E-Cigarettes Prove a Hot Topic for Experts

[JrdUK]

Peter Ucko, director of the National Council Against Smoking, countered this.
He said that electronic cigarettes still contained nicotine, which was addictive.
There was no such thing as safe nicotine, he said, adding that the cigarettes had already been banned on aircraft.
Magdalene Seguin, head of the Cancer Association of South Africa, said it believed the cigarettes were not a proven and safe way to stop smoking.

E-Cigarettes Prove a Hot Topic for Experts | Smoking 2.0

 

[aditas]

And what if it turns out that they are a proven and safe way to quit smoking. Can we sue the CASA for spreading FUD?

 

[Nokosa]

“tobacco cigarettes are not only harmful to the smoker,” said Ridwaan Ismail of Health-e-Cigarettes, a local company that launched its electronic cigarette this year.
“They are proven to be harmful to those inhaling the secondary smoke.
“On the other hand, e-cigarettes are not harmful to those around you, and significantly reduce the damage caused to the smoker by cutting out all carcinogenic substances.”
Ismail said that instead of producing smoke from combustion, like normal cigarettes, the electronic cigarette produced vapour. The vapour was created from liquid containing nicotine within the electronic cigarette.
“Both odourless and colourless, the vapour is neither toxic nor harmful as a secondary smoke, making it safe to smoke in all public places,” he said.

Exactly.

Peter Ucko, director of the National Council Against Smoking, countered this.
He said that electronic cigarettes still contained nicotine, which was addictive.
There was no such thing as safe nicotine, he said, adding that the cigarettes had already been banned on aircraft.

The nicotine that is exhaled when vaping is so minute that even if you blew it in someones face they wouldn't notice any change whatsoever. There are traces of nicotine in MANY substances that people use/eat every day, you don't see them picking up a pack of smokes.

Magdalene Seguin, head of the Cancer Association of South Africa, said it believed the cigarettes were not a proven and safe way to stop smoking.

No one ****in' said they were, nor did anyone incline as such. They, as Ismail says below, are merely an alternative to smoking analogs.

Ismail claimed e-cigarettes were becoming the preferred alternative, offering smokers the opportunity to cut down on the harmful chemicals smokers inhaled.
He said the cartridges, unlike tobacco butts, were also completely recyclable which made the cigarette a more environmentally friendly product.

Case in point.

Ucko said the National Council Against Smoking was working to have the electronic cigarettes governed by the same amended laws that restricted the public smoking of normal cigarettes.

Ucko has another thing coming. The banning or restriction of public smoking of normal cigarettes is categorized as a substance containing combustible tobacco and second hand smoke.



I really hope idiots like this realize that e-cigs are an alternative, a much safer one I might add, to smoking traditional cigarettes.

 

[grimmer255]

But here is the spin off to all of this can you prove that they are safer than cigarette smoke....dont get me wrong I feel 1000 times better than I did when I smoked...but in the scientific community hard facts is all they look at.

So the question is can anyone prove that inhaling Vapor is safer than smoke...because if you did then it will spark up interest...until then forget about it.

 

[SLDS181]

So the question is can anyone prove that inhaling Vapor is safer than smoke...because if you did then it will spark up interest...until then forget about it.

....yes.

We know the ingredients. We know what happens when you inhale those ingredients.

So yes, these are known.

 

[four2109]

....yes.

We know the ingredients. We know what happens when you inhale those ingredients.

So yes, these are known.

No we don't. We are rats, no lab, just rats.

 

[SLDS181]

No we don't. We are rats, no lab, just rats.

I'm basing my statement on known research.

What are you basing yours on?

Please, enlighten me... what don't we know about?

 

[four2109]

The lack of research. I choose to use an electronic cigarette as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes because I know tobacco cigarettes were going to kill me, and still might. I'm choosing an unknown risk as opposed to a known risk. I can't tell anyone that they should because they are safe, or safer. We don't know what the long term effects might be and I think it is wreckless to pretend that we do when people come here looking for information.

 

[SLDS181]

The lack of research. I choose to use an electronic cigarette as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes because I know tobacco cigarettes were going to kill me, and still might. I'm choosing an unknown risk as opposed to a known risk. I can't tell anyone that they should because they are safe, or safer. We don't know what the long term effects might be and I think it is wreckless to pretend that we do when people come here looking for information.

Again, please, tell me what we don't know about. What ingredient aren't we aware of the effects? We know about nicotine. We know about the inhalation of propylene glycol and glycerine. We know they are not bio-cumulative. We know that tobacco flavors contain trace amounts of TSNA's, and we know their effects.

What don't we know about? What is unknown?

 

[Nokosa]

The lack of research. I choose to use an electronic cigarette as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes because I know tobacco cigarettes were going to kill me, and still might. I'm choosing an unknown risk as opposed to a known risk. I can't tell anyone that they should because they are safe, or safer. We don't know what the long term effects might be and I think it is wreckless to pretend that we do when people come here looking for information.

E-Cigs contain no tar, no tobacco, no fiber glass, and definitely no arsenic. See, they're already safer and I've only named four things.

 

[Robert]

I thinks it's about harm reduction- Every time you don't light a cig-and vape you are reducing harm..

Did I just agree with SLDS181? he loves to debate- you should just walk away from this.

 

[SLDS181]

I thinks it's about harm reduction- Every time you don't light a cig-and vape you are reducing harm..

Did I just agree with SLDS181? he loves to debate- you should just walk away from this.

Its true, I do.... but I also don't like bad information, its what gets me riled up.

And you're also 100% right about harm reduction.

 

[rothenbj]

Its true, I do.... but I also don't like bad information, its what gets me riled up.

And you're also 100% right about harm reduction.

Here's what I'm 100% sure about. When I was smoking over 2 packs a day and particularly after they added the FSC "stuff", I was coughing a lot during the day. I'd fall asleep coughing and I'd wake up in the middle of the night coughing.

I'm also 100% sure if I kept smoking cigarettes at that rate or more (after over 40 years of smoking), I was eventually going to pay the piper.

I'm still not 100% off of tobacco, but I've reduced consumption about 85%.

Finally, I'm 100% sure that I'd rather take my chances on the research I've done on my own, the research I've read done by others and the change in how I feel and roll the dice on whether there may be some long term effect from smoking ecigs. Oh, the other thing I'm 100% sure of is that I like the various non-tobacco flavors a lot more than the tabacco ones. And that come from a 62 year old kid.

 

[SLDS181]

Here's what I'm 100% sure about. When I was smoking over 2 packs a day and particularly after they added the FSC "stuff", I was coughing a lot during the day. I'd fall asleep coughing and I'd wake up in the middle of the night coughing.

I'm also 100% sure if I kept smoking cigarettes at that rate or more (after over 40 years of smoking), I was eventually going to pay the piper.

I'm still not 100% off of tobacco, but I've reduced consumption about 85%.

Finally, I'm 100% sure that I'd rather take my chances on the research I've done on my own, the research I've read done by others and the change in how I feel and roll the dice on whether there may be some long term effect from smoking ecigs. Oh, the other thing I'm 100% sure of is that I like the various non-tobacco flavors a lot more than the tabacco ones. And that come from a 62 year old kid.

(now if you can nail that other 15%, you're set! )

 

[HaploVoss]

I don't guess it is 'long-term' enough, but I can personally attest to now just a smidge over 2 *years* of vaping, nearly 2 years of nothing but vaping, I have suffered no ill side effects of any kind. I have also gained a lot from switching to vaping such as no more morning cough, better results on physicals - (no more wheezing in the lungs, etc.) and the list goes on.

Same old argument... what will ever be enough?

 

[Our House]

When does anecdotal evidence stop being anecdotal?

For instance, say everyone in the world (~6.5 billion people) have been using a product for 50 years with no problems. Is it okay to say that this counts as scientific evidence for the product's safety?

 

[Kate51]

As in the first post, there's just one problem: well, a couple. They assume everyone wants to stop absorbing nicotine. They don't acknowledge Tobacco Cigarette Replacement. And second, they are trying very hard to not compare vaporizing a 3-part or so liquid to combustion of tobacco and about 4000 additives.
So, their points are a little muddy. A third problem comes in when they stick to their first two points.

 

[dragonpuff]

As in the first post, there's just one problem: well, a couple. They assume everyone wants to stop absorbing nicotine. They don't acknowledge Tobacco Cigarette Replacement.

They don't assume everyone wants to, they assume everyone should.

You know, abstinence is best and because abstinence is best, it should be the only viewpoint allowed. Any other ideas only encourage people to do naughty things.

Can't say i didn't learn anything in grade school!

 

[Kate51]

Sounds about right to me dragonpuff!!!

Hey, rothenbj, I smoked 44 years, since I was 18. Coughed my head off, was almost ready for the slab, I'm sure. I'm also not sure I would have cared all that much. I was almost non-functional, and the worse I felt the more I smoked. That was sure dumb. Well, I'm more awake, now. But I still like the tobacco, although this is 100% better than floor sweepings.

 

[MrKai]

When does anecdotal evidence stop being anecdotal?

For instance, say everyone in the world (~6.5 billion people) have been using a product for 50 years with no problems. Is it okay to say that this counts as scientific evidence for the product's safety?

...we have no where NEAR that much data, and quite frankly, I am on the verge of cursing at people that are willing to proclaim eCigs as a holy magic bullet with virtually NO ......NED SCIENCE to back it up.

*Water drank* fast enough, in enough volume CAN KILL YOU. We do not in ANY WAY know the *cumilative effects* of this and some "kitchen chemist" on a forum trying to shout down the mere *concept* of proof (and you ALL know who you are) make us look FAR WORSE than ASH or anyone else...simply because you engage in dishonest debate...like every OTHER kind of junkie justifying why they "have to have" their fix.

We DO NOT know. There hasn't been enough peer review of even the studies done yet, enough "what if" enough "what ingredients in flavoring could react with the metals and plastics, cumilative levels of x over a period of y when passed in heated vapor..." none of it.

SO JUST STOP with these disingenuous attempts at "analysis based on common sense" (not scientific), armchair lawyering (not law) and stick to philosophy.

Try sticking to KNOWN FACTS. Drawing untested conclusions without testing is exactly how cigs got to the point where they were killing millions.

How do YOU know that right now, something ISN'T happening inside your body or your brain that is having a cumulative negative effect?

Here...let me help you: you haven't got a CLUE

Stop making an alternative choice in to a damned "intellectual cult". I mean even NORML has YEARS and YEARS of fact and historical data on their side...and no offense to our NORML friends here, they have some perception issues.

It does NOT HELP making wildly unsubstantiated claims while sucking a known highly addictive substance into your body.

Critical Thinking and Informed Opinion is a two-way street. Point me to at least 20 peer-reviewed studies...yes, even *studies* at this point, that conclusively and overwhelmingly agree with some of these assertions.

Failure to engage in honest debate will do us in *in the court of public opinion* and it is high time that people stopped saying "harmless water vapor"..."no carcinogens" etc because if anyone ever finds any, ballgame. The fact that the majority of the vapor inhaled and exhaled ISN'T WATER VAPOR and yet people insist on repeating this?

NOT helping.

-K