Medical officer in Toronto reccomends treating vaping like smoking

[Ryedan]

Hope this is the right place for this. mods, please relocate if I got it wrong

Take spaces out to check out the article:

http: //globalnews.ca /news /1505063/medical-officer-recommends-city-ban-e-cigarettes/

Basically, the same old incorrect reasons are reported in the article by a doctor who was interviewed. This was also reported in the 6:00 TV news today.

I'm heading over to add a comment. A couple more would not hurt

 

[dragonpuff]

The doctor is conflating and exaggerating all the studies he's apparently aware of on e-cigarettes. He doesn't seem to fully understand them himself. Given his professional position, one wonders about conflicts of interest there...

 

[sonicdsl]

Hope this is the right place for this. mods, please relocate if I got it wrong

Take spaces out to check out the article:

http: //globalnews.ca /news /1505063/medical-officer-recommends-city-ban-e-cigarettes/

Basically, the same old incorrect reasons are reported in the article by a doctor who was interviewed. This was also reported in the 6:00 TV news today.

I'm heading over to add a comment. A couple more would not hurt

Why do I have to relocate if you got it wrong?

 

[Tache]

Here's the post I made to the article.

"Let's just stick with the facts for now. Per a study of the clinical data available at that time, although not necessarily some of the poorly constructed conclusions, performed by Dr. Burstyn's team (Drexel University) vaping was shown to be so much less harmful than cigarettes that based on that alone smokers have a tremendously less harmful alternative if they choose. In addition, "There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures.".

To me this means that there is no legitimate reason to ban e-cigarette use anywhere. What I see in these attempts to restrict that usage of e-cigs is a completely illogical (given that the stated aim is public health benefit), and an unacceptable self-righteous paternalism on the part of those who propose such bans. If you truly want to see a smoke-free society, embrace vaping - don not restrict it in any way."

 

[dragonpuff]

I just made this comment and ripped the article to shreds

Several studies show that smoking is 100 times more dangerous than e-cigarettes. Not only that, but any time I see someone publicly state that e-cigarettes are dangerous, I notice that they misconstrued the facts in the studies they used as a reference.

Case in point, in this article the doctor mentions "carcinogens, heavy metals, and formaldehyde" found in e-cigarette vapor. He fails to mention, however, that only trace amounts of carcinogens were found (in similar amounts to nicotine gum), the amount of heavy metals present was 880 times less than in cigarette smoke, and the level of formaldehyde produced was unharmful except when operated at very high voltages using a specific type of heating coil (a method of operation which is never used in real life due to the awful taste it produces). The effect on lung function stated by the doctor are very minimal and temporary, and are still several orders of magnitude less severe than the effect of smoking on the lungs. Furthermore, the doctor states that e-cigarettes may lead to smoking; all studies done thus far show that e-cigarettes almost never lead to smoking, but often act as a gateway from smoking. The doctor should know that nicotine is not very addictive when separated from the other compounds in tobacco smoke. One must then wonder about the doctor's possible conflicts of interest when making such a public statement.

In short, if you are a smoker and have tried every other quit-smoking method out there with no success, it is worth seriously considering a switch to e-cigarettes. It might save your life. It certainly saved mine.

 

[Ryedan]

Why do I have to relocate if you got it wrong?

I apologize sonicdsl, I thought this was the right way to do it but it was the first time I've posted a media blurb so I wasn't sure.

 

[Ryedan]

Here's the post I made to the article.

I just made this comment and ripped the article to shreds

Thank you both Tache and dragonpuff, your work is much appreciated ! We don't get much action up here in Canada, but I suspect things could heat up pretty quick. Any time you need something down south I can help with just holler and I'll be there

 

[Rickajho]

Why do I have to relocate if you got it wrong?

Meany .

 

[sonicdsl]

I apologize sonicdsl, I thought this was the right way to do it but it was the first time I've posted a media blurb so I wasn't sure.

Sorry Ryedan... I was just being literal/sarcastic. You did fine.

 

[Ryedan]

Here's a poll asking the question: Should e-cigarettes be banned wherever smoking is not allowed?

It's 66% to 34% against us right now and needs a little help. No sign up required, just click the button and hit vote

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Here's a poll asking the question: Should e-cigarettes be banned wherever smoking is not allowed?

It's 66% to 34% against us right now and needs a little help. No sign up required, just click the button and hit vote

It's a poll from the Sheeple's Republic of California. Going to be a tough one to swing our way. (No offense to my dissident vaping brethren who are trapped there).

 

[Ryedan]

It's a poll from the Sheeple's Republic of California. Going to be a tough one to swing our way. (No offense to my dissident vaping brethren who are trapped there).

No, it's from CityNews in Toronto.

 

[bobrob]

Here's a poll asking the question: Should e-cigarettes be banned wherever smoking is not allowed?

It's 66% to 34% against us right now and needs a little help. No sign up required, just click the button and hit vote

In other words, should vapers be shunned and pushed back into the shadows just like smokers were? Jeez, ideas like this infuriate me. For years I was a "sneaky smoker", or thought I was anyway. I hated hiding the fact that I smoked from people just because I didn't want to have that same conversation again.

So now we have a healthier alternative.. and they want me to go back behind the dumpsters to vape. WHERE DO THEY GET OFF? I'm all for discretion in public, but I REFUSE to be treated like a pariah again for any reason, especially by a bunch of conceited, corrupt bureaucrats and bored, holier-than-thou busy bodies. Jesus, is there any place on the face of the frickin' Earth that you can go to get away from these human locusts?

 

[Kent C]

When necessary, I go to smoking designated areas - one, I like the people there, and two, second hand smoke is a hoax, but not according to those who are making these laws. From their view, second hand smoke is deadly! So you have the situation, from their view, people who are escaping death by quitting smoking, forced back into the dangers of second hand smoke. Rather than 'rewarding' their actions to quit, they penalize them for doing something that 'looks like smoking' but isn't. That's like forcing everyone who drinks water in public, into a bar.