Do you Believe Your Government or Your Fellow ECF Members Believes on the E-Cig??
- Thread starter Zeroi
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I believe neither the government nor "my fellow ECF members" (in the aggregate) are qualified to answer that. So I say "neither". There are probably some members of ECF that have some forms of qualification to do that, but since nobody here that I know of is a vocal member of a private safety certification agency willing to stake their professional reputation on it, I'll say "Mu".
The jury is still out on long-term effects, especially when vaping flavorings that are meant to be processed by the digestive system rather than inhaled directly into the lungs. There are many ingredients that go into flavorings, and only a tiny fraction of them have been studied for inhalation. There are some that are already known to be very bad when inhaled, perhaps worse than smoking, so the concepts of concentration levels and long-term cummulative effects become very important.
The only correct answer is that we are guinea pigs, and nobody anywhere on earth knows the correct answer to this question.
Having said that, I am cautiously optimistic based on the information currently available.
The only correct answer is that we are guinea pigs, and nobody anywhere on earth knows the correct answer to this question.
Having said that, I am cautiously optimistic based on the information currently available.
Last edited:
I feel PVs are safer than cigarettes, but I agree with DC2 above, and thus have decreased my flavorings in my DIY juices from 20 percent to 10 percent (which may go down even lower) and buy flavorings from only one vendor (happens to be local to me).
I wouldn't say that I exactly "believe" my fellow ECF'ers - I believe whatever my own research and thought process tells me is closest to the truth.
But I do find ECF'ers are more likely to be like me, in that they do their own research and have their own thought process and tend to believe whatever is closest to the truth.
The FDA wants to tell us e-cigs are extremely dangerous, with absolutely no evidence of that being true. And the reason they want to tell us that is obvious - because e-cigs are a threat to them making money.
ECF'ers are more like to admit what seems to be true - e-cigs are certainly safer than smoking, and probably significantly safer. However, they are not 100% safe, and we don't have enough research to know all of the potential risks they may have.
So I voted that I "believe" ECF'ers. But it's not really that I "believe" ECF'ers - it's that I find ECF'ers to me more intellectually honest.
But I do find ECF'ers are more likely to be like me, in that they do their own research and have their own thought process and tend to believe whatever is closest to the truth.
The FDA wants to tell us e-cigs are extremely dangerous, with absolutely no evidence of that being true. And the reason they want to tell us that is obvious - because e-cigs are a threat to them making money.
ECF'ers are more like to admit what seems to be true - e-cigs are certainly safer than smoking, and probably significantly safer. However, they are not 100% safe, and we don't have enough research to know all of the potential risks they may have.
So I voted that I "believe" ECF'ers. But it's not really that I "believe" ECF'ers - it's that I find ECF'ers to me more intellectually honest.
Most vaping communities has more awareness than just a single agency or two. I'm sure the agencies that are involved with "ECIG Industries" got bigger problems with other non similiar products on the market than just ECIGS.
It was suppose to be at zero vote but someone do believe in government. So as u can see if 100 vote this tha only 2 person is not with the big voters. What was he/she thinking? Share with us.
Personally, I voted with ECF members, but I have a single caveat:
From the Governments perspective, e-Cigs ARE dangerous.
I feel, though I may be wrong, that the "average" ECF member looks at the issue from the perspective of e-Cigs being safe because in our experience, they appear to be "safer" than analogs. This assumption is probably quite true, and I personally have a sense that eCigs are safer as well.
The Government, however, doesn't wish to compare eCigs to Analogs in determining safety, and they likely never will. They are comparing the use of eCigs to NOT using eCigs, and since nicotine is, in fact, a deadly toxin in high enough doses, the use of an eCig, while safer than smoking, is in fact NOT safer that abstaining from vaping entirely.
So, those of us that used eCigs as a smoking cessation tool feel they are safe, because from our unique perspective they are safer by comparison.
Very few people would argue that ingesting nicotine in ANY form is safer than NOT ingesting it.
So in the truest sense, the government is correct. For our purposes, this doesn't jive with our own agenda... the desire for a "safer" nicotine delivery system.
From my personal perspective, eCigs are "safer". But not safer than avoiding them entirely. In general, they are "relatively safe".
But like I said, I voted against government, because I get your point.
From the Governments perspective, e-Cigs ARE dangerous.
I feel, though I may be wrong, that the "average" ECF member looks at the issue from the perspective of e-Cigs being safe because in our experience, they appear to be "safer" than analogs. This assumption is probably quite true, and I personally have a sense that eCigs are safer as well.
The Government, however, doesn't wish to compare eCigs to Analogs in determining safety, and they likely never will. They are comparing the use of eCigs to NOT using eCigs, and since nicotine is, in fact, a deadly toxin in high enough doses, the use of an eCig, while safer than smoking, is in fact NOT safer that abstaining from vaping entirely.
So, those of us that used eCigs as a smoking cessation tool feel they are safe, because from our unique perspective they are safer by comparison.
Very few people would argue that ingesting nicotine in ANY form is safer than NOT ingesting it.
So in the truest sense, the government is correct. For our purposes, this doesn't jive with our own agenda... the desire for a "safer" nicotine delivery system.
From my personal perspective, eCigs are "safer". But not safer than avoiding them entirely. In general, they are "relatively safe".
But like I said, I voted against government, because I get your point.
Last edited:
I will give that an unqualified second. Honeslty, you can't trust the government and you can't be sure that other EFC members have it down either. If it works for you it works.
Of course I believe in the benefits of vaping and that they work. Isnt that the whole reason of this forum? Sorry but stupid poll if you ask me.
Well Yes, but the Poll have different perpestive, some people do watch over this Forum but may not be even really vaping. If they did, then The ratio and the Percentage of Voters stand in for some reports.
Yes, is not only about What you think or the Government, but is about what Others think.
Yes, is not only about What you think or the Government, but is about what Others think.
Sadly, I believe anything our government says is suspect and have lost all faith in our bought and paid for government officials. In other words, I don't believe a word they say.
So u are a Retired Civil Servant and are u a ex-Smoker and a Vaper now?
As a retired civil servant, with a keen understand of our government’s bureaucratic structure and an intimate knowledge of its inner workings, I believe the choice is obvious. ECFers
I believe that e-cigs have help me and I have a serious lung condition so why would I believe the FDA the FDA aren't they the ones who said Chantix was ok?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
