Interesting Article Pre e-Cig About Nicotine

[CoderGuy]

I found this interesting, especially since it was published in 1998, so no anti e-cig bias (however, there was reference to the "new" smokeless cigs which sound amazingly similar to e-cigs of today)

Nicotine's Image Takes a Turn for the Worse

CoderGuy

[TropicalBob]

Thanks for posting that. A most disturbing article, even if a bit old. Nothing really has changed to clarify the good vs. bad nicotine use. That debate rages on. But at least this allows e-smokers like myself to understand the difference emerging between inhaled nicotine and absorbed nicotine.

This article is indicating that evidence shows that absorbing nicotine -- as from snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff, pipes and cigars if not inhaled -- is better for the cardiovascular system and free from risks to the lungs. Inhaled nicotine poses unique threats, both short and long term.

That position certainly could explain Sen. Richard Burr's "continuum of risk" chart that he showed the Senate, placing e-cigarettes at higher danger than any of the other smokefree alternatives.

There are too many startling statements in this article to reference them all, but suffice it to say this is the kind of roundabout right e-smoking might not foresee coming from the FDA. Reason to ban? Read this article. The reason might be there.

[CoderGuy]

There are too many startling statements in this article to reference them all, but suffice it to say this is the kind of roundabout right e-smoking might not foresee coming from the FDA. Reason to ban? Read this article. The reason might be there.

I agree, I was going to quote from the article but then couldn't decide what to quote as there were so many notable statements. It has definitely made me think a little about my vaping habits. I've been taking the "Atkins Diet" approach with the mindset, "I can eat as much zero carb stuff as I want and lose weight", however, too many calories are still too many calories. Maybe I will start limiting my vaping to "need" rather than "want".

I also like that not only is it informative, but seems to be fairly un-biased and balanced. I doubt we would find a smoking/tobacco/nicotine related article these days as well thought out and researched.

CoderGuy

[seminolewind]

I don't think I've ever heard of someone losing their hands and legs from nicotine. This article sounds a bit biased to me. 1 in 10 will go back to smoking if they use the gum? I would think 9 would go back to smoking.
I know I would be a smoker for life. To me, anything is safer than inhaling burning tobacco, and I still have the opportunity to cut the nicotine.

[CoderGuy]

I don't think I've ever heard of someone losing their hands and legs from nicotine. This article sounds a bit biased to me. 1 in 10 will go back to smoking if they use the gum? I would think 9 would go back to smoking.
I know I would be a smoker for life. To me, anything is safer than inhaling burning tobacco, and I still have the opportunity to cut the nicotine.

Actually it's called Buerger's disease and it's pretty scary! I had never heard of it until I saw it on a quit smoking site when I was going to quit.

Here is one account: Brandon Carmichael - Smoking Got Me! - My Story


CoderGuy

[TropicalBob]

You read it wrong, SeminoleWind. The doctor said if his patient had been off cigarettes, on nicotine gum, for three months and there was a 1-in-10 chance that patient would return to cigarettes .. then the doctor would keep the patient on nicotine gum beyond the recommended three months.

But if that's the most important thing you got from that article, then you really missed the point, many points in fact. It's an incredibly important article and bias has nothing to do with what it is relating.