various types. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd oppose both this move and Zxcvbnm's alternative proposal for the time being, although obviously someone searching for vape or e-cigarette needs to find pointers to here. I'm sure that popular culture will settle on "vape" in time, but I don't feel we're quite there yet.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per User:S Marshall and User:Myceteae. How global is "vape", I wonder? Our many non first language readers may not know it. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harm reduction paragraph comments

[edit]

I consider a paragraph in the article to have several problems. I'll discuss the sentences in that paragraph one-by-one to point out these problems:

  • "Tobacco harm reduction has been a controversial area of tobacco control."
    OK. I'm not too sure why reducing harm would need to be controversial, but OK.
  • "Health advocates have been slow to support a harm reduction method out of concern that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to sell products that will lower the risks associated with tobacco use."
    That may be one concern that health advocates have, but probably a more common view of health advocates is that even if it is possible to sell products that reduce the amount of harm involved in using tobacco (or nicotine), it would be better to try to get people to stop using it than to reduce the amount of harm they experience while enabling them (and perhaps encouraging them) to continue (or begin) that harmful practice. Tobacco companies don't necessarily want to harm people – they just want to make money. There's also a sort of leap here into the idea that tobacco harm reduction would be something led by tobacco companies, which seems a bit dubious.
  • "A large number of smokers want to reduce harm from smoking by using e-cigarettes."
    OK, except I'm not sure what the definition of "smoking" is here. Is using e-cigarettes an alternative to smoking, or is it a type of smoking?
  • "The argument for harm reduction does not take into account the adverse effects of nicotine."
    This is nonsense and should definitely not be expressed in Wikivoice. We should not be directly stating in Wikivoice that the argument for reducing harm is clearly ignorant and wrong-headed.
  • "There cannot be a defensible reason for harm reduction in children who are vaping with a base of nicotine."
    This is opinionated judgmental nonsense that should not be expressed in Wikivoice. We should not be declaring the opinions of some people as impossible to defend. I'm sure there are some people who think that reducing the harmfulness of vaping for some children is worth considering when stopping them from doing it completely is not feasible. It is probably better than putting these children in prison, for example.
  • "Quitting smoking is the most effective strategy to tobacco harm reduction."
    Again this seems to be straying into advocacy, opinion or policy, and should not be expressed this way in Wikivoice. Quitting smoking is also not really a strategy. It is also not something easy to do or necessarily realistic for everyone.

Fixing all that will take some work, so I'm discussing it here. Some sources are cited in the paragraph to support these sentences. I haven't checked the sources, but I strongly suspect they are either not being accurately characterized or are not representative of a broad consensus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk)

So that you understand: This article was largely written and curated by QuackGuru, who I deliberately haven't pinged because it wouldn't be fair of me to ping him. He's not allowed to post here since he was topic banned from electronic cigarettes by Arbcom in this Arbcom case. After I brought that case, I intended to go through fixing the whole article and now, some years later, I still haven't got that far down.
QuackGuru's writing is profoundly problematic for all the reasons you cite and more. His way of writing was to find a scrupulously unimpeachable academic source and cite it carefully and precisely. Then he'd take the single sentence in that source that was most negative about electronic cigarettes and copy/paste it in the article, and then he'd group the sentences by topic. Any attempt to change any of those sentences in any way was instantly reverted with threats and warnings about original research.
The problems you identify are all a result of this procedure of his and not a result of any kind of consensus or, to be frank, basic editing competence.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very true! The article needs a thorough going-over. Having said that, at least the first few issues raised above are probably correct, especially for the US, where attidudes among "Health advocates" are still I think very different from those in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod@S Marshall İf you have any ideas could you explain at Talk:Electronic cigarette#What info should be in what articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine dependance

[edit]

Hello @S Marshall Not sure why you cut that? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see maybe don’t need as already have “Nicotine is highly addictive”? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is cannabis in scope?

[edit]

From first sentence seems not but is mentioned later. If in scope maybe rename article to “vape” or “vaping”? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters You said that not all vaporizers are ecigs. Which vaporizers are not and are you able to answer this? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not even read Vaporizer (inhalation device) before you attempted to merge it here? That article discusses types of inhalation devices that are not e-cigarettes and the first image in the article is of a vaporizer that is something other than an e-cigarette. Meters (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

undo of merger

[edit]

I've undone the undiscussed merger of Vaporizer (inhalation device) into this article. Not all vaporizers are e-cigarettes. Meters (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that current setup with two articles is correct or does not have overlap, but this certainly needs to be discussed. We mention types of inhalation devices that are not e-cigarettes in the current article. In fact, the first image in the article is of a vaporizer that is something other than an e-cigarette. It might make more sense to merge Electronic cigarette into Vaporizer (inhalation device). Meters (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters If you mean https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electronic_Cigarette_and_USB_Charger_(14939561277)_(retouched).jpg then please could you correct the file name and description Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm discussing Vaporizer (inhalation device). You attempted to merge this to Electronic cigarette, but Vaporizer (inhalation device) discusses types of inhalation devices that are not e-cigarettes and the first image in the article is of a vaporizer that is something other than an e-cigarette. Meters (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these should not have been merged. Both articles could use some work, certainly. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae@Meters If you have any idea what to do it would be great if you could reply to my post below Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info should be in what articles?

[edit]

Currently we have a bit of a mess I think with:

Electronic cigarette "Vape" and “vaping” redirect here.

Vaporizer (inhalation device)

Health effects of electronic cigarettes

Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol

Cloud-chasing

Construction of electronic cigarettes

Pod mod

Nicotine marketing

History of nicotine marketing

Regulation of nicotine marketing

Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing

Environmental impact of electronic cigarettes

Vaping-associated pulmonary injury

2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak

Regulation of electronic cigarettes

List of vaping bans in the United States

Effects of nicotine on human brain development

Vape shop

I know the subject is important but at the moment there is a lot of duplication and excess detail. I think there should be an article called “vape” about the devices and one called “vaping” about their use. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent more time reading this article and haven't read most of the others, but did look at Vaporizer (inhalation device) while participating in Talk:Electronic cigarette#Requested move 9 June 2025, and I became aware of the QuackGuru history while perusing the Talk page here at that time. So, my thoughts are based on recent, fairly limited engagement relative to the totality of the articles and the history. Thank you to the editors who have laid out the history and related articles here. I would suggest starting with one or two articles that are the main topics, probably this one and Vaporizer (inhalation device) and improving these incrementally to clarify their scope and improve the content. That could include selectively merging portions of the other articles. Certainly, removing unnecessary content from the other articles or merging some of the other articles into this one or Vaporizer at the same time is a good idea. I don't know how many articles there should ultimately be. I recall 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak was a big deal; that article is quite long and well-referenced. I've not read it to comment on its overall quality but I don't think it is inappropriate as a standalone article on its face. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Chidgk1! Agree with Myceteae that keeping 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak separate continues to make sense and vaping-associated pulmonary injury should be kept to describe the condition outside that outbreak. Whereas cigarette and smoking divide content between a specific cylindrical product and the broader practice of inhaling a combusted substance, AirshipJungleman29 put it nicely at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaping that "subjects such as this (and e.g. telephone v.s. telephoning) where the object is only notable in its use should not have separate articles". Thus, I disagree with a reorganization to "vape" and "vaping" articles and believe that the above move discussion's consensus to have vaporizer (inhalation device) describe a broader category of vaporization devices than electronic cigarette makes sense. Health effects of electronic cigarettes should be retained, but positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes should be merged into it because the latter conflates national medical organizations issuing statements and the results of studies funded by them. Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol can be retained as an analog to tobacco smoke, but it needs massive shortening because Wikipedia is not a repository of package labeling. Cloud-chasing should be kept as a distinct activity. Construction of electronic cigarettes should be merged here in a heavily summarized form. Every reader of electronic cigarette expects to at least learn about the device itself, and a separate article delving into "Squonk mods" sourced to Vaping360 is not helpful. Similarly, pod mod should be deleted because the ten sources offer no clarity on why this design is particularly notable. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving into the second half, nicotine marketing, history of nicotine marketing, and regulation of nicotine marketing should remain separate. Coming from a public health background, the law and history of advertising drugs is very different from the law and history of drugs themselves. While electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing needs drastic trimming, it should be kept because this marketing has been a second wave using new messages differentiating itself from prior nicotine marketing. Environmental impact of electronic cigarettes should be deleted as Electronic cigarette#environmental impact is sufficient. The former was created for as a Wiki Education assignment for the class "The Climate Crisis - Global Perspective, Mediterranean Context", informing why it overstates e-cigarettes as a distinct form of plastic trash. Regulation of electronic cigarettes should be kept for presenting a detailed analysis of regional law, while list of vaping bans in the United States lacks value because it toggles between bans as narrow as university policy to state law without commentary on trends to justify this level of detail. Effects of nicotine on human brain development should be merged to nicotine dependence, as the former is mostly focused on the latter and the latter is a more natural title (leftover info on fetal development can be covered at nicotine#pregnancy and breastfeeding. Finally, vape shop is classic QuackGuru stretching a few words from many sources to suggest similar notability to cannabis retail outlet. The info contained at vape shop seems to subdivide between the culture of vaping that can be described at cloud-chasing and policy described at regulation of electronic cigarettes. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, I would keep electronic cigarette, vaporizer (inhalation device), health effects of electronic cigarettes, composition of electronic cigarette aerosol, cloud-chasing, nicotine marketing, history of nicotine marketing, regulation of nicotine marketing, electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing, and regulation of electronic cigarettes; delete pod mod, environmental impact of electronic cigarettes, and list of vaping bans in the United States; and do the following merges:
Thanks for compiling this list! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ViridianPenguin Thank you very much for that detailed analysis - now we just need some keen student or newly retired person with healthier hands than me to do a load of editing! Or maybe one day I will get around to trying Siri or somesuch for editing. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support nominating pod mod, environmental impact of electronic cigarettes, and list of vaping bans in the United States for WP:AfD per VP. Not having read through all these articles, I am broadly supportive of the merge proposals. At the very least, conceptually it makes sense that these topics be combined as such. I don't have a good handle on the technical aspects of merging but I understand it is important for preserving page history for copyright/licensing reasons, among others. I agree this requires a significant amount of editing before merging and I'm not personally up to the task. Perhaps if a group wants to pick one or two to start with condensing, I could find time to help. While it is rather surprising to have so many articles in this topic area, the articles suggested to 'keep' seem reasonable, if bloated, and I'm not inclined to argue for their deletion or merger. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking cessation section is confusing me

[edit]

If the smoking cessation problem is that ecigs don’t supply the nicotine in high enough peaks then why cannot manufacturers redesign them to supply like combustibles?

Is the answer below from “Le Chat” right?

”The commonest reasons why e-cigarettes might not be designed to deliver nicotine in high peaks similar to combustible cigarettes are likely:

1. **Regulatory Constraints**: Many regions have regulations that limit nicotine content and delivery mechanisms in e-cigarettes to reduce addiction potential and health risks.

2. **Health Considerations**: A primary goal of e-cigarettes is often harm reduction. Mimicking the high nicotine peaks of combustible cigarettes could increase addiction risks and health concerns, which might not align with public health objectives.

3. **Technological Limitations**: The current technology in e-cigarettes, including heating elements and e-liquid formulations, may not be capable of efficiently delivering nicotine at the same high peaks as combustion.

These reasons are often at the forefront of discussions around e-cigarette design and usage, reflecting a balance between innovation, regulation, and public health priorities.” Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be a safe level for carcinogens?

[edit]

The article cites a 2010 study by Cahn and Siegal

The study says: “Whereas electronic cigarettes cannot be considered safe, as there is no threshold for carcinogenesis, they are undoubtedly safer than tobacco cigarettes.”

The article says “E-cigarettes cannot be considered safe because there is no safe level for carcinogens.”

I don’t have any medical knowledge but this does not sound right when comparing to other fields. For example as far as I know ionising radiation is a carcinogen but there is a safe level. And PM2.5 is a carcinogen but there is a WHO guideline level.

1) Is our sentence correct according to the source?

2) If it is correct then what have I misunderstood? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that sentence from the article. As was noted above at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction paragraph comments, this whole section is a bit of a mess. While the reference does use the phrase "[e-cigarettes] cannot be considered safe", it is essentially reaching the opposite conclusion from what the sentence that made it into the article is saying. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the safe/safer sex distinction: Back in the day, HIV prevention folks routinely talked about safe sex. However, "safe sex" isn't 100% safe; it's just safer than the alternative. After a while, safer sex became a preferred term among professionals. It sounds like the same thing is happening here: Ecigs are safer, but they're not 100% safe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for help with this article

[edit]
FYI

I have placed a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Electronic cigarette could use some help for outside help addressing the issues that have been identified on this Talk page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts

[edit]

I am a fan of excerpts and I think this article would benefit from several. As the health effects section here is too long I am going to move it to the main article and excerpt the lead of that back here. Of course that lead needs expanding and must have medically reliable cites. I hope people with medical knowledge and/or from the above project will help me improve that article. As those people presumably have a lot of work that should reduce the time they spend here by reducing duplication of stuff which needs medically reliable cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, thanks. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]