“Smoke” a Cigar without the Stink

If you buy something from a link in this article, we may earn a commission. Learn more

vaporcorpIn my opinion smokers either have a death wish or are just plain crazy. I can’t stand the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke and was very happy when my town (Columbus, IN) banned smoking in restaurants. Of course, not everyone feels like I do, so here’s a healthier alternative that cigar smokers might want to check out. It’s the Smoke 51 Electronic Cigar from VaporCorp. It gives the the sensation of smoking a cigar without annoying people with stinky cigar smoke. It lasts up to 600 puffs, contains no tar, no carbon monoxide, no toxins, no second-hand smoke and is fully disposable when finished. It’s available at Smoke51.com and is priced at $49.95.

14 thoughts on ““Smoke” a Cigar without the Stink”

  1. Gadgeteer Comment Policy - Please read before commenting
  2. The health factor of this object is that there is no first-hand or second-hand smoke to pollute the air.

    However, the object is a nicotine delivery system. And so the health factor of breathing in the vapor of this product has not been established.

  3. This is plain silly, just something else to appease ,the feeling of people trying to impose their way of life on others.
    Glad I live in Texas !

    1. @Al which ‘side’ of life are you on? The one where people have to put up with someone else’s stinky cigarettes or the side that is causing the stink? 😉

  4. @ Julie , I dont smoke, just dont approve of others trying to impose their agenda on anyone .
    If you go to a bar you should be able to drink and smoke.
    Dont go somewhere if you dont like what they do there simple.

    Still Glad I live in Texas . al

    1. @Al I don’t go to bars… Before they passed the no smoking in restaurants ordinance in my town, I hated going out to eat because of the so called smoker’s section. The smoke didn’t stay in that area, it would drift all over. I’m glad I no longer have to put up with smoked filled eyes and stink at my fave places to eat. Glad I still live in Columbus, IN.

  5. Since these devices don’t deliver any of the 200 or so known components of normal cigar/cigarette smoke (many of which are proven carcinogens) they are a good alternative for smokers trying to do something less harmful. There is still nicotine but that, in of itself, is not a recognized carcinogen though obviously highly addictive.

    The jury is still out on these overall, but most medical professionals will agree that they are “much less harmful” for smokers, and present almost zero risks for second hand ‘smokers’.

  6. Puff TheMagicDragon

    Who ever invented this has completely missed the point.

    Cigars are not an addiction like cigarettes. People do not smoke cigars because they have to, they do it because they want to.

    The rituals that go into cigar smoking are an integral part of the experience, the cutting the lighting, the sitting back kicking back and puffing. Its a celebration.

    Why would you pay for this instead stick on a nicorret patch.

    ps I do not and have smoked cigarettes and think its a pathetic addiction, but I do enjoy a good cigar with friends on special occasions. Support no smoking in restaurants but think its kinda silly in bars – but I do personally prefer it smoke free – they should have smoking bars and smoke free bars – let people choose.

  7. @ Fred your logic eludes me , However Puff on the other hand proves my point.
    Puff thank you for making , the point by using logic.

    Texas last stand of Freedom !

  8. Interesting. I though this was about cigars. It’s all about personal liberties and not having the govt decide what’s best for you. If someone wants to smoke, then they should be able to. It’s a legal activity and prohibition of any kind rarely works as we have seen over and over.

    Criminalization of tobacco, while at the same time the push to legalize marijuana by a few states seems a bit ridiculous. Bear in mind, I am a libertarian through and through, so if someone wants to smoke dope, have a cigar, be gay or what have you, it’s their choice as long as they don’t infringe on someone else. I could care less.

    With that being said, the govt should not be able to tell private business what to do. If an establishment wants to be smoke-free or cater to smokers then that should be their choice. And you can vote with your dollars by choosing one or the other.

    A bar that doesn’t allow smoking is a bit silly. But if you want to have one that doesn’t allow it, then so be it. That decision shouldn’t be forced on a bar or club owner.

    You are already seeing a bit of a backlash against the nanny state, non-smoking gestapo. Conroe, TX (a suburb of Houston) tried smoke free for about a year and repealed it because of the huge drop in tax revenue.

    Michigan, which went smoke free on May 1, is already reporting that some bars and restaurants are seeing a 40% drop in business. Not sure how that will help that cash-strapped state as far as tax revenue is concerned, when you put private businesses that fund the state out of business.

    Let people smoke if they want to. And patronize or don’t patronize the establishments as you see fit. Simple.

  9. @Puff: I totally agree with you, fellow aficionato. I smoke about one cigar a day, sometimes in hour house, sometimes while walking the dag. Like every *correct* cigar smoker, I don’t inhale, so nicotine is not the reason for smoking: the reason is the mainly taste, discovering the subtle flavours of hay, grass, vanilla, pepper and herbs in the creamy smoke. Compare it to enjoying a good whisk(e)y or rum.

    The reports on second hand smoke are by the way all quite exaggerated and manipulated. Given some facts (volume of smoke by one cigar, volume of the room, density of harmful particles etc. ) and doing some simple math, it’s obvious that second hand smoke delivers only a hundredth to a thousand (or even less!!) amount of harmful substances, compared to directly inhaling. Inhaling second hand smoke of one smoker in a closed room, is less harmful than driving on the highway and inhaling exhaust gasses. Or living next to a highway, or at a busy junction with a traffic light.

    Some number juggling, with made-up numbers. Let’s assume a heavy smoker has a 30% chance of dying from lung cancer, and for a none-smoker this is 1%. The media reports will state that a none-smoker has a 25% increased chance of dying from lung cancer, if he inhales second hand smoke on a daily basis. What does that mean? That means that his chance of 1% increases to 1.25%. So the absolute chance only increases by 0.25%. But a “25% increased chance” sounds a lot worse than 0.25%, doesn’t it? To make a quote: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”

    Let’s be realistic. By direct inhaling cigarettes, of course, you’ll get the full dosage and that is still quite unhealthy. But those numbers are also exaggerated. On average, one can smoke 3-4 cigarettes (or very small cigars) per day without a nominal increase of the chance of getting lung cancer or mouth/throat related diseases. There will always be people who’ll get cancer by smoking little (or not at all) and there will always be people who can smoke three packages a day and live forever. Alcohol is unhealthy too. So are fast food and aspartame. I’m sure it’s worse for your body to eat a fat burger every day, and drink ten glasses of coke Light, than to inhale (moderate) second hand smoke in a bar.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *