Columbus (Nebraska) Telegram - ecig article

Status
Not open for further replies.

JerryRM

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Nov 10, 2009
18,018
69,879
Rhode Island
Altogether, a pretty fair article. I kept reading, waiting for the dread "antifreeze" line, but it never came. Seems like things may be looking up on the PR front.

I get a kick out of the "antifreeze" reference. What it really states is that antifreeze is dangerous, not DG or PG. They could also say that "water is an ingredient in antifreeze which is dangerous to humans" and they would be correct! :lol:
 

JerryRM

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Nov 10, 2009
18,018
69,879
Rhode Island
Decent article, I think it at least brings more attention to our chosen alternative and the existence of a decent analog alternative. Sure wish this question of being "safe" could be answered for the public once and for all!

Yes, I thought it was a fair article. As for the ecig being safe, it's much safer than an analog, that's a given, even by most people who are opposed to the ecig.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I posted a reply, but it hasn't been "approved" yet. I used my "Ben & Jerry's" line :D:

"Cough Cough
Dec 28, 2009 9:15 AM
It looks like people with a vested interest in e-cigs are posting here. Way to many facts for an actual smoker to understand."


What Treece said is right. I know Treece from an online forum we belong to dedicated to educating people and helping them with electronic cigarettes. A lot of us have done the research on these devices, because we want to know the TRUTH.

The FDA looked into e-cigs because an organization called ASH opposes them and demanded they ban them. Further research by members showed that ASH is funded largely by Pfizer, a maker of many smoking cessation drugs - who actually does have a vested interest in seeing e-cigs kept off the market.

Extensive testing was done by Health New Zealand, an independent lab run by a doctor who studies tobacco smoking, and it found that the brand tested was free of the most deadly toxins found in tobacco smoke and they should be considered a safer alternative (100 to 1,000 times safer). This is coming from a doctor who is anti-smoking!
The Ruyan® (nicotine) E-Cigarette

The other thing that should be mentioned is that using these to "smoke" where smoking is banned isn't accurate. They do not produce smoke. There is NO smoke. The vapor, unlike smoke, is visible, but it is practically odorless, non-irritating and dissipates quickly. There is also no "sidestream" vapor (like a lit cigarette produces even when just being held.) The e-cigarette vapor is only made when the user inhales it, so most of it is absorbed in the lungs. So, people fearful of second hand smoke need not be concerned by "second hand vapor," because they would most likely not even notice it, unless they see the mist. My sister-in-law is a non-smoker and she lets me use the e-cig in her car, because she can't even tell that I'm using it, unless she sees the mist!

People may not know the long-term affects of using e-cigarettes, but they do know that they are made up of less harmful ingredients than tobacco cigarettes. To tell people to not use e-cigarettes, because they are not completely safe is basically telling them to just keep smoking tobacco cigarettes, which everyone KNOWS are deadly.

We know that e-cigarettes are not "healthy." They aren't meant to be. But it's obvious to the most simple person that something that DOESN'T contain tar, arsenic, ammonia and huge amounts 60+ known carcinogens is going to be better for you than something that does. E-cigs have been PROVEN not to contain those things.

Like I've posted in other comments: Telling someone not to use e-cigarettes, because they still contain some trace carcinogens, is like telling an obese person, who is trying to eat healthier, to go ahead and keep eating Ben & Jerry's, because lowfat yogurt still contains "some" fat.
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,283
7,704
Green Lane, Pa
I posted a reply, but it hasn't been "approved" yet. I used my "Ben & Jerry's" line :D:

Kristin, you should become "Spokes Writer" for this movement.

"Practically odorless" flashed me to my poker game on Saturday. We were down to four people still alive when one of the guys (a big, big anti-smoker guy by the way) mentioned the smell of chocolate and the other two agreed. One said they must be cooking something up in the kitchen. About five minutes later they brought the subject up again when I realized I had just taken a hit on my PV.

I laughed and said nobody's cooking, I'm vaping chocolate. The anti-smoker said "Damn, that smells good, maybe I should try it". I told him if he did, he better get 0 Nic because he's one of those anti ex's that "quit cold turkey".

I have yet to have anyone give me a hard time about vaping, just a lot of questions.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Posted but not yet approved:

If what Ms. Mueller knows about electronic cigarettes "is very limited" it is because she has not bothered to do much research--and that is where the danger lies. She is in a position to do a great deal of harm.

The University of Alberta conducted a survey of users and 79% report that they have successfully substituted the electronic cigarette for all their tobacco cigarettes. An additional 17% report they have significantly reduced the number of tobacco cigarettes they smoke--an important step toward quitting.

In contrast, the FDA-approved nicotine cessation products have a success rate of no more than 10% after 1 year. The same University of Alberta survey also shows that 95% of electronic cigarette users report improvements in their lung health. Read the report: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

Over 13,000 people signed the Electronic Cigarette Petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available) and the same themes show up again and again in comments: I smoked for decades. I tried everything else to quit. This worked. I can breathe better. I stopped wheezing and coughing. My blood pressure is lower.

So if the goal is to get people to stop inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, arsenic and other poisons in smoke, then the electronic cigarette is 800% better than FDA-approved products. If the goal is to save lives, then the choice between inhaling tobacco smoke or inhaling vaporized nicotine is clear.

If the goal is to keep people smoking cigarettes, wheezing and coughing, having heart attacks, and developing tumors, then Ruth Mueller has the right idea.
 

Kimmy

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 3, 2009
2,043
205
I think we need to start at least TRYING to get on the FDA's good side. Perhaps a warning label similar to traditional cigarettes. "This product has not been tested, nicotine is extremely addictive, use at your own risk"

We have to do something to shut them up.

And IF the FDA does make them illegal, it means nothing. Many things are illegal, and people still do it.
 

Katmar

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
  • Sep 19, 2009
    4,657
    90,582
    Tranquility, R. I.
    Posted but not yet approved:

    If what Ms. Mueller knows about electronic cigarettes "is very limited" it is because she has not bothered to do much research--and that is where the danger lies. She is in a position to do a great deal of harm.

    The University of Alberta conducted a survey of users and 79% report that they have successfully substituted the electronic cigarette for all their tobacco cigarettes. An additional 17% report they have significantly reduced the number of tobacco cigarettes they smoke--an important step toward quitting.

    In contrast, the FDA-approved nicotine cessation products have a success rate of no more than 10% after 1 year. The same University of Alberta survey also shows that 95% of electronic cigarette users report improvements in their lung health. Read the report: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

    Over 13,000 people signed the Electronic Cigarette Petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available) and the same themes show up again and again in comments: I smoked for decades. I tried everything else to quit. This worked. I can breathe better. I stopped wheezing and coughing. My blood pressure is lower.

    So if the goal is to get people to stop inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, arsenic and other poisons in smoke, then the electronic cigarette is 800% better than FDA-approved products. If the goal is to save lives, then the choice between inhaling tobacco smoke or inhaling vaporized nicotine is clear.

    If the goal is to keep people smoking cigarettes, wheezing and coughing, having heart attacks, and developing tumors, then Ruth Mueller has the right idea.

    Excellent comment, and thank you!!
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread