I'm still upset at esmoke-e for that too.
Actually this http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available is the one I'm talking about. There are almost 5000 sigs and testimonials now!
- Status
I'm still upset at esmoke-e for that too.
Actually this http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available is the one I'm talking about. There are almost 5000 sigs and testimonials now!
Same here. I do keep a dropper of high strength handy for the occasional strong hit, but my regular vape is getting lower and lower. Not out of any desire to quit (hey, I'm a bad person - sue me), simply because I've found I prefer it that way.
This is the problem, some people (myself included) get overdose symptoms when vaping over certain strengths. It's down to things like additives with tobacco, tolerance and strength of eliquid.
The maths says that we could easily be getting much higher doses of nicotine than with smoking. Some people say that's right - for them, and some say for them that's not how it is.
Until we get some scientific measurements of how much nicotine gets absorbed we're just going to go around in circles with this.
The maths says that we could easily be getting much higher doses of nicotine than with smoking. Some people say that's right - for them, and some say for them that's not how it is.
Until we get some scientific measurements of how much nicotine gets absorbed we're just going to go around in circles with this.
Would he appreciate a link to the survey and petition? Probably. Academics are overworked, underpaid, underappreciated infovores. The links are not compelling evidence, but they are an interesting data-point.
If I were faced with the "what about the children" argument against e-cigs, I would probably point out
1) we've had sweet-flavoured pipe-tobacco for longer than I've been alive (and that's a mighty long time). Teenagers don't smoke pipes because they like the sweet taste. They smoke real cigarettes to look cool or fit in with their peers. They choose a brand of cigarettes to fit in, or to emulate their favourite rock star, or because it is what their parents smoked.
2) Teenagers take up smoking not for the buzz but just to look cool. A pack of cigarettes is a cheap way to look cool. A $100 e-cig is not a cheap way to look cool.
3) Rock stars smoke real cigarettes. E-cigs are used by middle-aged squares who babble on about how they finally kicked their addiction. Imagine a 40-something man on a skateboard. Seen through a teenager's eyes, we (and e-cigs) are not cool.
If I were faced with the "what about the children" argument against e-cigs, I would probably point out
1) we've had sweet-flavoured pipe-tobacco for longer than I've been alive (and that's a mighty long time). Teenagers don't smoke pipes because they like the sweet taste. They smoke real cigarettes to look cool or fit in with their peers. They choose a brand of cigarettes to fit in, or to emulate their favourite rock star, or because it is what their parents smoked.
2) Teenagers take up smoking not for the buzz but just to look cool. A pack of cigarettes is a cheap way to look cool. A $100 e-cig is not a cheap way to look cool.
3) Rock stars smoke real cigarettes. E-cigs are used by middle-aged squares who babble on about how they finally kicked their addiction. Imagine a 40-something man on a skateboard. Seen through a teenager's eyes, we (and e-cigs) are not cool.
Kate, such a study on nicotine blood levels is apparently in the making. The recent Washington Post article A Smoking Experience That's Unmatched" [thread=11758]thread ID 11758[/thread] featured Prof. Eisenberg from VCU Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, referring to a clinical study apparently untertaken at VCU.
Maybe some native English speaking forum member, highly interested and well informed in the health aspects of vaping, could search to get into contact with him.
29 signatures needed to reach the halfway mark as I post this.
Thanks very much for that information Tom. It's a bit late tonight for me to start reading about research but I'll try to get a chance to check it out tomorrow.
It would be really handy if we had some facts about nicotine and vaping rather than rely on opinion.
It would be really handy if we had some facts about nicotine and vaping rather than rely on opinion.
I sent an e-mail to dr erickson with a link to ecf and the petition.
edit: as well as my story
edit: as well as my story
Good job Marc!
Kate, I also wish we could put together just the basic body of a letter, with just the facts on nic, PG, VG, etc, that we could all use in our letters. That way no one gets it wrong or misunderstood.
Then all that's left is the personal information.
Kate, I also wish we could put together just the basic body of a letter, with just the facts on nic, PG, VG, etc, that we could all use in our letters. That way no one gets it wrong or misunderstood.
Then all that's left is the personal information.
Nitewriter, my memory is a bit hazy on it; but wasn't it you who made a poll a while (quite a while perhaps) back, about how many switched from cigs to e-cigs completely - with a very high percentage resulting? I think that would be good to show these gentlemen also, if you know where that poll went?
I'm a licensed professional engineer. Trying to test and quantify every combination of factors and effects for physical systems is not possible.
In my experience, some variation of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is the best) is most realistic.
You want to see how 'safe' tested and approved products are in the real world? Read some of these --
List of recalls submitted to and published by the FDA over the last 10 years:
www .fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/archive.html
Here is the complete list of all FDA Enforcement Reports dating back to 1990:
www .fda.gov/opacom/Enforce.html
So, even if everything is tested and approved, doesn't mean that all variables have been covered.
In my experience, some variation of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is the best) is most realistic.
You want to see how 'safe' tested and approved products are in the real world? Read some of these --
List of recalls submitted to and published by the FDA over the last 10 years:
www .fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/archive.html
Here is the complete list of all FDA Enforcement Reports dating back to 1990:
www .fda.gov/opacom/Enforce.html
So, even if everything is tested and approved, doesn't mean that all variables have been covered.
Hmm.. I have to say one thing and I'll be happy to be done with the Hangar thing.
Back in post 92, you mentioned a few people "getting it" and helping newbies to see "who is willing to be open and honest and who is not".
For hopefully the very last time, your version of people "getting it" appears to simply be those who sympathize with your opinion. Fine, as it were, but your opinion is no more FACT than anyone else's. Period.
The last comment, frankly is the height of arrogance, condescension, and bullcrap in intoning, no, actually stating, that those who disagree with your OPINION or call you out on coming off as a pompous ..., are in fact "unwilling to be open and honest."
I call and raise you on that lie. And that's not an opinion. I definitely put it out as a fact, based on your posts, that you consider those whose opinions differ from yours and are willing to call you on it liars. You've shown that consistently through several posts.
Wanting to have an open and honest dialog about things? Right. Provided, of course that they agree with you and/or don't mind being called stupid, misinformed, etc.
You, sir, are a misguided person who has falsely attributed your opinions as gospel, and have falsely accused people who have called you out on your attitude of being liars.
For those things, you get zero respect. Give opinions without denigrating others and you'll gain some. It's called an open and honest discussion. Try participating in one for a change.
Back in post 92, you mentioned a few people "getting it" and helping newbies to see "who is willing to be open and honest and who is not".
For hopefully the very last time, your version of people "getting it" appears to simply be those who sympathize with your opinion. Fine, as it were, but your opinion is no more FACT than anyone else's. Period.
The last comment, frankly is the height of arrogance, condescension, and bullcrap in intoning, no, actually stating, that those who disagree with your OPINION or call you out on coming off as a pompous ..., are in fact "unwilling to be open and honest."
I call and raise you on that lie. And that's not an opinion. I definitely put it out as a fact, based on your posts, that you consider those whose opinions differ from yours and are willing to call you on it liars. You've shown that consistently through several posts.
Wanting to have an open and honest dialog about things? Right. Provided, of course that they agree with you and/or don't mind being called stupid, misinformed, etc.
You, sir, are a misguided person who has falsely attributed your opinions as gospel, and have falsely accused people who have called you out on your attitude of being liars.
For those things, you get zero respect. Give opinions without denigrating others and you'll gain some. It's called an open and honest discussion. Try participating in one for a change.
Hangar's argument is, in fact, exactly the same as Creationists give when faced with all the evidence that supports the theory of evolution - effectively that until his opponents prove a negative (which can't be done,) the opposing theory (in this case that ecigs are safer than analogs,) is just one more theory with no more merit than any other. So we are supposed to ignore all the evidence, and give equal credence to theories unsupported by ANY evidence at all.
Anyone can get ideas into their head sometimes that don't stand up to deeper scrutiny, but the mark of an honest debater is that they engage for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and diminishing uncertainty, not that they will use any slippery argument they can get away with to maximize uncertainty, and thereby shore up whatever crackpottery they're promoting.
It looks to me like either rank stupidity, or entirely disingenuous trolling, that after this many well-reasoned arguments and links to external resources posted, Hangar clearly has no real interest in ascertaining the facts. Which, admittedly incomplete as they are, all point to combustion being the prime health factor that is many orders of magnitude more damaging than ANY others in the use of nicotine delivery products.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
As one who has collaborated with Mike Eriksen many times in the past two decades, I'm very disappointed with the quotes attributed to him (as well as others) in the WebMD article. In the past several months, I've sent Mike dozens of articles on e-cigarettes (and sent him the FDA petition multiple times).
I encourage all e-cigarette users to politely contact him (and others who criticize the e-cigarettes) and point out your experiences. I'll also send him a private reply, urging him to read the comments on the FDA petition, to read this blog, and to reconsider his knee jerk criticisms.
Most folks at health agencies and organizations are still grossly misinformed about smokefree tobacco and nicotine products (except for NRT products due to drug company lobbying and funding).
When caught offguard by a news reporter's question about a new smokefree tobacco/nicotine product (that isn't approved by the FDA as a smoking cessation aid), most of these folks raise lots of concerns (but fail to acknowledge the benefits or potential benefits) about the product.
I encourage all e-cigarette users to politely contact him (and others who criticize the e-cigarettes) and point out your experiences. I'll also send him a private reply, urging him to read the comments on the FDA petition, to read this blog, and to reconsider his knee jerk criticisms.
Most folks at health agencies and organizations are still grossly misinformed about smokefree tobacco and nicotine products (except for NRT products due to drug company lobbying and funding).
When caught offguard by a news reporter's question about a new smokefree tobacco/nicotine product (that isn't approved by the FDA as a smoking cessation aid), most of these folks raise lots of concerns (but fail to acknowledge the benefits or potential benefits) about the product.
Here's the poll Katink, but it needs more sigs. (only 128) http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/6470-e-cig-success-rate.html
If we can get more sigs it might be useful.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Hanger's comments on this thread (and comments in the media by e-cigarette critics and prohibitionists) demonstrate why there needs to be reasonable and responsible regulations for e-cigarettes.
There are basically two competing ideologies regarding new products risks and burden of proof.
One ideology is that products should remain on the market until/unless the product is proven to be harmful. The other idealogy is that no product (especially drugs) should be allowed on the market until/unless the manufacturer first spends lots of money prooving that the product is safe.
Harm reduction (i.e. risk reduction) is a continuum, as nothing is absolutely safe.
On a scale of mortality risk from 1 to 100 (on which NRT products are a 1 and cigarettes are a 100), smokeless tobacco products and e-cigarettes are between 1 and 2.
Since 2 is far closer to 1 than it is to 100, the e-cigarette and all other smokefree tobacco/nicotine products should be considered in the same product category as NRT, instead of the category with cigarettes.
But harm reduction opponents (in their minds) automatically catagorize anything above a 1 on this scale (i.e. even a 1.001) as an unsafe, addictive, deadly and evil tobacco product that should be eliminated from society (unless/until it is proven safe and effective as a smoking cessation aid, and even then it should only be used temporarily).
We don't know if e-cigarettes are a 1, 1.01, 1.1 or 1.5 on this scale, but arguing over these miniscule differences only distracts from the fact that any of those risks are far more preferable than 100.
There are basically two competing ideologies regarding new products risks and burden of proof.
One ideology is that products should remain on the market until/unless the product is proven to be harmful. The other idealogy is that no product (especially drugs) should be allowed on the market until/unless the manufacturer first spends lots of money prooving that the product is safe.
Harm reduction (i.e. risk reduction) is a continuum, as nothing is absolutely safe.
On a scale of mortality risk from 1 to 100 (on which NRT products are a 1 and cigarettes are a 100), smokeless tobacco products and e-cigarettes are between 1 and 2.
Since 2 is far closer to 1 than it is to 100, the e-cigarette and all other smokefree tobacco/nicotine products should be considered in the same product category as NRT, instead of the category with cigarettes.
But harm reduction opponents (in their minds) automatically catagorize anything above a 1 on this scale (i.e. even a 1.001) as an unsafe, addictive, deadly and evil tobacco product that should be eliminated from society (unless/until it is proven safe and effective as a smoking cessation aid, and even then it should only be used temporarily).
We don't know if e-cigarettes are a 1, 1.01, 1.1 or 1.5 on this scale, but arguing over these miniscule differences only distracts from the fact that any of those risks are far more preferable than 100.
- Status
Similar threads
