Katherine Heigl is still puffing

[renstyle]

Yes, it is in Media and General news currently. It started in the legislation (or at least a link was still there within the legislation forum, which is how I brought it up).

Just checked back in Legislation... it has a "Moved" icon today, prolly perm?

 

[renstyle]

Are we looking at the same title?

The one I am look at reads, "Isn't it time you weaned yourself off them?"

1. I have no problem with the content of the article. Never said I did. The article is positive.
2. Never said that the headline is lying. The headline is negative and it helps to perpetuate the myth that the goal must be complete abstinence from nicotine.
3. The headline is written in such a way to sound accusatory.

• The pronoun "you" refers to Katherine Heigl.
• The pronoun "them" refers to e-cigarettes, not to tobacco cigarettes.
• The writer of the headline is chiding Heigl for failing to wean herself off e-cigarettes.

4. I would prefer to see the headline written to draw attention to Katherine's incredible accomplishment -- she hasn't smoked in 9 months -- instead of sneering at her for still using an e-cigarette 9 months after she quit smoking. So. What.
5. A large number of people seem to think that the object of using e-cigarettes is to cure nicotine addiction -- including the FDA, and that is a problem. A BIG problem. If that's the "intended use" then e-cigarettes are a drug and the FDA can rightfully remove them from the market.
6. I would like to see the world come to understand that the fact that we no longer inhale smoke means that we have quit smoking.
7. I would like to see the world understand that not smoking is good enough. We do not need to become tobacco-free to be healthy. We do not need to become nicotine-free to be healthy.
8. I would like to see the world become educated enough on the issues that folks stop asking us, "Well, when are you going to give that up?" referring to our much safer alternative.
9. I would also like to see the world come to understand that there is nothing shameful about using nicotine. If there is, then all the folks who line up at Starbucks every morning for an eye-opening dose of caffeine should be ashamed of themselves, too.
10. I would like to see the world understand that for many of us, stopping the use of our alternative product will drive us right back to smoking -- and that would be a bad thing.

Thank you for this, you've made the object of my mad ravings sound coherent and balanced!

 

[Doberz]

I really didn't read is as they meant she needs to wean off of the e-cigs. Take from it what you will I guess.

 

[Gypsynbudhasmom]

I also gave the e-cig serious consideration because I saw her on David Letterman. And I was also a little offended by the way the article was worded, it was written like she promised to stop doing it and didn't. I'm not sure of everything she said on the Letterma show, but what I remember most is that it's better and more healthy than smoking and that's what I went with. I prayed that the e-cig would help me stop smoking and it has.
BUT....I do NOT want to stop vaping. I love trying new flavors and having different styles and colors of pvs, I love getting excited because I have something coming in the mail, I love this forum and not smelling like an old ashtray.
Opps, sorry went on a tangent there, sorry, but my point is, the title of the article was really negative.

 

[Atari]

I hope all the "informed" comments make some sort of impact. This should be seen as a good thing, and I think with all the comments strongly leaning in our favor, maybe someone else will make the switch. Here to hoping

 

[renstyle]

Take from it what you will I guess.

It's always better to "flesh it out" here in a forum discussion, where all of us see PVs in a generally favorable light. With all of the FDA and the UKs MHRA trying to regulate/license these PVs into oblivion, I've lost alot of faith in the mass media getting the correct story out.

Watching the "fight the ban" videos from Smoke2Vape (Andy) and GrimmGreen is what directed me to the legislation section of the forums, which as I mentioned before is where I found this article.

I also get ticked when I hear somebody spouting the "fact" that antifreeze is used in e-liquid. It is totally true. Propylene glycol is used as antifreeze, makes a GREAT antifreeze. I know because I have some in the heat exchanger of my solar hot water system.

Somebody who is on the fence hears that without the context will have a hard time being pursuaded that there is a difference between ethylene glycol (car antifreeze, HIGHLY toxic, will kill you and your pets) and propylene glycol (used in food that we eat). After all, aren't they pretty much the same?

Disinformation to serve a corrupt process. It sounds like I'm an anarchist or at least have a big grudge, but when you see the FDA and the AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION want to ban PVs outright, but yet allow analogs to exist, you can see how money talks in the arenas of power and influence.

I feel strongly about this issue because I don't want to smoke analogs again, and I don't feel this is a fair fight with the way many state and national govern'tments are framing the argument. I've signed petitions, added comments to articles, etc to try to keep my voice in the fight, cuz that's exactly what it is until PVs get on a more legal footing.

 

[GMoney]

It's always better to "flesh it out" here in a forum discussion, where all of us see PVs in a generally favorable light. With all of the FDA and the UKs MHRA trying to regulate/license these PVs into oblivion, I've lost alot of faith in the mass media getting the correct story out.

Watching the "fight the ban" videos from Smoke2Vape (Andy) and GrimmGreen is what directed me to the legislation section of the forums, which as I mentioned before is where I found this article.

I also get ticked when I hear somebody spouting the "fact" that antifreeze is used in e-liquid. It is totally true. Propylene glycol is used as antifreeze, makes a GREAT antifreeze. I know because I have some in the heat exchanger of my solar hot water system.

Somebody who is on the fence hears that without the context will have a hard time being pursuaded that there is a difference between ethylene glycol (car antifreeze, HIGHLY toxic, will kill you and your pets) and propylene glycol (used in food that we eat). After all, aren't they pretty much the same?

Disinformation to serve a corrupt process. It sounds like I'm an anarchist or at least have a big grudge, but when you see the FDA and the AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION want to ban PVs outright, but yet allow analogs to exist, you can see how money talks in the arenas of power and influence.

I feel strongly about this issue because I don't want to smoke analogs again, and I don't feel this is a fair fight with the way many state and national govern'tments are framing the argument. I've signed petitions, added comments to articles, etc to try to keep my voice in the fight, cuz that's exactly what it is until PVs get on a more legal footing.

I completely agree with you.

I keep waiting to hear " e-cig vapor is proven to have high levels of diHydrogen Monoxide and must be banned! Save the Children!"

The misinformation is horrifying but unfortunately it is effective to some extent.

 

[t9c]

It continues to amaze me how many people think nicotine is so horrible.

E-cigs aren't anyone's worries anymore...it's the nicotine that they've all been brainwashed (thanks to the fDA + it's dependents) to think is harmful. I guess everyone makes the lazy assumption it's bad b/c cigarettes are bad (for you).

 

[Beez]

Seems as if this journalist is rather free with his/ her criticism, seems also to not like the fact that Katherine left her young child with a sitter for dinner out with her husband! Well how terrible of Katherine, she should be burned at the stake Seems this journalist may just have questionable standards for human kind (and on top of that writes quite badly LOL). At least it gets the word out to others, high profile users would generally be good. The journalist just took something positive and tried to make something negative out of it. Typical for this type of publication unfortunately.

 

[arjay55]

If you are a coffee drinker and you change to de-caf as a better health alternative you are applauded. No one says 'give up all forms of coffee'.

If you are a lover of beer and you change over to a 'light' (lite) version as it is a more responsible alternative, you are commended for your sensible attitude and thought for other people. No one says you need to give beer up altogether as far as I know.

If you are a user of illicit drugs and you sign up for a treatment program then you are commended, nay, encouraged to. No one says 'isn't it about time you got off that methodone". No, basically it's when its right for you.

If you are a smoker and you change over to e-cigs as a better health choice, with all its advantages and so few disadvantages, its still not good enough.

I'm 55, smoked for 42 years (with an 18mnth break 31 years ago), stopped smoking completely !!! the day I started vaping, and the first thing both my mother and my wife wanted to know (after explaining what it was, and the benefits of them) was how long do I need to stay on these for before giving up smoking for good.

With some people, you're never ever going to win, even more so when it comes to smoking. There is a 'My Way or the Highway' mentality when it comes to the anti-smoking crowd.

 

[TandT]

Love to see videos like that!

 

[Dirgon]

The headline was horrible.

The content cared more about her movies and what she wore to the date, even though the headline was about her quitting smoking using the e-cig.

I *hate* seeing them portrayed in the media the way they are. Give some *REAL* info about them, please.

It also peeves the hell out of me when they're labeled as "quit smoking aids." We don't use them as such, we use them as a lesser risk alternative.

 

[Vocalek]

I also get ticked when I hear somebody spouting the "fact" that antifreeze is used in e-liquid. It is totally true. Propylene glycol is used as antifreeze, makes a GREAT antifreeze. I know because I have some in the heat exchanger of my solar hot water system.

Disinformation to serve a corrupt process. It sounds like I'm an anarchist or at least have a big grudge, but when you see the FDA and the AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION want to ban PVs outright, but yet allow analogs to exist, you can see how money talks in the arenas of power and influence.

You do know, don't you, where people got the idea that manufacturers put antifreeze into e-cigarettes? It has zero to do with propylene glycol. See the first paragraph of FDA's press release: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

They found less than 1% diethylene glycol (DEG) in one of 18 cartridges tested. DEG has many applications, but calling it a "humectant" or a "lubricant" just didn't sound as scary as "antifreeze." So yes, the FDA was using propaganda technques, but not about propylene glycol (PG).

As it turns out the quantity of DEG they measured (approximately 0.01 ml) is thousands of times below the toxic dose.

The major hazard from DEG occurs following the ingestion of relatively large single doses. The estimated lethal dose of DEG for humans is approximately 1 ml/kg.

Health Canada. Diethylene glycol; classification with respect to acute toxicity. Date Modified: 2010-09-21. Diethylene glycol; classification with respect to acute toxicity - Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System - Health Canada

Multiple companies have had their products tested for diethylene glycol and none of the samples have turned up positive. (Siegel, 2011) Journal of Public Health Policy - Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes[quest]

So, the next time someone says they put antifreeze into e-cigarettes, give them the true facts. Chances are that they are talking about DEG, not PG. DEG is way more toxic than PG is.

And if you go into a rant about how safe PG is as antifreeze, you will only be confusing the issues. If they mention propylene glycol specifically, then feel free to tell them what a safe product it is.

 

[renstyle]

You do know, don't you, where people got the idea that manufacturers put antifreeze into e-cigarettes? It has zero to do with propylene glycol. See the first paragraph of FDA's press release: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

They found less than 1% diethylene glycol (DEG) in one of 18 cartridges tested. DEG has many applications, but calling it a "humectant" or a "lubricant" just didn't sound as scary as "antifreeze." So yes, the FDA was using propaganda technques, but not about propylene glycol (PG).

As it turns out the quantity of DEG they measured (approximately 0.01 ml) is thousands of times below the toxic dose.

Indeed. I've seen that report ripped to shreds in several posts. The shoddy testing process, especially not including a Nic inhaler in their findings makes the DEG one part of a very sorry state of affairs.

So, the next time someone says they put antifreeze into e-cigarettes, give them the true facts. Chances are that they are talking about DEG, not PG. DEG is way more toxic than PG is.

And if you go into a rant about how safe PG is as antifreeze, you will only be confusing the issues. If they mention propylene glycol specifically, then feel free to tell them what a safe product it is.

I understand your concerns. I was speaking from experience in interactions I've had with others, usually when they ask me what is in the juice of my PV. I'm one that calls it PG, most of them assume I'm talking about EG, car antifreeze (at least in my own circle). I've never had somebody personally bring up DEG to me as an argument against PVs, if they did I'd certainly mention the fallacies of the FDA study.

 

[Vocalek]

Indeed. I've seen that report ripped to shreds in several posts. The shoddy testing process, especially not including a Nic inhaler in their findings makes the DEG one part of a very sorry state of affairs.

I understand your concerns. I was speaking from experience in interactions I've had with others, usually when they ask me what is in the juice of my PV. I'm one that calls it PG, most of them assume I'm talking about EG, car antifreeze (at least in my own circle). I've never had somebody personally bring up DEG to me as an argument against PVs, if they did I'd certainly mention the fallacies of the FDA study.

Regarding EG versus PG, here is a great explanation of the difference: SIERRA Antifreeze Product Page (FAQ)

What makes new SIERRA Antifreeze safer?

SIERRA Antifreeze is formulated with propylene glycol (PG). As compared to ethylene glycol, propylene glycol is less toxic and safer for children, pets, and wildlife in the environment. Propylene glycol is used at specified levels in the formulation of many consumer products including cosmetics, pet food, and certain over-the-counter medications.

 

[lynleestar]

I'm glad to see it's working for her~!

 

[Vocalek]

ACSH commented on the story. Leave Heigl alone, vaping never hurt anyone > Facts & Fears > ACSH

 

[Traver]

I would like to remind people that the FDA found nothing in quantities that affects peoples health. The FDA has never said that E cigarettes are dangerous in any way. What they have said in many different and ominous sounding ways is we don't know. The evidence in their tests is on our side and we should use that report for what it actually says about E cigs. The court has agreed that the FDA has not been able to show harm and they lost their case to regulate as a drug delivery device. They appealed and lost again.

 

[Vocalek]

I would like to remind people that the FDA found nothing in quantities that affects peoples health. The FDA has never said that E cigarettes are dangerous in any way. What they have said in many different and ominous sounding ways is we don't know. The evidence in their tests is on our side and we should use that report for what it actually says about E cigs. The court has agreed that the FDA has not been able to show harm and they lost their case to regulate as a drug delivery device. They appealed and lost again.

I absolutely agree. Compare these facts...

• Testing by the FDA found tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities “at very low levels” in the unvaporized liquid. (USFDA 2009).
• FDA-approved nicotine products contain tobacco specific nitrosamines equivalent to the quantity found in an e-cigarette cartridge. (Laugesen, 2008)
• FDA testing detected diethylene glycol (DEG) at 1% (approximately 0.01 ml) in one of 18 cartridges tested. (USFDA 2009).
• The major hazard from DEG occurs following the ingestion of relatively large single doses. The estimated lethal dose of DEG for humans is approximately 1 ml/kg. (Health Canada, 2010)
• Multiple companies have had their products tested for diethylene glycol and none of the samples have turned up positive. (Siegel, 2011)
• A puff of e-cigarette mist delivers only 10% of the nicotine delivered by a similar puff of smoke from a conventional cigarette. (Laugesen, 2009) (Bullen, 2010)
• E-cigarette use mimics smoking; but, there is no combustion and the user inhales vapor, not smoke. (Cahn and Siegel, 2010)

CASAA.org


...to the way the information was spun by the antis:
http://www.madisoncountyhealthdept....cigarettes and Secondhand Smoke EH 112110.pdf

 

[Thulium]

ACSH commented on the story. Leave Heigl alone, vaping never hurt anyone > Facts & Fears > ACSH

Someone should let ACSH know that the article called Heigl's e-cigarette a "SmokeStik" because that is the name of the brand she uses.

Someone should let SmokeStik know they really should consider changing their name since their stik doesn't actually smoke.

ETA: I posted a comment:

By choosing a smoke-free alternative, Katherine has eliminated the cause of at least 95% of all the risks associated with smoking: combustion. By choosing electronic cigarettes, Ms. Heigl FURTHER reduces her exposure to known carcinogens by at least 99.99%.

On the other hand, if Katherine Heigl had instead attempted to quit smoking using an FDA approved method 9 months ago, her treatment would have been scheduled to end 6 months ago, making the "success rate" of NRT drop to 5%.

Which choice makes more sense for people like Katherine Heigl who have repeatedly tried and failed to quit smoking using FDA approved methods: Take yet another shot at drugs that have a 2% smoking cessation success rate after 20 months, OR simply switch to a smoke-free alternative that is at least 98% less harmful than smoking??

Katherine Heigl should be congratulated for switching to a Smoking Replacement Product rather than judged for her CHOICE to continue using recreational tobacco products.