his words were "this was interesting... for a second" haha
Are Electronic Cigarettes Just a Smokescreen? « Today's Health Headlines
Are Electronic Cigarettes Just a Smokescreen? « Today's Health Headlines
my friend sent me this link...
- Thread starter NukeDOC
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That information has been used to question the legal use of PV's and vaping since I started reading about them. Here's my take on it. OK, so some diethylene glycol has been found in some samples last year. How many carcinogens are found in tobacco? Everyone who smokes knows that cigarettes cause cancer. Not just in some samples, each and every cigarette. Cigarettes contain thousands of harmful chemicals, the best the FDA can come up with? Some samples may contain one harmful chemical. It's a scare tactic in my opinion. I think most of us on ECF agree that the FDA is trying to get its hands into the PV market. They need to do something to justify their existence and "control things for the greater good". A lot of us also wonder who is pushing them, the tobacco companies? I think so, it's in their best interest to kill the PV market so they can sell more of their products. It could also be that the government doesn't want to lose the tax money tobacco generates, which is probably in the billions of $$$. In the mean time, I'm slowly stocking up in case there is a ban, tax, or whatever. I'm not going to go back to cigarettes if I can help it, and I feel that although I'm addicted to nicotine, I'm not addicted to tobacco.
Last edited:
exactly. this was my reply to the article:
This article is a crock. It’s passing the notion that the one most successful method in quitting smoking out of all that were mentioned, is the wrong way to go. I am no scientist, but anyone serious about what this, or any other method, can do to you, other than help you quit smoking, will do a little more research and compare it to the other methods. As with the other methods of quitting, there is some risk involved with all of them. The patch, for one example, has been linked to suicidal tendencies in some individuals. Yet it continues to be marketed without any flack from the USFDA. Now, compare any of these methods, including the use of e-cigs, to the real deal with its 4000+ chemicals, which include over 50 known carcinogens and poisons, and it becomes a much easier choice. Almost any smoker you ask will tell you that they would love to quit smoking some day. So pointing out that the e-cig has a “small amount” of a chemical used in antifreeze is a moot point compared to the fact that real cigarette smoke also contains chemicals found in antifreeze, and pesticide, and rat poison, and paint thinner, etc. They also feel the need to point out that there are “traces” of nicotine in a brand marketed to be nicotine-free? That’s like pointing out the fact that decaffeinated cola has trace levels of caffeine still in it.
Bottom line, the USFDA just doesn’t want to admit that they are ....-hurt because they don’t get a cut of profits from these devices, like they do with the tobacco industry. If they really cared about the health and well-being of Americans, then wouldn’t it make more sense to lobby for the imminent shut-down the tobacco companies?
I challenge the author to find an easier, cheaper method of quitting, with a higher track record of success. Find it and I will take back everything I said, and throw away all my electronic cigarette devices to jump on that bandwagon because I am one smoker who really does want to quit. I am one smoker who has been tobacco free for one month to date, has saved a bunch of money by no longer buying cigarettes, and can even be in the vicinity of other smokers without the slightest urge to go back to the real thing. Let’s see the patch, or any other method for that matter, top that.
This article is a crock. It’s passing the notion that the one most successful method in quitting smoking out of all that were mentioned, is the wrong way to go. I am no scientist, but anyone serious about what this, or any other method, can do to you, other than help you quit smoking, will do a little more research and compare it to the other methods. As with the other methods of quitting, there is some risk involved with all of them. The patch, for one example, has been linked to suicidal tendencies in some individuals. Yet it continues to be marketed without any flack from the USFDA. Now, compare any of these methods, including the use of e-cigs, to the real deal with its 4000+ chemicals, which include over 50 known carcinogens and poisons, and it becomes a much easier choice. Almost any smoker you ask will tell you that they would love to quit smoking some day. So pointing out that the e-cig has a “small amount” of a chemical used in antifreeze is a moot point compared to the fact that real cigarette smoke also contains chemicals found in antifreeze, and pesticide, and rat poison, and paint thinner, etc. They also feel the need to point out that there are “traces” of nicotine in a brand marketed to be nicotine-free? That’s like pointing out the fact that decaffeinated cola has trace levels of caffeine still in it.
Bottom line, the USFDA just doesn’t want to admit that they are ....-hurt because they don’t get a cut of profits from these devices, like they do with the tobacco industry. If they really cared about the health and well-being of Americans, then wouldn’t it make more sense to lobby for the imminent shut-down the tobacco companies?
I challenge the author to find an easier, cheaper method of quitting, with a higher track record of success. Find it and I will take back everything I said, and throw away all my electronic cigarette devices to jump on that bandwagon because I am one smoker who really does want to quit. I am one smoker who has been tobacco free for one month to date, has saved a bunch of money by no longer buying cigarettes, and can even be in the vicinity of other smokers without the slightest urge to go back to the real thing. Let’s see the patch, or any other method for that matter, top that.
Lost in formal discussions on E-cigarettes is the voice of the consumer
How does government intervention get sold to citizens? First, publicize a “crisis” and warn that dire consequences will follow without some immediate changes. Push people into changing their choices voluntarily with social pressure and warnings of impending disaster. At some point, declare those efforts insufficient and propose government intervention as the only way to save people from themselves.
It is interesting to see that the FDA's "modus operandi" has been consistent: Label anything that doesn't come from one of their sponsors as a "new drug", seize it, and then attempt to bully the company out of existence.
How does government intervention get sold to citizens? First, publicize a “crisis” and warn that dire consequences will follow without some immediate changes. Push people into changing their choices voluntarily with social pressure and warnings of impending disaster. At some point, declare those efforts insufficient and propose government intervention as the only way to save people from themselves.
It is interesting to see that the FDA's "modus operandi" has been consistent: Label anything that doesn't come from one of their sponsors as a "new drug", seize it, and then attempt to bully the company out of existence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
