Another fear mongering article

[Ardo]

venturebeat .com/2013/03/04/cigarettes-health/
[rebuild link by removing any spaces]

This was published in Venturebeat yesterday.

On a positive note, comments are good

 

[sonicdsl]

This was published in Venturebeat yesterday.

On a positive note, comments are good

Commented. Elaine, Kristin & Bill need to work their magic though - they have a better way with words than do I.

 

[Ardo]

Commented. Elaine, Kristin & Bill need to work their magic though - they have a better way with words than do I.

Every comment that adds a little balance to this piece of crap journalism is good.

 

[rothenbj]

Commented, just another do gooder that can't keep their nose out of my life.

 

[Paulette]

Commented. Elaine, Kristin & Bill need to work their magic though - they have a better way with words than do I.

Sonicdsl - I think you did JUST FINE with your comments!

 

[kristin]

It's actually not that bad and has some balance. My problem (as with ANTZ studies) is the conclusion doesn't fit the evidence. so I commented:

Not the worst article about e-cigarettes I've ever read (and I've read a LOT) but this comment of your's made me pause:

"Which, if you ask me, is a pretty good reason to be more than a bit cautious with e-cigarettes — at least for now."

To whom is this comment directed? People who don't smoke and may (for some strange reason) be considering trying e-cigarettes? If that is the case then this is good advice.

However, surveys show that the vast majority of people trying e-cigarettes are SMOKERS. So, if this comment ("be cautious about e-cigarettes") is directed at them, do you not see the irony in it? That means those people would be SMOKING instead of using e-cigarettes.

Now, there is no dispute that what causes smoking-related diseases is SMOKE (not the nicotine, propylene glycol or flavorings that are also in cigarettes) and that e-cigarettes do not create SMOKE. So, how can anyone justify telling people who would otherwise be smoking not to use a product that has never been found to contain hazardous levels of ANY chemicals or carcinogens (trace amounts found by the FDA - in samples from two companies that were suing the FDA - does NOT mean it's a health hazard) and has not had any reports of significant adverse health effects?

You are basically telling smokers to be cautious of switching to something that is proven to be far less toxic (not toxic at all) and containing far less carcinogens (same as found in FDA-approved nicotine products) than what they are currently using! Isn't that like telling people jumping off a burning, sinking ship not to use the life raft because it might have a leak??

 

[Lilkurty]

I am just not as diplomatic as you Kristen


I'm not entirely sure why there is such controversy over the e cig. It's just simply a great invention that takes away all the harm and stink out of smoking leaving only the pleasant stuff that won't kill me. If you think it's bad for you, then that's a you problem not a me problem.
David Sweanor summed it up best in 2009 in the StarTrib:
"This is exactly what the tobacco companies[ I have to add Pharma, FDA, CDC, ALA, HC, and FED here as well ] have been afraid of all these years, an alternative method of delivering nicotine that is actually enjoyable," said David Sweanor, an adjunct law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in tobacco issues. "It took the Chinese, who are very entrepreneurial, and not burdened with all kinds of regulation, to take the risk."
For anti smokers I'll give you this analogy. Let's say you really enjoy your coffee everyday because it just gives that jolt that stimulants like caffeine and nicotine do but the only way to have it was as a gigantic suppository. Then some clever inventor comes along and offers you a more pleasant way to get your kick. Then someone else came along and said that drinking coffee was silly and could be harmful and that you should take this smaller suppository instead (it might cause suicidal thoughts or actions but we feel that the benefits far outweigh the risks. What would you do?

 

[Petrodus]

I am just not as diplomatic as you Kristen

I'm not entirely sure why there is such controversy over the e cig. It's just simply a great invention that takes away all the harm and stink out of smoking leaving only the pleasant stuff that won't kill me. If you think it's bad for you, then that's a you problem not a me problem.
David Sweanor summed it up best in 2009 in the StarTrib:
"This is exactly what the tobacco companies[ I have to add Pharma, FDA, CDC, ALA, HC, and FED here as well ] have been afraid of all these years, an alternative method of delivering nicotine that is actually enjoyable," said David Sweanor, an adjunct law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in tobacco issues. "It took the Chinese, who are very entrepreneurial, and not burdened with all kinds of regulation, to take the risk."
For anti smokers I'll give you this analogy. Let's say you really enjoy your coffee everyday because it just gives that jolt that stimulants like caffeine and nicotine do but the only way to have it was as a gigantic suppository. Then some clever inventor comes along and offers you a more pleasant way to get your kick. Then someone else came along and said that drinking coffee was silly and could be harmful and that you should take this smaller suppository instead (it might cause suicidal thoughts or actions but we feel that the benefits far outweigh the risks. What would you do?