Shocked at public opinion. . .

[jennydotz]

I went looking for more e-cig info, googled e-cigarette and couldn't believe the articles I found. Even more surprising was the public comments in response to the articles. If anyone hasn't seen these, here a couple of links I found. I don't know how to list links right, must cut/paste to see, sorry

blog.bioethics.net/2008/09/put-down-that-ecigarette/

Gadgets Clube-cigarette-healthier-or-not/

abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_are_electronic_cigarettes

Engadgete-cigarette-will-ensure-you-have-no-friends-even-aft/

- OregonLive.comecigarette.html

 

[OutWest]

face it, there's tons of ignorance out there, unfortunately

Perfect example, in that second article it said

“Helpful for quitting smoking without suffering” - That is false. I have quit smoking after 7 years and I know that you must give up cigarettes entirely not gradually if you want to become free of cigarettes and nicotine.

That's totally wrong. My mother quit smoking back in the early 70s by weaning herself off of cigarettes (only allowing herself x number of cigs a day and keeping them in the back room of the house). I nearly quit with that gadget "Life Signs". It works the same sort of way, weaning you off of them by telling you when it's time to smoke. With that, I was down to 3 a day. Then I had a setback and havent tried it again. Point is, though, that gradual reduction in your daily intake of nicotine DOES work for quitting smoking.

 

[jennydotz]

Not just blatant ignorance, but people mouthing off about something that doesn't have the least effect on them! If you are a high and mighty non-smoker, what do you even care? It doesn't have a 2nd-hand smoke issue, why do they even have an opinion? These people demanding FDA involvement and thinking candy flavors will entice kids, blabla. Can't people just be happy that there may be a safer alternative for smokers? geesh

And I love the nonsmoker geniuses telling people how to quit, with "Fake cigarettes are stupid, people should just quit" The guy you quoted who quit cold turkey is just jealous he didn't have an e-cig

 

[Elle]

some people are never satisfied...

 

[LaceyUnderall]

isn't it amazing that people without knowledge of something love to give their opinions on things? i run across this crap all over the internet and it has become quite fun reading comments and then dispelling myths at the "owners" expense. silly fools.

 

[TropicalBob]

The "silly fools" are just another enemy. E-smoking clearly does not have popular public opinion, as Jenny found out by reading comments. We love 'em. The public doesn't love us for loving them. We're still smokers -- the bottom scum on the abandoned pond of the unwanted -- to Joe and Josephine Q. Public.

So, we have Big Government, Big Pharma, Big tobacco and the public against us. Should be quite a fight.

 

[udave]

some people are never satisfied...

Most arguments I've read from anti-smokers are usually along the lines of "I'm trying to save myself from second-hand smoke" or "I'm trying to save you, the smoker, from killing yourself." Along comes a product that could possibly solve both of those problems, and they trash it.

 

[jennydotz]

I guess these people with the dumb comments are the same people who post opinions about celebrity breakups on the AOL frontpage.

 

[surbitonPete]

All the avid Anti-smokers that I am still actually friends with, think E-cigarettes are great, so that gives me a lot of hope.

 

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

The message that has consistently failed to get across is that e-cigs are an alternative to smoking. I follow a lot of these links and always read the comments. Same tune every time (verse order varies tho, depending on who gets their licks in first).

This is great
This is dumb
Just give up you smelly .....
I have given up you sanctimonious .......
My loved one died of cancer ergo ban these
My loved one died of cancer ergo permit 'em
I have the right not to smell your crap
You can't smell it, as it's odourless
It's against the law
No it ain't
Well, it should be
No it shouldn't
Well, it will be
Fascist/Nazi/control freak etc
Selfish, inconsiderate yada yada yada - kinda merges about there.

Point is nobody's arguing about the e-cigarette. The antis are still talking about tobacco, SHS, the kids etc, and we do not help our cause by banging on about the alleged dishonest practices and sneaky tricks whereunder the ban was imposed.

To my mind, user comments on these articles don't really tell us anything about the likelihood of acceptance or rejection. Every opinion I've seen expressed there is absolute, even the politer ones. (Ever seen someone's point of view change on one of these? 'You're a .....' to 'you're a complete .....' doesn't count).

Got no answers, just the observation...

Emp

 

[Denni]

The message that has consistently failed to get across is that e-cigs are an alternative to smoking. I follow a lot of these links and always read the comments. Same tune every time (verse order varies tho, depending on who gets their licks in first).

This is great
This is dumb
Just give up you smelly .....
I have given up you sanctimonious .......
My loved one died of cancer ergo ban these
My loved one died of cancer ergo permit 'em
I have the right not to smell your crap
You can't smell it, as it's odourless
It's against the law
No it ain't
Well, it should be
No it shouldn't
Well, it will be
Fascist/Nazi/control freak etc
Selfish, inconsiderate yada yada yada - kinda merges about there.


Emp

Lol--you nailed it on the head!

 

[skex]

I think alot of it is innertia people are used to being anti-smoking (for admitedly some pretty solid reasons) but don't quite know how to deal with this.

I do think it's a mistake to make these things look like cigarettes, I specifically ordered my penstyle in silver with a BLUE LED so it wouldn't look like a cigarette.

Also a lot of people are simply distrustful of corproations, particularly those based in China which doesn't exactly have a stellar history of product safety or a concern with peoples health or lives for that matter. I mean they gun down their own people when they aren't working them to death so they sure don't have much concern about our safety.

It's also a new thing and a lot of people are pretty paranoid about technology to begin with.

Combine all that and you get the sorts of reactions being discribed.

You've got people who are so used to attacking smoking that it's become instinct to them mix them in with the authoritarian control freaks who think they have the right to dictate every action people take and you've got a instantly hostile audience.

One good thing is that the science does at this point seem to be on our side. The research done so far while hardly conclusive and more needs to be done has reinforced the claims that this is indeed at least less harmful than smoking.

We in the U.S. have a cheif executive in charge who at a minimum understand what we smokers go through when trying to quit which may provide some help for our cause. Also there are like 30 million smokers in the U.S which is hardly an inconsequencial number in its own right.

Also the anti's have had a lot of success recently and that sort of sucess with their bans are creating a significant amount of resistence and resentment which will probably result in some level of backlash particularly as they attack something that promises to actually acheive a significant portion of their purported goals.

It should be interesting to see how this all plays out since I suspect these things are about to hit a critical mass and explode as a market.

 

[sherid]

face it, there's tons of ignorance out there, unfortunately

Perfect example, in that second article it saidThat's totally wrong. My mother quit smoking back in the early 70s by weaning herself off of cigarettes (only allowing herself x number of cigs a day and keeping them in the back room of the house). I nearly quit with that gadget "Life Signs". It works the same sort of way, weaning you off of them by telling you when it's time to smoke. With that, I was down to 3 a day. Then I had a setback and havent tried it again. Point is, though, that gradual reduction in your daily intake of nicotine DOES work for quitting smoking.

A doctor friend of mine said that the best way to quit smoking was to do so very gradually by eliminating 1 cigarette per week until you are down to none. She felt that this method was not only effective for quitting but it also avoided that issue that some scientists believe that sudden stopping after decades of smoking triggers lung cancer. There are such studies, and in my personal experience, the only people that I know who had lung cancer got it within a year of quitting smoking. Don't know if there is any truth to it, but why take additional chances?

 

[LaceyUnderall]

A doctor friend of mine said that the best way to quit smoking was to do so very gradually by eliminating 1 cigarette per week until you are down to none. She felt that this method was not only effective for quitting but it also avoided that issue that some scientists believe that sudden stopping after decades of smoking triggers lung cancer. There are such studies, and in my personal experience, the only people that I know who had lung cancer got it within a year of quitting smoking. Don't know if there is any truth to it, but why take additional chances?

This is also within the same philosophy that my OBGYN gave me when I was pregnant. She said she would rather see me cut down than quit completely because the stress of quitting was far worse on the baby than 2 or 3 smokes a day.

 

[TropicalBob]

You are correct, Sherid, and the greatest danger of lung cancer for an ex-smoker is within five years of quitting. Scary, scary stuff and we can only wonder if e-smoking mitigates that grim fact in some way.

I also agree with your philosophy, Lacey. Stress is a huge negative health factor in its own right. Quitting throws your body chemistry completely out of whack. How can screwed up maternal chemistry be good for an unborn? Maybe better than sharing blood nicotine with the little one, but stress moves a lot of chemicals into that unborn. You did good by cutting way down.

 

[Nuck]

The problem with stats like these are they are quite misleading. The reason that the 5 years after quitting smoking is the most dangerous is because the impetus to quit is usually degradation of an individuals health.

As for the Obgyn, that goes against everything I've ever read or heard from our doctors (I have 7 kids and my wife was a smoker at the time of conception) so I've had occasion to do quite a bit of research. For any other pregnant mothers I'd highly recommend talking to your own doctor before you simply cut down.

 

[TropicalBob]

Sherid was addressing a theory that quitting smoking triggers cancer. It is a theory, as far as I know from current reading. It has nothing to do with years of smoking. It has everything to do with quitting. I'm extremely uncomfortable as a quitter as long as that theory remains. And I'm coming up on completion of Year Two.

If you have a science/medical article anywhere that says quitting does not trigger cancer consequences, please let us know so we can read it. I agree that stats can "prove" just about any point.

Personal add: I watched a former secretary of mine die in her mid-50s a few years after she quit smoking cigarettes. We both used to smoke in the office -- lots. She quit at a time when she had no health problems. As cancer killed her, the great irony was that she quit to avoid the very disease that took her life. Did quitting trigger her cancer?

 

[LaceyUnderall]

As for the Obgyn, that goes against everything I've ever read or heard from our doctors (I have 7 kids and my wife was a smoker at the time of conception) so I've had occasion to do quite a bit of research. For any other pregnant mothers I'd highly recommend talking to your own doctor before you simply cut down.

Absolutely. Everyone should always consult their own physician for their own personal what-have-yous.

 

[Nuck]

Hi Bob,

It is very difficult, in fact it's not possible, to prove a negative. Are you aware of any research that indicates there is a relationship between quitting and cancer? I'm not asking for rock solid evidence, I'm just genuinely interested.

 

[TropicalBob]

Me too. I'll try to track down some articles. I want to know what gives this theory credence, other than stats that prove nothing. What's the "why" of cancer causation in an ex-smoker? I'll read some tonight. Like you, I'm simply curious about this -- and have a personal stake in it being false!