Yes...thanks Kate! And I can always count on Yvilla being level headed, cool, calm and collected. You ladies are great!
And not the only 2, many great minds on this forum.Of course, I get a pretty big kick out of some of you other guys, too!!!
- Status
Yes...thanks Kate! And I can always count on Yvilla being level headed, cool, calm and collected. You ladies are great!
And not the only 2, many great minds on this forum.Of course, I get a pretty big kick out of some of you other guys, too!!!
I haven't read this whole thread so I'm not sure what issues have come up but this might be appropriate. It's a letter by Tropical Bob presenting a case in favour of vaping (there's a bit about nicotine doses that I don't agree with but the rest seems sound to me) -
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/8264-fda-crackdown-looms-20.html#post128256
The "... almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use ..." says it all.
Last edited:
IMHO e-cig PVs should not be considered alongside smokeless tobacco products. The key difference being the no nic mixes. To have these lumped with and sujected to regulation with tobacco (albeit smokeless) products would benefit tobacco based products to the detriment of non-tobacco/tobacco derived products
Mr Godshall suggested
Now I am aware you have studied smokeless tobacco extensively, and would suggest you are aware there are differences associated with the oral absorption of tobacco that are not present with the e-cig which has no tobacco. It is tempting to categorize them together because of the lack of smoke, yet this is really not the case.
The association with smokeless tobacco raises difficulties in Europe as Snus is banned in the EU (except Sweden). I am aware the Swedish trade minister is attempting to get the ban lifted, though this itself involves negotiatons about regulation.
Mr Godshall suggested
Now I am aware you have studied smokeless tobacco extensively, and would suggest you are aware there are differences associated with the oral absorption of tobacco that are not present with the e-cig which has no tobacco. It is tempting to categorize them together because of the lack of smoke, yet this is really not the case.
The association with smokeless tobacco raises difficulties in Europe as Snus is banned in the EU (except Sweden). I am aware the Swedish trade minister is attempting to get the ban lifted, though this itself involves negotiatons about regulation.
wrt to the letter, is it possible to say something about the harm/lack of harm to others from vapour? Something is known about fog machines and it effects at least. This being the key issue that resulted in smoking bans.
I have a feeling that Bill's 1-100 scale was a combination of a) easy to understand example of harm reduction/risk scale and b) interpolation based on the number 4000 (harmful things) for cigarettes and the number 4 (ingredients, generally) in e-liquid.
I'd be surprised if it was based on anything as remotely concrete as a real, scientifically generated risk formula using actual data about health effects (again, since there aren't any for e-cigs, except anecdotally - as we are all painfully aware).
-Jerimiah
I'd be surprised if it was based on anything as remotely concrete as a real, scientifically generated risk formula using actual data about health effects (again, since there aren't any for e-cigs, except anecdotally - as we are all painfully aware).
-Jerimiah
you know, I really don't care if it is safe or not...it is MY choice to do it..I would only be concerned about the safety of something if it were to hurt someone other than myself...that is the ONLY issue...we are sovereign beings...we should be free to do as we please as long as it does not harm others...most of us choose to drive and guess what?...driving is not only dangerous to ourselves but to others as well...yet we hear no talk of banning driving, now do we?...if we were to stop everything that may harm us we wouldn't be able to leave our homes...oh wait, the allergens in the house may hurt us...uh oh, better kill ourselves as everything pretty much has a risk factor...gee, I was so worried about the safety of my ecig that the stress killed me!..better have studies done and start banning worrying too..lol
I'd still like one... just one... person who says that kids would get involved with e-cigs to explain how those kids would be able to afford it. We know the real expenses involved. Even the 'up front' expenses are beyond the means of children, including most teenagers.
If parents are giving their children (or even letting them keep) that much money on them, and not monitoring how it's spent, it sounds like a parenting issue to me.
If parents are giving their children (or even letting them keep) that much money on them, and not monitoring how it's spent, it sounds like a parenting issue to me.
But, you see, it's not the parents responsibility to raise their children, anymore....we aren't responsible enough to teach our kids right from wrong.......
Sorry, is my sarcasm showing again?
Walrus asked
How do children afford, designer trainers, mobile phones, ds and ds games etc?
Of course, for some, parents give them the money or buy them. Some could get the money from doing a part-time job and others from their older brothers/sisters. So if e-cigs became 'the in-thing' then kids would find the cash. e-cigs are about the same price as a DS Game. A DS Game £25, e-cig kit £25? On-going costs even cheaper.
Why would kids get involved? I have no idea, but the UK government has has said it is ok for NRT to be given to children which shows there must be a potential market.
How do children afford, designer trainers, mobile phones, ds and ds games etc?
Of course, for some, parents give them the money or buy them. Some could get the money from doing a part-time job and others from their older brothers/sisters. So if e-cigs became 'the in-thing' then kids would find the cash. e-cigs are about the same price as a DS Game. A DS Game £25, e-cig kit £25? On-going costs even cheaper.
Why would kids get involved? I have no idea, but the UK government has has said it is ok for NRT to be given to children which shows there must be a potential market.
Let's build a logic tree for the FDA
Cigarettes are a dangerous heath risk.
Cigarettes contain nicotine
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine addiction causes people to smoke cigarettes regardless of the risk
Nicotine addiction needs to be stopped in order for people to stop the dangerous behavior of smoking
(now approve the patch, nicotine inhalers, etc,,, which do not work well to get smokers to quit)
Conclusion,,, smokers will go to any length to continue thier addiction regardless of the dangers
Smokers can be treated as second class citizens and labeled as stupid
Tax the habit to discourage the behavior ( but don't earmark the funds to the treatment of smoking related illness,,, use it to give health care to children,,, oooooo,,,, that's clever,,,,, )
Now that they have completed the mission of marginalizing smokers they have won a considerable victory in thier eyes. How can they approve a behavior that mimics the behavior they spent so many years trying to eliminate??
This is where we've been, and the mindset we are up against
Cigarettes are a dangerous heath risk.
Cigarettes contain nicotine
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine addiction causes people to smoke cigarettes regardless of the risk
Nicotine addiction needs to be stopped in order for people to stop the dangerous behavior of smoking
(now approve the patch, nicotine inhalers, etc,,, which do not work well to get smokers to quit)
Conclusion,,, smokers will go to any length to continue thier addiction regardless of the dangers
Smokers can be treated as second class citizens and labeled as stupid
Tax the habit to discourage the behavior ( but don't earmark the funds to the treatment of smoking related illness,,, use it to give health care to children,,, oooooo,,,, that's clever,,,,, )
Now that they have completed the mission of marginalizing smokers they have won a considerable victory in thier eyes. How can they approve a behavior that mimics the behavior they spent so many years trying to eliminate??
This is where we've been, and the mindset we are up against
I used to think of myself as a future cancer patient because of my smoking habit. Morbid, but also somewhat realistic. I think of e-cigs as a choice between vaping (which may have some danger) and chemotherapy (which I know is toxic). It really is not a difficult choice.
It all comes down to potential benefit. If I know that cigarettes are going to kill me, but there is less chance of that with vaping, vaping wins. I like to be able to decide for myself if the risk/benefit ratio is worth it. It may not be worth it to you, and I would not force you to stop smoking, but you also need to admit that vaping could be better choice and acceptable risk for me. Thus, you should not pass laws that will prohibit e-cigs just because e-cigs are not good for YOU.
I am actually starting to think that the e-cig manufacturers should stop all their health benefit claims and simply market e-cig as a novelty item. Call it "Oral Humidifier" or something.
It all comes down to potential benefit. If I know that cigarettes are going to kill me, but there is less chance of that with vaping, vaping wins. I like to be able to decide for myself if the risk/benefit ratio is worth it. It may not be worth it to you, and I would not force you to stop smoking, but you also need to admit that vaping could be better choice and acceptable risk for me. Thus, you should not pass laws that will prohibit e-cigs just because e-cigs are not good for YOU.
I am actually starting to think that the e-cig manufacturers should stop all their health benefit claims and simply market e-cig as a novelty item. Call it "Oral Humidifier" or something.
No one will likely claim smoking cigarettes is good for a person. But it's not the mandatory death sentence the anti-smoking crowd has sold many on this forum.
Facts:
1. One in 10 cigarette smokers will get lung cancer. Conversely, nine out of every 10 smokers will NOT get lung cancer.
2. By the wildest estimate from the anti's, 50% of smokers die of a smoking-related illness. So the corollary is true: Half of all smokers do NOT die from anything remotely related to smoking.
Stop beating yourself up by buying into every hysterical claim made by mobs carrying torches and shouting anti-smoking slogans. Quit smoking, if you can, because it carries known risks to your health and longevity. If you can't, know that there is no certainty that you're slowly committing suicide, only a genetic crapshoot you could lose ... or could win.
Facts:
1. One in 10 cigarette smokers will get lung cancer. Conversely, nine out of every 10 smokers will NOT get lung cancer.
2. By the wildest estimate from the anti's, 50% of smokers die of a smoking-related illness. So the corollary is true: Half of all smokers do NOT die from anything remotely related to smoking.
Stop beating yourself up by buying into every hysterical claim made by mobs carrying torches and shouting anti-smoking slogans. Quit smoking, if you can, because it carries known risks to your health and longevity. If you can't, know that there is no certainty that you're slowly committing suicide, only a genetic crapshoot you could lose ... or could win.
Last edited:
50:50 chance of smoking-related illness is not really great odds. If vaping could make this 1:100 chance (not unreasonable), vaping would be a big time winner over smoking.
Even if there was only 50:50 chance that vaping could reduce the risk, it would still be worth it to switch (for ME).
But I am not really much into anti-smoking hysteria. I mean, I live in New York City -- just walking down the street during rush hour exposes me to more fumes than cigarette could ever do.
Even if there was only 50:50 chance that vaping could reduce the risk, it would still be worth it to switch (for ME).
But I am not really much into anti-smoking hysteria. I mean, I live in New York City -- just walking down the street during rush hour exposes me to more fumes than cigarette could ever do.
Last edited:
Make no mistake ... I don't encourage continued inhaling of cigarette smoke. But even after I quit, I still get really angry at the lies tossed out and the stress those lies place on smokers. Yep, it's Russian Roulette with the chamber half full. Too dangerous a game. And I e-smoke partly because I think it's much safer. Same reason I use snus and dissolvables.
We just need to keep everything in perspective and post accurate information -- unlike some of our opponents.
We just need to keep everything in perspective and post accurate information -- unlike some of our opponents.
You also have to take into consideration the lower quality of life due to health issues that affect smokers their entire lives and that get progressively worse as time goes on.
I don't think it's hype at all and even when I was smoking cigarettes heavily I knew and could actually feel how dangerous and damaging they were.
LOL, yes, there is a chance of going from a good-flavored nic-juice, to going into something that is more costly, tastes like ..., makes you smell, makes you cough excessively, and stop you from enjoying life indoors.
Yup, I see that happening...
Just like I see people who once guzzled nic-water or chewed nic-gum, run out and buy packs of cigs, just to fill the crave!
Going from the patch, to cigs might be more cost effective of habit change, but unlikely.
How about suing these people making these unjustified claims without proof, who are speaking against some thing they obviously know nothing about. That is called slander, and is costing us, and others money. Fine, you don't trust it... so don't do it. Don't take it away from us, because you are not sure if it MIGHT possibly be dangerous, based on nothing more than circumstantial and hypothetical evidence which is not derived from any facts.
Fact: They contain less chemicals.
Fact: Multiple people have quit smoking with these devices and chemicals.
Fact: The chemicals they contain all have FDA approval for ingestion.
Fact: The FDA does not require gas-masks in the daily production of these chemicals.
Fact: The addiction to nicotine is a prerequisite of the marketing as it stands now.
Fact: Nicotine delivery is exactly the same as a standard cigarette. Vaporized moisture.
Fact: The level of carbon monoxide is below FDA and EPA standards.
Fact: No dangerous levels of carcinogenic chemicals have been found in the juice.
Fact: All medical tests indicate there is little or no life threat, other than the nicotine.
Fact: The levels of nicotine consumed, when used as directed, are below patch levels.
Fact: You CAN legally vape, where you can not smoke an ignited product.
Fact: There are places and situations where you still CAN NOT vape.
Fact: Safety has been recorded and confirmed, when it comes to the ingestion and inhalation of this products byproduct, compared to an ignited smoking cigarette.
Fact: This is not a new drug.
Fact: This is not a new method of consumption.
Fact: This is not a new method of consumption of this chemical.
Fact: These devices, and similar devices have been in use for over 1000's of years.
Fact: These specific "Computer controlled, battery powered", devices are only 4 years old in the public market.
Fact: These specific devices operate without the combustion of the prior devices.
Fact: Combustion in the prior devices was medically proven to be the largest contributing factor related to the dangers of the devices.
Fact: This level of government intervention is questionable, as no other intervention similar to this has been done before. ......, Prozac, Oxycotton, cigarettes, tobacco, etc... have not seen such over-the-top actions forced upon them. Cigarettes were still available for sale, while investigation into safety and health was made, and after it was determined that they were unhealthy and unsafe.
I could go on... But please... I am sure you know more to add to the list.
NOTE: Potential for abuse is not a result of a products existence. It is the personal result of an individuals actions, which have no correlation to the items being abused. You can abuse a car, gun, knife, butter, air, tape, glue, oranges, socks, water... and have epidemic disasters related to majority stupidity. Potential is not a justifiable source for control or punishment or abandonment.
Witches were potentially dangerous, until you drowned them.
Cars and guns are dangerous, but sales did not stop during or once this was determined.
I am potentially dangerous, if I you poke me with a wet-noodle.
Correction... I am lethal, if you poke me with a wet-noodle!
Yup, I see that happening...
Just like I see people who once guzzled nic-water or chewed nic-gum, run out and buy packs of cigs, just to fill the crave!
Going from the patch, to cigs might be more cost effective of habit change, but unlikely.
How about suing these people making these unjustified claims without proof, who are speaking against some thing they obviously know nothing about. That is called slander, and is costing us, and others money. Fine, you don't trust it... so don't do it. Don't take it away from us, because you are not sure if it MIGHT possibly be dangerous, based on nothing more than circumstantial and hypothetical evidence which is not derived from any facts.
Fact: They contain less chemicals.
Fact: Multiple people have quit smoking with these devices and chemicals.
Fact: The chemicals they contain all have FDA approval for ingestion.
Fact: The FDA does not require gas-masks in the daily production of these chemicals.
Fact: The addiction to nicotine is a prerequisite of the marketing as it stands now.
Fact: Nicotine delivery is exactly the same as a standard cigarette. Vaporized moisture.
Fact: The level of carbon monoxide is below FDA and EPA standards.
Fact: No dangerous levels of carcinogenic chemicals have been found in the juice.
Fact: All medical tests indicate there is little or no life threat, other than the nicotine.
Fact: The levels of nicotine consumed, when used as directed, are below patch levels.
Fact: You CAN legally vape, where you can not smoke an ignited product.
Fact: There are places and situations where you still CAN NOT vape.
Fact: Safety has been recorded and confirmed, when it comes to the ingestion and inhalation of this products byproduct, compared to an ignited smoking cigarette.
Fact: This is not a new drug.
Fact: This is not a new method of consumption.
Fact: This is not a new method of consumption of this chemical.
Fact: These devices, and similar devices have been in use for over 1000's of years.
Fact: These specific "Computer controlled, battery powered", devices are only 4 years old in the public market.
Fact: These specific devices operate without the combustion of the prior devices.
Fact: Combustion in the prior devices was medically proven to be the largest contributing factor related to the dangers of the devices.
Fact: This level of government intervention is questionable, as no other intervention similar to this has been done before. ......, Prozac, Oxycotton, cigarettes, tobacco, etc... have not seen such over-the-top actions forced upon them. Cigarettes were still available for sale, while investigation into safety and health was made, and after it was determined that they were unhealthy and unsafe.
I could go on... But please... I am sure you know more to add to the list.
NOTE: Potential for abuse is not a result of a products existence. It is the personal result of an individuals actions, which have no correlation to the items being abused. You can abuse a car, gun, knife, butter, air, tape, glue, oranges, socks, water... and have epidemic disasters related to majority stupidity. Potential is not a justifiable source for control or punishment or abandonment.
Witches were potentially dangerous, until you drowned them.
Cars and guns are dangerous, but sales did not stop during or once this was determined.
I am potentially dangerous, if I you poke me with a wet-noodle.
Correction... I am lethal, if you poke me with a wet-noodle!
Last edited:
Well, yes, but you did not mention the children! Namely, saving the little darlings from all those things. We live under the tyranny of ten-year-olds.
"It will be easy for kids to get the product," Light tells WebMD. "It could be a way to get kids into the nicotine habit to get them to smoke. It is a ploy...........................
WOW! some people just need a good firm smack across their face..the problem seriously is personal choice and thats what it always is going to be from legal substances to illegal substances.....What will happen when one day our government makes all of our decisions for us.
WOW! some people just need a good firm smack across their face..the problem seriously is personal choice and thats what it always is going to be from legal substances to illegal substances.....What will happen when one day our government makes all of our decisions for us.
Kid > 0yrs old to <13...
How many 12 year olds have $50.00 to blow smoke rings?
How many of them have credit cards, a mail address without adult supervision, and another $50.00 for enough juice to actually become addicted?
Seriously, they act like this stuff is crack-rock or ......!
They can feed us lies, but the companies can not?
They could buy cigaretts and other nicotine products just as easy. (They already do.)
How many 12 year olds have $50.00 to blow smoke rings?
How many of them have credit cards, a mail address without adult supervision, and another $50.00 for enough juice to actually become addicted?
Seriously, they act like this stuff is crack-rock or ......!
They can feed us lies, but the companies can not?
They could buy cigaretts and other nicotine products just as easy. (They already do.)
- Status
Similar threads
