Read this! Massively important report on vaping from major British medical group

[crxess]

Industry (self Regulation) vs. Government regulation

What follows is a brief chronological history of the use of lead-based paint in the United States:

• Use of white lead began in the Colonial times and ultimately peaked in 1922.
• In 1951, Baltimore banned the use of lead pigment in interior paint in Baltimore housing – the first such restriction in the country.
• In 1955, the industry, working with public health officials and organizations, adopted a voluntary national standard to prohibit, in effect, the use of lead pigments in interior residential paints.
• Through the 1950s and 1960s, the use of exterior lead-based paint declined significantly, and ended by the early 1970s.
• In 1971, the federal Lead Poisoning Prevention Act was passed.
• In 1978, the federal government banned consumer uses of lead paint.

The History of the Use of Lead-Based Paint - Understanding Lead Pigment Litigation

So..............we reach this day and time, where Government has decided it is best to Protect us from ourselves because vaping Might, maybe, could POSSIBLY, under Certain conditions, If used in a specific way exceeding reasonable practice, be a Health risk to an as yet undermanned percentage of the vaping population.

I personally believe there is little in this world that is NOT a risk if not self limited.
From devouring to much chocolates - Diabetes - a Killer disease
To Eating Led Paint Chips.

One We regulate
One we do not

 

[froginblender]

It's been reported on the BBC News Website. I was going to post it, then someone here beat me to it.
But here's the link, if you want to see a video clip from a UK Dr. as well.
E-cigarettes should be offered to smokers, say doctors - BBC News

 

[sonicbomb]

Another reason to vote out of the EU in the upcoming referendum.

 

[JerryRM]

You're kidding?

Not kidding, SJ. Some ANTZ in this country are claiming that e-cigs are worse than cigarettes and the sheeple believe them.

 

[Layzee Vaper]

It's a slow process but I think that reports like this will gradually change the general public's perception. A step in the right direction at least, eventually even sheeple's will take note!

 

[rico942]

Not kidding, SJ. Some ANTZ in this country are claiming that e-cigs are worse than cigarettes and the sheeple believe them.

Saw this first hand recently with a neighbor. He beat a 20 year smoking habit with a switch to vaping last year ...

Until his own mother showed up for a visit with a folder of printed articles on the "dangers of e-cigarettes", mostly the debunked ravings of BT and BP lackeys ...

Now he's back up to 2 packs a day, I hear him coughing from across the courtyard ...

His mom is British. I'll print the press release about the RCP, drop it on his doorstep and hope for a miracle ...

 

[d.g.]

Here is the thing. Just as I don't believe the CDC, I am not going to believe everything that RCP says. I even think they are actually more optimistic than needed - saying ecig 95% less hazardous than cigs is a bold statement. I don't believe we have enough evidence to say that.

However, CDC is a joke. Look at the quote in the article "spokesman for the C.D.C. said the agency would not comment on any report other than its own. He reiterated the C.D.C. position on e-cigarettes: “There is currently no conclusive scientific evidence supporting the use of e-cigarettes as a safe and effective cessation tool at the population level. The science thus far indicates most e-cigarette users continue to smoke conventional cigarettes.”

Look at that ridiculous last sentence. First of all, let's assume it is in fact correct that people keep smoking cigs. Any person that is in the scientific community ( whether a doctor or just an engineering student at college) knows that your claim should include numerical facts. Now, the last sentence includes a word that triggers me; "most" cigarette users. For anyone to use the word "most", the data you have must show at least 51% in your set is in one group. Technically 99% is also "most" but you generally use the word "majority" for that instead.

Let's assume 51% of the people continues to smoke cigs. Then what about the remaining 49%? Do they have go back to smoking just because CDC thinks ecigs weren't helpful in cessation for other 51%?

Listen, I would understand if a country wants to regulate a product until it is known to be safe. But it is down right purist to try to ban vaping just because it might be dangerous. You can always take necessary precautions without actually banning it.

Now if they really want to help and stick to their purist ideologies, then just ban real cigarettes. Oh wait, you can't.

This is utter bull.... by CDC. However I urge everyone to do their own research and never completey believe any governmental or private entity. Including the RCP report.

 

[ST Dog]

Listen, I would understand if a country wants to regulate a product until it is known to be safe. But it is down right purist to try to ban vaping just because it might be dangerous. You can always take necessary precautions without actually banning it.

I think that is exactly the wrong attitude for government/regulators/people to take.
If you have no proof it's unsafe, leave it alone.

Innocent until proven otherwise.

You don't write laws to state what is legal and assume everything else is illegal.

 

[evan le'garde]

Hey, didn't say I agreed.
I actually wrote a letter to our local paper over this and it was published. Our hospital has numerous businesses in it selling food, coffee etc. The coffee smell hits you as soon as you enter, the subway sub shop odor as well, both of which are quite strong.
They are both offensive smells to me and thus should be removed.
The letter was longer than that but the above is the just of it.



The issue we may have with vapour may be that it is an aerosol, not simply an odor in the air.

Hardly a statistic which would be taken seriously by central government though is it !?.

 

[smokinGAVIN]

I think that is exactly the wrong attitude for government/regulators/people to take.
If you have no proof it's unsafe, leave it alone.

Innocent until proven otherwise.

You don't write laws to state what is legal and assume everything else is illegal.

I think government has the right attitude and they should look into things that are unsafe. Innocent until proven otherwise does not sit well with me. I think the problem is that money and big business have too loud a voice. Government should protect it's citizens from harm. Science should determine what harm is. With something as big as vaping, I would want the government to do a real unbiased study.

I am not trying to argue, this is just my opinion.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

Now if they really want to help and stick to their purist ideologies, then just ban real cigarettes. Oh wait, you can't.

That's one thing I'll never understand... if it's all about how bad cigarettes are... what is really preventing government to simply ban them altogether... never mind the anti-smoking campaigns that cost a fortune, the slogans, the bad pictures on the packs, the rules to hide them.

It's not like they have a single good point about cigarettes to even keep them around, they ARE poison to everyone... it's proven, it's facts

It's just sad that something that IS working to get people off them is being so hunted down.

They act like vaping is going to make you explode and take the neighborhood with you... it's already proven that it's at minimum 95% better.

I just don't get it... (aside the money thing).

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I think government has the right attitude and they should look into things that are unsafe. Innocent until proven otherwise does not sit well with me. I think the problem is that money and big business have too loud a voice. Government should protect it's citizens from harm. Science should determine what harm is. With something as big as vaping, I would want the government to do a real unbiased study.

I am not trying to argue, this is just my opinion.

And it's a fine opinion, nothing wrong with "let's make sure that it's safe".

I'd have absolutely no issues with regulations for quality of liquids, of mods, of batteries, so to ensure that we don't get crappy stuff that would be harmful... I'm pretty sure that everyone shares that opinion, as I'd be surprised if anyone would be happy to get a battery that shorts out, a mod that doesn't to what it needs to do, or vape liquids that have bad content.

But that it's not been about this at all, it's been nothing but demonizing it and trying to kill it without a care of the good it does to get smokers off cigarettes.

 

[ST Dog]

I think government has the right attitude and they should look into things that are unsafe.

They aren't looking into something unsafe. They are saying prove it's safe before hand. If we had worked like that even 30 yrs ago, a lot would never have come to market.

We wouldn't even be talking about vaping under your way. Who's going to spend millions to get approval for a device with an unknown market?

We wouldn't have cars or airplanes. None were proven safe, still aren't. Features have been added to make them safer, less dangerous, but not safe.

When problems are found, you redesign, but you don't halt development pending some beurocrat's aproval.

 

[puffon]

I think government has the right attitude and they should look into things that are unsafe. Innocent until proven otherwise does not sit well with me. I think the problem is that money and big business have too loud a voice. Government should protect it's citizens from harm. Science should determine what harm is. With something as big as vaping, I would want the government to do a real unbiased study.

I am not trying to argue, this is just my opinion.

Cigarettes have been proven harmful decades ago.
What is your government doing to protect you from them?...

 

[crxess]

While I agree some watching out for and protecting the Public is a necessity, your comment comes off as - Take it all away and if you find it is safe, then and only then - give it back.

Not arguing your belief................but................No.
To this Day, lawnmowers still cause accidents and they are still for sale in every general store in the nation.(well, the users cause mower accidents)

Enough study has been done to consider Vaping to be appropriately safe enough to continue while compiling data.

This Product was invented for SMOKERS in order to BREAK a SMOKING habit.
The worst I see it doing is lengthening my Death sentence End Date.
The Best I see (FOR Me) is halting progression of my COPD.

I prefer Vaping to wearing an oxygen tank and Mask.

 

[Woofer]

People are much easier to control (and brainwash) when they're "under the influence" of television.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Smoking B]

Thanks for posting this - I have a few friends I would like to read this...

 

[Jrkenna]

Glad to hear there is some positive happening out there!!

 

[nelsonm64]

all I hear these days when people see me vaping is "those THINGS are worse than cigarettes" you try to explain the facts but they saw an article that said they are worse than smoking! the misinformation is rampant. good on the college of phycians! hopefully more truth keeps coming

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

all I hear these days when people see me vaping is "those THINGS are worse than cigarettes" you try to explain the facts but they saw an article that said they are worse than smoking! the misinformation is rampant. good on the college of phycians! hopefully more truth keeps coming

My daughter is autistic, if you knew the number of people, upon finding this out will come to me with "wonderful advice" from a TV show, movie, news article, etc. that they read, which, appears to make them experts on the subject.

Between that and the "OH, what's her magical talent!" because somehow, all autistic people is a savant/genius because of the movies, TV show, news articles, etc.

And then there's the "I have a friend whose got an autistic cousin, so I know all about it!".

I look at it with the mentality that people either just simply want to be useful and think that you might not know about something (and that's ok), or have pronounced themselves experts (and they can jump in a lake).

I will admit that I will offer "free advice" on some things, but on subjects that I actually have a LOT of experience and knowledge about it, not from TV shows, movies, news article, etc. But I usually see that the person tends to believes that they already know all about it (even though the reason why I would speak up would be exactly because they are doing something stupid). So I tend to really hold back and live and let live, say a little thing and see the reaction, or put it as a question instead. Their attitude tells me to either convey the info, or let them learn on their own.