E-Cigarette Forum Discussion Thread

[Thulium]

Let's consider the anti-smoker's worst nightmare: Imagine a future where decades of tobacco denormalization come crashing down and e-cigarettes start a "vapor revolution" becoming so popular that recreational nicotine / tobacco usage rates returned to their all-time high approaching or exceeding 50% because of the popularity of "vaping" and/or using smokeless tobacco. According to data from the CDC, if as many as 69 Million never smokers and former smokers took up "smokeless tobacco" (which is probably MORE dangerous than e-cigs or reduced nitrosamine snus and dissolvables), the roughly 9000 additional estimated annual deaths from oral cancers would be exceeded by the number of deaths avoided from just barely over 1 million smokers switching to smoke-free.*

Interestingly, "around 1 million" happens to be the estimated number of people who've tried e-cigarettes, so theoretically we've already saved more lives than would be lost in a "worst case" scenario. Imagine 70 million people adding up to a teaspoon of air sanitizer with a bit of (optional) nicotine and some food flavoring to the air they breath each day. Oh the humanity. 70M teaspoons is over 9000 gallons.



*Based on CDC estimate data that 46M smokers would result in ~400k annual deaths--including approx 13k deaths from oral cancers, while 46M smokeless tobacco users estimated to cause 6k deaths from oral cancers.

 

[ShannonA]

It's because you're a vampire.

And with that, I'm going to bed. Night Shannon. Night lolady.

It's because you're a vampire.



And with that, I'm going to bed. Night Shannon. Night lolady.

 

[ShannonA]

Let's consider the anti-smoker's worst nightmare: Imagine a future where decades of tobacco denormalization come crashing down and e-cigarettes start a "vapor revolution" becoming so popular that recreational nicotine / tobacco usage rates returned to their all-time high approaching or exceeding 50% because of the popularity of "vaping" and/or using smokeless tobacco. According to data from the CDC, if as many as 69 Million never smokers and former smokers took up "smokeless tobacco" (which is probably MORE dangerous than e-cigs or reduced nitrosamine snus and dissolvables), the roughly 9000 additional estimated annual deaths from oral cancers would be exceeded by the number of deaths avoided from just barely over 1 million smokers switching to smoke-free.*

Interestingly, "around 1 million" happens to be the estimated number of people who've tried e-cigarettes, so theoretically we've already saved more lives than would be lost in a "worst case" scenario. Imagine 70 million people adding up to a teaspoon of air sanitizer with a bit of (optional) nicotine and some food flavoring to the air they breath each day. Oh the humanity. 70M teaspoons is over 9000 gallons.



*Based on CDC estimate data that 46M smokers would result in ~400k annual deaths--including approx 13k deaths from oral cancers, while 46M smokeless tobacco users estimated to cause 6k deaths from oral cancers.

The only thing that concerns me here is the food flavoring. That's still a largely uknown factor. We know basically what the risks are concerning nicotine. We know that pg is fairly safe for inhalation barring alergies... I'm not certain how much we no about vg when inhaled... anyone have data on that? If not do't worry I'll dig it up on my own.

At any rate the flavoring is where the biggest concern lies for me. We've already found some ingredients in flavoring to be problematic when inhaled and there are others which are unknowns.

We know that vapping is almost definitely better than smoking... but we can't be certain at this stage of the game how safe it is as a whole.

 

[Thulium]

The only thing that concerns me here is the food flavoring. That's still a largely uknown factor. We know basically what the risks are concerning nicotine. We know that pg is fairly safe for inhalation barring alergies... I'm not certain how much we no about vg when inhaled... anyone have data on that? If not do't worry I'll dig it up on my own.

At any rate the flavoring is where the biggest concern lies for me. We've already found some ingredients in flavoring to be problematic when inhaled and there are others which are unknowns.

We know that vapping is almost definitely better than smoking... but we can't be certain at this stage of the game how safe it is as a whole.

The flavoring is a bit of an unknown because we are using a bit more than you would normally inhale from foods and perfumes...but just barely, because we usually just eat or drink most of it. You are absolutely correct that we should be mindful of some ingredients, especially butter and cinnamon flavors that have known risks, but you're exposed to the exact same risks and in much greater quantities from most candles or room deodorizers. We could absolutely do with some reasonable regulation to minimize any remaining risks of vaping, but unless and until someone provides evidence that e-cigarettes can possibly cause even 1/100th the harm of smoking there is no ethical justification for discouraging their use until the most dangerous tobacco products, combustible cigarettes, are no longer the most popular.

 

[ShannonA]

The flavoring is a bit of an unknown because we are using a bit more than you would normally inhale from foods and perfumes...but just barely, because we usually just eat or drink most of it. You are absolutely correct that we should be mindful of some ingredients, especially butter and cinnamon flavors that have known risks, but you're exposed to the exact same risks and in much greater quantities from most candles or room deodorizers. We could absolutely do with some reasonable regulation to minimize any remaining risks of vaping, but unless and until someone provides evidence that e-cigarettes can possibly cause even 1/100th the harm of smoking there is no ethical justification for discouraging their use until the most dangerous tobacco products, combustible cigarettes, are no longer the most popular.

I'll concede that point. I may have misintepreted what you were getting at.

This is certainly a device that has the potential to change lives on a massive scale. I just feel that if we error on the side of caution when expounding on it's virtues we keep our credibility intact enabling us to further the cause (such as it is) more easily.

 

[Thulium]

I'll concede that point. I may have misintepreted what you were getting at.

This is certainly a device that has the potential to change lives on a massive scale. I just feel that if we error on the side of caution when expounding on it's virtues we keep our credibility intact enabling us to further the cause (such as it is) more easily.

Yes, but describing e-cigarettes as "at least 99% safer than smoking" really is erring on the side of caution.

It's impossible to prove a complete absense of harm, but for all practical purposes I cannot even imagine a way for vaping up to a teaspoon of glycol, flavoring, and nicotine per day to cause even 1/100the harm of smoking one or more packs of cigarettes, that many inveterate smokers (who have previously been unable to quit despite multiple quit attempts and methods) have given up for vaping.

 

[renstyle]

I didn't realize people planning to quit entirely didn't feel wlecome here... I plan to quit nicotine I just leave the vaping zero nicotine option open for decision at a later date. I don't know how I'll feel when I get to zero nicotine.

Apparently I am a statistical anomaly then.

I for one have never felt unwelcome. I wholeheartedly support the potential that PVs hold in rescuing hardcore smokers and light smokers alike. Whether it is to give them a ritual alternative, or a path to complete cessation, PVs apply to both.

The problem that many folks that start vaping have is that they consider ecigs to "still be bad". The "cheating" is still a part of their mindset, and the concerns they have over PV dependence (which we see often enough in the new members section that it cannot be disregarded) are swaying their support for PVs in other arenas.

The lack of "official" support and blessing from the FDA, Health Canada, and NHS create an uphill battle in the information wars immediately after you open the starting gate. It's like putting out those wildfires in AZ, have to contain the main fire while still having a few spotters miles ahead to watch for the windblown embers. Those embers could render all of the hard work at the front lines useless if they are not extinguished quickly.

It transcends misinformation, much of this is cultural, we've been smoking cigs for almost (if not more than) 100 years.

The article Vocalek posted earlier about the four main factors which contribute to smoking's hold noted that nicotine does not have substantial external risks with constant, daily use. You can't drink as often as you smoke and still function (by and large), just as you cannot do the same with hard drugs or even pot (tho I suppose some will argue the opposite with the latter). I don't like hard drugs, don't mind alcohol and MJ personally, but they do have impairment effects that are not seen with nicotine (again, I am generalizing here, we can cut to the nitty gritty later on).

Nicotine (again, like Caffeine) affects primarily the user, so there is no (major outward) cultural bias against nicotine (mainly the effects of the delivery method... still fighting that nicotine==smoking stance). The temperance movement got alcohol banned with a constitutional amendment, there were ladies protesting at bars and saloons.

If we had folks protesting in front of convenience stores about the dangers of cigarettes the situation on the ground would be quite different. Think JEL in front of every 7-11 with body bags...<cringe>.

The biggest problem with PVs and vaping is also its greatest strength: flexibility. People who love to vape, mod, play etc can do their thing with their PV, and the folks looking to quit partially or completely can also do their thing, often with the same make/model of PV. One side of this "fence" need not cannibalize the other to achieve their means.

Studies do need to be done as part of a plan of medical prudence, some of which have already been undertaken. Being the funnel for all of this "new whiz bang information" makes us look misleading to some, simply a shill to others.

 

[renstyle]

I'm not certain how much we no about vg when inhaled... anyone have data on that?

About all I can add is that cigarettes have had glycerol added to them for decades, plus just about every cough syrup made has this added. I've not found any specific information about glycerol when inhaled, other than in conjunction with cigs...

EDIT: best I could do, from canadavapes:

http://www.canadavapes.com/health/vegetable-glycerin-safety.html

 

[renstyle]

Since there have been discussions with the NSB regarding ecig info, this would be a fantastic opportunity to hone our skills to craft appropriate wording to assist those in the process of choosing a quit method. I could even see how you could list advantages/disadvantages of each method, side-by-side to illustrate where strengths and weaknesses are with each option.

Many such as myself would find appeal with the ecig in the "hand-to-mouth" arena, whereas the next quitter in the door may see this as a potential threat to their quit.

Other aspects of each method could be explored in similar ways.

EDIT: would collaboration with other quitters (via diff methods) be helpful to not only keep the information method-neutral but also extend a hand to others in our common goal to eradicate smoking?

 

[lolady]

Apparently I am a statistical anomaly

I think I may be one too, at least with regard to attitudes, etc about nicotine.

In one of my first blogrants, I said something like I "love the idea" of not being addicted to nicotine, but was so not worrying about it until I've phased out cigarettes.

But thanks to what I've learned about nicotine from you all, I've begun to reflect, (after shuddering to think what communicating with me would be like if I weren't ingesting any nicotine, of course) that confused old ladies, especially those who take pills, might want to rethink any plans for so cavalierly tossing something that helps us with things like focus and alertness.

they consider ecigs to "still be bad"

We all have certain things that we just can't talk about without our heads exploding. "Hot-button issues," we call them.

I guess the dehumanization of cigarette smokers as core cultural value is one of my nuclear hot-button issues.

Case in point: I started to reply to this message, and before 60 seconds and one sentence were up, here are just some of the words I'd typed:


putrid, abominable...
degenerate off-spawn of cognitive dissonance...
demon-possessed tank in a bad horror movie...
foetid mires of self-hatred...
bestial poison...
evil scourge...

Of course I erased it. It's just an example of how these hot-button issues will get the best of us if we let them. Well, not me!

No hot-button issue is going to get in the way of my determination to write shorter sentences.

 

[renstyle]

boy, without bumping the ecig posts fell like a rock over at QSMB.... figured as much <sigh>

 

[renstyle]

I think I may be one too, at least with regard to attitudes, etc about nicotine.

In one of my first blogrants, I said something like I "love the idea" of not being addicted to nicotine, but was so not worrying about it until I've phased out cigarettes.

But thanks to what I've learned about nicotine from you all, I've begun to reflect, (after shuddering to think what communicating with me would be like if I weren't ingesting any nicotine, of course) that confused old ladies, especially those who take pills, might want to rethink any plans for so cavalierly tossing something that helps us with things like focus and alertness.

I was even less concerned with the nicotine aspect, still am. Was looking for a way to stop killing myself (both from smoking and serving role as the wife naggee).

I got lucky, didn't have any major issues with depression, nor of nicotine withdrawl. My "puffer" as the kids call it "keeps daddy from smelling stinky and gross", and they couldn't be happier. Wife likes me better too.

 

[Randyrtx]

I originally started vaping to quit smoking, and initially planned to wean completely off nicotine and quit vaping at some point. But now, I don't see myself quitting either nicotine or vaping. For one, I enjoy vaping, much moreso than I ever enjoyed smoking. I'd keep it up even with zero nicotine.

More importantly, I now see value in the "medicinal" uses for tobacco. I believe I am in much the same category as Elaine, though I currently take other medications for it. I'd prefer to eliminate those and use tobacco instead.

I don't know that I will try Snus (it's a distinct possibility, though), but I will try dissolvables when they become available locally. Ultimately, I hope WTA Liquids become available.

 

[renstyle]

I originally started vaping to quit smoking, and initially planned to wean completely off nicotine and quit vaping at some point. But now, I don't see myself quitting either nicotine or vaping. For one, I enjoy vaping, much moreso than I ever enjoyed smoking. I'd keep it up even with zero nicotine.

More importantly, I now see value in the "medicinal" uses for tobacco. I believe I am in much the same category as Elaine, though I currently take other medications for it. I'd prefer to eliminate those and use tobacco instead.

I don't know that I will try Snus (it's a distinct possibility, though), but I will try dissolvables when they become available locally. Ultimately, I hope WTA Liquids become available.

I look forward to the revelations which will be exposed as we move forward!

 

[MustangSallie]

boy, without bumping the ecig posts fell like a rock over at QSMB.... figured as much <sigh>

They're too busy turning on each other right now.

 

[renstyle]

Speaking of "medicinal" tobacco, I wonder if anybody has thoughts on "organic" tobacco, grown at home without weird chemicals?

When I was checking out seedman's flavors I discovered a wealth of knowledge regarding home-grown tobacco, apparently very easy if you have a climate which will support tomatoes/peppers. Even Alaska customers have reported success. Just curious if anybody has heard of a compare/contrast between chemical-commercial-tobacco and this home-grown stuff?

 

[Thulium]

I don't know that I will try Snus (it's a distinct possibility, though), but I will try dissolvables when they become available locally. Ultimately, I hope WTA Liquids become available.

Trying Snus is a decent way to figure out if you're going to like dissolvables or not...it's a very similar experience. I can't generally handle that much nicotine in my mouth for very long before I'm ready to toss it--which is what I really liked about the Camel Strips when they were test marketed here. They only lasted for a few minutes, I didn't mind the mint & tobacco flavor, and it MORE than satisfied the craving any time I wanted something "real" or if I couldn't vape.

I didn't particularly care for the sticks or orbs, but that was mostly because I didn't really care for the "Mellow" flavor--didn't hate it, but didn't like it enough to use for anything but last resort. They can hardly taste worse than Nicorette and it's a lot cheaper.

 

[Randyrtx]

I did actually try Snus once, but I got a stronger variety and it was WAY too strong for me; I was surprised at how "fast acting" they were.

 

[DC2]

I originally started vaping to quit smoking, and initially planned to wean completely off nicotine and quit vaping at some point. But now, I don't see myself quitting either nicotine or vaping. For one, I enjoy vaping, much moreso than I ever enjoyed smoking. I'd keep it up even with zero nicotine.

More importantly, I now see value in the "medicinal" uses for tobacco. I believe I am in much the same category as Elaine, though I currently take other medications for it. I'd prefer to eliminate those and use tobacco instead.

I don't know that I will try Snus (it's a distinct possibility, though), but I will try dissolvables when they become available locally. Ultimately, I hope WTA Liquids become available.

And I'm in a whole different category...

I firmly believe I was never addicted to nicotine.
I smoked on average 5 cigarettes per day for 27 years, but could go just fine without one if I wanted.

I smoked for the following reasons...
-Taking breaks from work
-Taking breaks from social situations I found uncomfortable
-Taking breaks from domestic squabbles
-Taking breaks before doing things I didn't want to do
-Taking breaks after doing things I didn't want to do
-Taking breaks to be alone with my thoughts and think things through

I was not overly concerned with the health effects of 5 cigarettes per day, and never wanted nor tried to quit.

But my wife always wanted me to quit because of the smell.
So when my sister showed me her electronic cigarette I thought that might be the thing for me.

I don't sit here vaping all day, and I use my electronic cigarette pretty much like I used real ones.
I vape less than 1ml per day of 12mg juice, and have been doing that ever since I started two years ago.

When I started all of this I didn't have any opinion on nicotine whatsoever... didn't know anyting about it at all.
As I've learned more here I have made a conscious choice to continue using nicotine.

As long as my heart is healthy and my blood pressure low I am not overly concerned about health effects from the amount i use.
But I do want the possible benefits against Parkinsons and Alzheimers, both of which scare the crap out of me.
Also I believe the nicotine has positive effects on my ability to concentrate and focus.

And I do need the throat hit, but could possibly replace that in some other way if I change my mind.

And I also notice the missing MAOIs and/or alkaloids.
Electronic cigarettes do not have quite the calming effect on me that cigarettes did.

If they ever come up with a WTA liquid, I will definitely try it.

 

[kristin]

Kristin, thank you for taking the time to respond. I have read and re-read your post. I understand better what to expect from CASAA. -Magnus

Hmmm...that comment seems cryptic.

I think a lot of people do not clearly understand CASAA's purpose and mission. They read "Consumer Advocates" to mean "consumer protection" or "advocates for e-cigarette consumers" when it really means "consumers who advocate." We ARE the consumers.

"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."

CASAA was formed BY consumers who were concerned that the only information smokers were getting was biased against tobacco harm reduction and were biased towards abstinence regardless of the scientific evidence and that bias was putting the availibility of e-cigarettes for the consumers who used them at great risk. At the time, all of the health groups were inexplicibly coming out against e-cigarettes and working to discredit them through scare tactics and junk science. No one was publicizing the real science and supportive evidence. So we formed an organization to advocate on the side of e-cigarettes and other smokeless alternatives as a viable method to significantly reduce the health risks of smokers and those dependent upon nicotine. We wanted to get people to see the positive side.

Our mission is not to police the industry, defend the industry nor act as a public health group. We are less like the FDA, Consumer Protection, the UL or even the AMA, ALA and ACS (who SHOULD be unbiased and support harm reduction regardless of the product/method used) and more like the AARP or NAACP fighting for our "rights." While there are no legal "rights" for smokers and nicotine users, we fight to ensure that a legal, safer product remains affordable, effective and available. We fight for our ability to CHOOSE and to know the WHOLE TRUTH about smokeless products, not just the negatives promoted by abstinence, prohibitionist public health groups who continue to keep smokers in harm's way by insisting on abstinence and refusing to acknowledge the benefits of smokeless products for inveterate smokers.

If you read that mission carefully, we are actually mandated to be biased in a way. Our whole purpose is to PROMOTE reduced harm alternatives to smoking. What we will NOT do is LIE or omit facts to achieve that mission as the anti-tobacco/nicotine groups do to serve their agenda. We refuse to lower ourselves to that level. So, we do and will continue to disclose drawbacks to e-cigarettes and other smokeless alternatives when they are are scientifically proven or when the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Fortunately, the scientific and anecdotal evidence has so far proven to support e-cigarettes as very low-risk and effective for the vast majority of users.