Could vaping POSSIBLY be worse?

[IntelligentDesigner]

Chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, COPD, heart disease, extreme addiction, and several different cancers just to name a few...all empirically linked to tobacco cigarettes whether you smoke them directly, or only second-hand.

So what are those who are trying to ban PVs and e-cigs so worried about? What could they possibly find as a result of vaping that's worse than cancer?

By the way, I am questioning this with the respect that PVs have not been researched for 20+ years to determine long-term effects, but I just wonder if there's anything they could possibly do to us worse than cigarettes have been proven to do.

 

[Hulamoon]

I concur ID. tobacco has been studied for ages, yet it's still quite legal and the legislators rub their greasy hands in glee at the tax revenue they can derive from it. And yet, as more people quit in response to being treated as Public Enemy Number One, the sheer expense and undoubted health impact, the greasy ones are already looking for other alternatives such as the soda tax and obesity tax. My disgust for politicos and their equally money grubbing cronies knows no bounds.

 

[Thrasher]

So what are those who are trying to ban PVs and e-cigs so worried about? What could they possibly find as a result of vaping that's worse than cancer?

A lack of tax dollars.
the way i see it there is two things directly related to their problem with ecigs.
how do they tax it?
and if it really is a way to just keep the habit but avoid the cigs, whats with the collector mentality?did you have 30 lighters ? or 15 different ways to hold your cig? i think this is the main drive behind the banning.
what went from just nic replacement and ecigs has become all these fancy devices and fruity flavors and the real fear is what are the kids going to think, as we drive ourselves into more of a hobbyist mentality the FDA is worried people who have no interest in smoking will get involved with vaping because we all like shiny pretty things. now we have people who never smoked wanting to vape becuase it looks "cool" even with no nic my question is why? why even simulate smoking at all in any way if you never picked up a cig?
just like in the 50's "i want a cig cause james dean looks cool smoking one".

they come here and they see people with 20 mods and 30 atomizers and think hmm this could become a problem, nic is still a drug if we cant tax it how do we control it?

 

[D4rk50ul]

Google cigarette generated income world wide and be shocked. 70+ billion a year just in the USA plus 190+ billion a year in medical treatment related to the use of cigarettes. You don't think they want to protect that in any way they can? Globally the revenue generated is higher than most countries GDP.

Of course they aren't as bad it's not difficult to know that if you continue using a handful of chemicals instead of thousands and stop burning them causing by products to form it is safer. This isn't a battle for our well being it's a battle to recover losses to the single largest tax cash cow the government has. I wonder if the general public knows or cares what happens to us smokers and ex smokers.

The part that makes me sick is turning on the TV and seeing all the pharmaceutical drugs the FDA allows that have side effects including death, suicide, etc. Also how many get recalled every year which suggests their clinical trials obviously weren't thorough enough. It is all about money there is no way to argue differently.

Sent from my Nexus 4

 

[budynbuick]

Google cigarette generated income world wide and be shocked. 70+ billion a year just in the USA plus 190+ billion a year in medical treatment related to the use of cigarettes. You don't think they want to protect that in any way they can? Globally the revenue generated is higher than most countries GDP.

Of course they aren't as bad it's not difficult to know that if you continue using a handful of chemicals instead of thousands and stop burning them causing by products to form it is safer. This isn't a battle for our well being it's a battle to recover losses to the single largest tax cash cow the government has. I wonder if the general public knows or cares what happens to us smokers and ex smokers.

The part that makes me sick is turning on the TV and seeing all the pharmaceutical drugs the FDA allows that have side effects including death, suicide, etc. Also how many get recalled every year which suggests their clinical trials obviously weren't thorough enough. It is all about money there is no way to argue differently.

Sent from my Nexus 4

My nephew was a paid clinical guinea pig. The trials lasted all of ten days. He was involved with some that were recalled. he was found hanging @ an secluded park so it could have been murder but was ruled suicide.

 

[Hulamoon]

Wow! Just wow. My sincere condolences Budyn. Just the other day the FDA announced (2 months after they knew of this) that some genetic Wellbutrin at a 300 mg dose was less effective than a simple numbers extrapolation alone of genetic 150 mg doses x 2 would indicate. They didn't do any testing - just took the 150 mg and assumed 300 = twice as effective. I wonder how many people were prescribed that, then convinced themselves they were doing no better/or had gotten worse and did harm to themselves because of that one alone.

My nephew was a paid clinical guinea pig. The trials lasted all of ten days. He was involved with some that were recalled. he was found hanging @ an secluded park so it could have been murder but was ruled suicide.

 

[phalaeo]

My understanding is that anything carbon-based that is burnt and inhaled/ingested can be a carcinogen. Use Google search terms "burnt food carcinogen" to find a ton of info. I could go on my husband's PubMed account and get peer-reviewed studies to link, but unfortunately, you can only see the abstracts if you don't have an PW.

Of course, they used to tell us that eggs were bad because of cholesterol, now they're good because of Omega 3s. And wine used to be bad before they discovered that it had some health benefits in moderation. And... you get the point. Honestly, I just end up trusting my gut and try to do everything in moderation. My gut tells me that vaping is safer than analogs, although I'm pretty sure there must be some health risks associated with it. Then again, there are health risks to eating roast beef. Or so they say...

 

[phalaeo]

The part that makes me sick is turning on the TV and seeing all the pharmaceutical drugs the FDA allows that have side effects including death, suicide, etc. Also how many get recalled every year which suggests their clinical trials obviously weren't thorough enough. It is all about money there is no way to argue differently.

Sent from my Nexus 4

I'm not saying there isn't some truth in that belief, but you have to also look at how drug studies are interpreted. Take my anxiety medication for example. One of the most frequent side effects listed is..... anxiety. That doesn't mean that the drug causes anxiety, it means that anxiety was reported during the trial. It makes sense that people who take meds for anxiety would report anxiety.

When you look at medications that are absolutely necessary to keep a patient alive, such as heart meds, anti-retrovirals, insulin... people take those because they have serious life-threatening illnesses. It makes sense that death would be listed. As I expressed above, it does not mean that death is a side effect of the drug. Drug companies (by law) have to take down every little thing people report during trials, from commonly seen side effects such as headache and nausea to hangnails and stubbed toes.

Again, I'm not saying that the companies are totally clean.... they are driven by money. But there are rules in place that a lot of use lay-people don't fully know about or understand.

I was very surprised how I changed my mind about some controversial topics when I married a research scientist.

 

[Jerms]

By the way, I am questioning this with the respect that PVs have not been researched for 20+ years to determine long-term effects, but I just wonder if there's anything they could possibly do to us worse than cigarettes have been proven to do.

Could vaping have some long term consequences we haven't guessed at? It's possible. Worse than what we know smoking cigarettes do? Highly unlikely.

When Big Tobacco or Big Pharma use the argument about the unknown risks of vaping it's not that they care about our well-being, it's purely motivated by money. It's illogical and kind of a sad scare tactic, but they don't have much to use for ammunition. They each have their own HUGE money making industries on nicotine delivery systems and ecigs present a risk on their bottom line. If they can get in on the game, like BT can now do, they will change their tune at the drop of a hat.

Sent from my LGL55C using Tapatalk 2

 

[phalaeo]

And my most sincere condolences to budynbuick and family.... thank you for sharing your story, and please understand that my statements in the above post are not meant to trivialize the loss of your loved one or contradict your message.

 

[Edd Harbin]

The "emperical Date" on the harm of smoking and second hand smoke in particular is worth the paper it's printed on ,and that's not much . The ONE thing left out of all the studies is genetics . I have one Grandfather that NEVER smoked anything . He died from lung cancer . My other Grandfather started smoking and chewing tobacco at 12 , fought in two wars , ate fried eggs and bacon and biscuits made with lard his whole life . He died at 97 from old age , his lungs were good and his ticker just gave out . Neither died from smoking , emperical data would show more connection . There are many factors that cause cancer , long age being the number one cause . The longer you live the more likely you will get cancer .

 

[Jerms]

The "emperical Date" on the harm of smoking and second hand smoke in particular is worth the paper it's printed on ,and that's not much . The ONE thing left out of all the studies is genetics . I have one Grandfather that NEVER smoked anything . He died from lung cancer . My other Grandfather started smoking and chewing tobacco at 12 , fought in two wars , ate fried eggs and bacon and biscuits made with lard his whole life . He died at 97 from old age , his lungs were good and his ticker just gave out . Neither died from smoking , emperical data would show more connection . There are many factors that cause cancer , long age being the number one cause . The longer you live the more likely you will get cancer .

Really? I would like to see the results of large scale tests that show there isn't a link between smoking tobacco and cancer. I think it's fairly well proven the link between cigs and cancer, unless you believe the results of a Big Tobacco funded study. Because you know to people who are exceptions means nothing.

Sent from my LGL55C using Tapatalk 2

 

[MordaVor]

Banning ecigs is like banning Assault weapons they never will a can't there trying to ban stuff that they know will make a black market and make company die off and best of all they try it to many people will step up to the plate and goto war with the government myself included will be on the front line rifle in one hand and a mod in the other lol They want control and to say this because they are losing money to the other places look up PG and VG and you will see very clean unlike the arsenic in cigs

 

[D4rk50ul]

I'm not saying there isn't some truth in that belief, but you have to also look at how drug studies are interpreted. Take my anxiety medication for example. One of the most frequent side effects listed is..... anxiety. That doesn't mean that the drug causes anxiety, it means that anxiety was reported during the trial. It makes sense that people who take meds for anxiety would report anxiety.

When you look at medications that are absolutely necessary to keep a patient alive, such as heart meds, anti-retrovirals, insulin... people take those because they have serious life-threatening illnesses. It makes sense that death would be listed. As I expressed above, it does not mean that death is a side effect of the drug. Drug companies (by law) have to take down every little thing people report during trials, from commonly seen side effects such as headache and nausea to hangnails and stubbed toes.

Again, I'm not saying that the companies are totally clean.... they are driven by money. But there are rules in place that a lot of use lay-people don't fully know about or understand.

I was very surprised how I changed my mind about some controversial topics when I married a research scientist.

Taking medications to stay alive is different than taking one to help with minor problems that studies show can cause huge problems. So I take a pill to get minor relief from joint pain and end up with a heart attack?

Recalling hip replacements, not like they just ask for those back you gotta undergo major surgery.

Sent from my Nexus 4

 

[RVLT]

Yes, death is a side effect, if the drug that is being taken is to help with a life threatening condition, the problem is when drugs in clinical trials show side effects that are not directly related to the problem that the drugs are used to treat.
Take intravenous birth control, the NuvaRings side effects were blod clots, stroke and heart attacks, reproductive organ cancer, Gallbladder disease, Liver tumors and more, all this for birth control. This was eventually pulled as does every birth control similar to it. The problem is that the FDA approves them, drug companies can market these drugs as effective and then doctors recommend them. I believe the fact that the FDA approves them and a doctor recommends them is enough for the average person to just overlook the life threatening side effects and take them, if this happens to enough people there's a class action lawsuit and by that time the drug company has profited enough off the drug for the lawsuit to only make a dent in the amount of money they gained.

My girlfriend and her friend used to used the nuvaring cause it was recommended by there colleges medical school. Long story short my girlfriends friend is no longer able to have children, I believe they were part of the real-world-post-clinical-trials.

I don't trust drug companies, I don't even take aspirin when I have a headache. There is a food(A real food, not a freezer frozen microwave snack) and a nutritional cure for everything. As humans we haven't made it this far because of drugs, they werent taking zoloft in the 15th century. I believe most mental illnesses are created a result of drug companies telling us we need something for something that isn't a problem like restless leg syndrom.

I'm not saying there isn't some truth in that belief, but you have to also look at how drug studies are interpreted. Take my anxiety medication for example. One of the most frequent side effects listed is..... anxiety. That doesn't mean that the drug causes anxiety, it means that anxiety was reported during the trial. It makes sense that people who take meds for anxiety would report anxiety.

When you look at medications that are absolutely necessary to keep a patient alive, such as heart meds, anti-retrovirals, insulin... people take those because they have serious life-threatening illnesses. It makes sense that death would be listed. As I expressed above, it does not mean that death is a side effect of the drug. Drug companies (by law) have to take down every little thing people report during trials, from commonly seen side effects such as headache and nausea to hangnails and stubbed toes.

Again, I'm not saying that the companies are totally clean.... they are driven by money. But there are rules in place that a lot of use lay-people don't fully know about or understand.

I was very surprised how I changed my mind about some controversial topics when I married a research scientist.

 

[Edd Harbin]

Never said that smoking is good for you . It is bad . However if Smoking alone caused lung cancer then EVERYONE who smoked would get it . There are more people who get lung cancer who didn'tsmoke than did . "Second hand"" smoke doesn't cause all of the non smoker cancer cases . There are many studies that show that second hand smoke is bohunk , and not from big tobacco . The biggest are from the UK , but much like the recent release of documents and data about the lies told about global warming by the UN studies it is ignored because it doesn't fit the myth . When you are told that doing this increases your chance of getting cancer by 5% that sounds like alot . What they don't say is that it is a 5% increase of 1% . I've taken many statistics classes and you can make the same "emperical " evidence say two different things .

 

[D4rk50ul]

The worst part is this. When is the last time your doctor or pharmacist went over potentially serious side effects with you when giving medications? Never for me and I have been through a bunch of doctors.

Sent from my Nexus 4

 

[mikejm]

Did people in the Bible vape?

It goes against Biblical values and is a threat to traditional smoking.

It's like eating walnuts at a Cinco de Mayo Parade.

 

[skoot]

Google cigarette generated income world wide and be shocked. 70+ billion a year just in the USA plus 190+ billion a year in medical treatment related to the use of cigarettes. You don't think they want to protect that in any way they can? Globally the revenue generated is higher than most countries GDP.

Of course they aren't as bad it's not difficult to know that if you continue using a handful of chemicals instead of thousands and stop burning them causing by products to form it is safer. This isn't a battle for our well being it's a battle to recover losses to the single largest tax cash cow the government has. I wonder if the general public knows or cares what happens to us smokers and ex smokers.

The part that makes me sick is turning on the TV and seeing all the pharmaceutical drugs the FDA allows that have side effects including death, suicide, etc. Also how many get recalled every year which suggests their clinical trials obviously weren't thorough enough. It is all about money there is no way to argue differently.

Sent from my Nexus 4

Sing it brother!

 

[Jerms]

However if Smoking alone caused lung cancer then EVERYONE who smoked would get it .

There are many incorrect statements in your post but I'll stick with this one. Do you not really understand the meaning of increased risk? Your comment is like stating that since EVERYONE who eats sugar doesn't get cavaties there is no correlation. Increased risk of cancer does not mean everyone who does a certain high risk activity activity get's cancer, just that statistically their odds are greater to get cancer.

Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers, and over 4 out of 5 cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking, and is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Understand, smoking doesn't guarentee cancer, but statistically smokers have a much higher rate of cancer than non smokers. This isn't shown in only one or two studies, but in nearly all research points to that conclusion. Tobacco smoke contains dozens of proven carcinigens, and increases risk of not only lung cancer, but many other cancers as well.

To argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer is rather ridiculous based on all the studies that have been done. Big Tobacco tried to claim for many years there is no proven link, but it was proven in court that they had a long history about lying about what they knew from their own studies. Now, even BT admits smoking increases the risk of many types of cancer.

Sent from my LGL55C using Tapatalk 2