E-Cigarettes, Miracle or Menace? BBC Horizon...

[Vaslovik]

It appeared that their NRT control group had used different types of NRT's. They mentioned patches and from the video it looked like some also used nicotine inhalers. While the success rate over the 4 week period was very good (7 out of 8 people was able to quit), from what I understand over the long term NRT's aren't as successful. I've seen studies that shows after 24 weeks, less than 10 percent of users who quit using patches were able to stay off cigarettes.

Yes, the test period was indeed too short to provide any solid conclusions, and as I've said, vaping is a lot more satisfying than slapping on a patch or taking a pill. vaping encompasses everything about the smoking habit that the other methods do not, with the exception of the thousands of toxic chemicals BT puts in their cigarettes, and the combustion of course, and that makes all the difference.

I've been off the cigs for 3 years now because I started vaping, and once I had a vape that lasted all day I never had another smoke.

 

[jseah]

My point was not that you should not vape menthol, it was pointing out that some people are so afraid of the tiny amounts of diacetyl in flavoring when it may not be an issue at all in the extremely small amounts that we are using in our eliquid.

I tend to stay away from creamy-type juices so I don't have any worries about diacetyl, but I seem to recall I read somewhere that the amount of diacetyl that people are exposed to in eliquid is actually lower than the amount that the EPA deems to be considered unhealthy.

 

[jseah]

I did watch the whole video yesterday. One thing I would have liked to see was them measure the bacterial or viral content of the room before and after vaping. It is my theory, and I've seen it elsewhere, that germs are greatly reduced in rooms that have been vaped in. They were looking for negatives. I wish they would have looked for positives during that segment.
Not only do we get less colds and illnesses, but so do many of our family members who don't even vape themselves!

Now that you mention it.....every year during the fall and the spring when the weather changes I tend to get knocked out for a day or two with a really bad cold. Since I started vaping, I haven't gotten sick at all except for the one bout of food poisoning.

 

[jseah]

I'm sure we both have Big Pharma to battle.
And to whatever extent there is Big Tobacco in the fray as well.

So what is the real difference across the pond?

It's probably safe to say it's all contained right about here...
Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you watch the CSPAN panel on e-cigs that I had posted over the weekend, they actually did touch on this in the Q&A session. Someone asked why the views of the government and public health agencies between the US and the UK differ so much. One of the panelists suggested that perhaps it is the fact that in the UK, the government bears the costs of health care, the UK government has skin in the game and it behooves them to use any avenues available to lower the costs of dealing with the health consequences of smoking.

 

[jseah]

The solution, of course, is a stiff sugar tax. $5/lb would be good for starters. The sugar addicted kids will grow up to accept it and the inevitable increases. That will insure that govt will do nothing to ever lose that revenue stream.

And the hamster goes round and round and round...

NY City tried that. In their zeal to show the populace that the government knows better than you and they needed to be protected from themselves, they tried to implement a tax on soda (I believe that it would have doubled the cost of soda) and also implement a limit where soda could not be sold in containers larger than 16 oz. The soda size limit was challenged in court and the judge shot it down. The soda tax never got passed because opponents of the tax argued that it was discriminatory because it would affect the poor much more than the wealthy since the poor tends to drink more soda.

 

[VNeil]

NY City tried that. In their zeal to show the populace that the government knows better than you and they needed to be protected from themselves, they tried to implement a tax on soda (I believe that it would have doubled the cost of soda) and also implement a limit where soda could not be sold in containers larger than 16 oz. The soda size limit was challenged in court and the judge shot it down. The soda tax never got passed because opponents of the tax argued that it was discriminatory because it would affect the poor much more than the wealthy since the poor tends to drink more soda.

The general public is uninterested in or unsympathetic to the problem of ever exorbitant tobacco and now vaping taxes. They think "it's not my problem". The public also loves the idea that someone else is paying a greater tax burden.

That thinking will backfire on the general public. The tobacco and now vape taxes are setting a precedent where government can attack consumer products, one at a time, levying unreasonable taxes. Sugar will be next. Who knows what will follow but certainly some other evil will be identified when all the money is sucked out of tobacco, vaping and then sugar.

Although I am very aware of the problem of excessive sugar consumption, I DO NOT believe taxes are the answer because it is an insidious slippery slope, among other reasons. But I have to admit I am almost looking forward to Sugar Taxes and restrictions because I'm tired of John Q Public's enjoyment of my having always paid an unreasonable share of taxes. What goes around comes around.

 

[VNeil]

NY City tried that. In their zeal to show the populace that the government knows better than you and they needed to be protected from themselves, they tried to implement a tax on soda (I believe that it would have doubled the cost of soda) and also implement a limit where soda could not be sold in containers larger than 16 oz. The soda size limit was challenged in court and the judge shot it down. The soda tax never got passed because opponents of the tax argued that it was discriminatory because it would affect the poor much more than the wealthy since the poor tends to drink more soda.

There are about 9 teaspoons of sugar in a 12 oz serving of Pepsi. There are 4 teaspoons of sugar in a one cup serving of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, which is probably one of the healthier breakfast cereals. And not a cereal targeted at kids. There are probably about 6 teaspoons of sugar in a typical high sugar breakfast cereal targeted at kids.

The Sugar Tax will start with soft drinks. But in fact there is not much less sugar in a typical breakfast cereal. Where do you think that soft drink sugar tax will go?

 

[jseah]

There are about 9 teaspoons of sugar in a 12 oz serving of Pepsi. There are 4 teaspoons of sugar in a one cup serving of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, which is probably one of the healthier breakfast cereals. And not a cereal targeted at kids. There are probably about 6 teaspoons of sugar in a typical high sugar breakfast cereal targeted at kids.

The Sugar Tax will start with soft drinks. But in fact there is not much less sugar in a typical breakfast cereal. Where do you think that soft drink sugar tax will go?

Where else.....into the general fund to pay for social programs.

The current mayor sees himself as the national champion for progressivism. He implemented an official city ID that can be issued to citizens and illegal immigrants to be used as identification, he is pushing to allow illegal immigrants voting rights, pushing for a $15 minimum wage, wants to follow San Francisco by becoming a sanctuary city, waging war against the police by calling them inherently racist, embracing the BLM movement, relaxing restrictions on welfare (no longer requiring welfare recipients to look for work), wanting to raise taxes on the "1 percent", and yet fully 40 percent of residents receive social benefits. The mayor is currently the subject of 5 different investigations by the federal attorney for election improprieties.

In just today's paper, there was an article that revealed that the city dept of education spent $6.5 million to renovate space that would be used as a pre-K school for 18 kids, which comes out to be over $360k per child.

 

[salemgold]

I tend to stay away from creamy-type juices so I don't have any worries about diacetyl, but I seem to recall I read somewhere that the amount of diacetyl that people are exposed to in eliquid is actually lower than the amount that the EPA deems to be considered unhealthy.

This is just one article of interest.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/14/m...750-times-greater-in-tobacco-vs-e-cigarettes/

 

[IDJoel]

This is just one article of interest.

Media Bias Exposed: ‘Popcorn Lung’ Chemical 750 Times Greater In Tobacco Vs. E-Cigarettes

I missed that one. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Nice article and one more voice of reason. I just added to my Facebook time line. Thanks again Salemgold!

 

[Dudeus Nordicus]

And he never even brought up PG. They obviously should know the health effects of inhaling PG since they've been using PG as the carrier liquid in asthma inhalers since the 50's or 60's.

And we can already see the ingeniously spun headlines fed to the media by the well-financed anti-vaping agenda groups: "Major e-cigarette ingredient found to be strongly associated with asthma! Historical studies show nearly 100% asthma sufferers have been exposed to long-term use of the dangerously chemical-sounding chemical propylene glycol!"



But... this is the internet age and the Big Corps won't be able to manipulate the media over decades like they used to.

Regarding the Miracle or Menace experiment, Michael Mosley intended to follow up on the progress of the groups using different smoking cessation methods so that's something to look forward to.

 

[beckdg]

... as I've said, vaping is a lot more satisfying than ... taking a pill. ...

Speak for yourself, lady.

[emoji23]

Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

The general public is uninterested in or unsympathetic to the problem of ever exorbitant tobacco and now vaping taxes. They think "it's not my problem". The public also loves the idea that someone else is paying a greater tax burden.

That thinking will backfire on the general public. The tobacco and now vape taxes are setting a precedent where government can attack consumer products, one at a time, levying unreasonable taxes. Sugar will be next. Who knows what will follow but certainly some other evil will be identified when all the money is sucked out of tobacco, vaping and then sugar.

Although I am very aware of the problem of excessive sugar consumption, I DO NOT believe taxes are the answer because it is an insidious slippery slope, among other reasons. But I have to admit I am almost looking forward to Sugar Taxes and restrictions because I'm tired of John Q Public's enjoyment of my having always paid an unreasonable share of taxes. What goes around comes around.

It won't be sugar. Sugar has been winning this game as long as tobacco has.

Tapatyped

 

[Vaslovik]

Speak for yourself, lady.

[emoji23]

Tapatyped

Oh? What kind of pills are you taking?

 

[beckdg]

Oh? What kind of pills are you taking?

Currently? Nothing satisfying. But that can change at any moment given the risks of my job.

Tapatyped

 

[MyMagicMist]

If you watch the CSPAN panel on e-cigs that I had posted over the weekend, they actually did touch on this in the Q&A session. Someone asked why the views of the government and public health agencies between the US and the UK differ so much. One of the panelists suggested that perhaps it is the fact that in the UK, the government bears the costs of health care, the UK government has skin in the game and it behooves them to use any avenues available to lower the costs of dealing with the health consequences of smoking.

Then it logically reasons the U.S. should want more affordable health care options as well. The Affordable Care Act recently placed more financial burden of health care on the U.S. government. Presenting obstruction to vaping, a healthier means of using nicotine, is hypocritical of seeking more affordable health care costs. It is also plain stupid, imho.

 

[Layzee Vaper]

If you watch the CSPAN panel on e-cigs that I had posted over the weekend, they actually did touch on this in the Q&A session. Someone asked why the views of the government and public health agencies between the US and the UK differ so much. One of the panelists suggested that perhaps it is the fact that in the UK, the government bears the costs of health care, the UK government has skin in the game and it behooves them to use any avenues available to lower the costs of dealing with the health consequences of smoking.

Unfortunately our government is just as prone to taking the money and running as yours. I am certain they have done the maths. They get a huge amount of tax money from BT and BP. Smokers more than pay for the health care they receive.

A more sobering thought is that as smokers die much younger and that also saves the government money in pension payments.

 

[crxess]

Why has the Video gone Private?

 

[DC2]

Why has the Video gone Private?

Hey, going private is better than what happened to this one...
There is one petition that actually matters...

Something smells a little funny around here.

 

[VNeil]

Hey, going private is better than what happened to this one...
There is one petition that actually matters...

Something smells a little funny around here.

Seems to be a rash of missing pro-vaping videos lately...

This Dr. Took up vaping for a month to find how it affected his health.