The results of a study of 19000 E-Cigarette users

[AndriaD]

That's pretty dumb considering the nicotine inhalator is actually designed to be puffed like a pipe, not inhaled. I think it's just a fig leaf to protect themselves from liability.

Of course it is. Just like my doc determining that I "needed a caesarian," 26 yrs ago. Malpractice suits and the insurance for it have positively ruined medicine. Doctors are far more concerned about being sued than they are about practicing good medicine.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

Lexic... I'm a libertarian so I have no problem with it., but some vapers are only a hair away from being ANTZ themselves. The idea that an adult could make an informed decision to actually want to use nicotine or tobacco is baffling to them. Smoker's guilt becomes vaper's guilt and pretty soon vaping is just "the lesser of two evils", with the emphasis on evil.

I'm also a libertarian (read: an actual libertarian, as opposed to the right-wing religious fanatics who think it's trendy to call themselves libertarian), and I cringe when I hear vapers, or people associated with the e-cig industry, say things like "We welcome some form of common-sense regulation from the federal government."

Is this actually what we've come to, that people reflexively believe there has to be federal regulation and oversight of EVERY SINGLE THING? No, there does not "need" to be federal regulation on e-cigs, and there's no reason why anyone should welcome or encourage such regulation. It is not Washington's job to raise my children for me, it's not Washington's job to protect me from my own stupidity, and it's not Washington's job to tell me what I should do with my own body. Washington's job is to oversee national defense and interstate commerce.

One of the guiding principles of the Constitution is the idea that governance is best done, whenever possible, at the local and state level. We enshrined this principle in the Tenth Amendment, which is now so routinely ignored it might as well be repealed. Why even have state boundaries and state governments when state sovereignty is nothing more than an anachronistic charade?

 

[lexic]

Lexic... I'm a libertarian so I have no problem with it., but some vapers are only a hair away from being ANTZ themselves. The idea that an adult could make an informed decision to actually want to use nicotine or tobacco is baffling to them. Smoker's guilt becomes vaper's guilt and pretty soon vaping is just "the lesser of two evils", with the emphasis on evil.

I'm also libertarian. I think that is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I don't care what other people do or how they decide to live their lives as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights. Plain and simple.

I'm glad to see that quite a few people here aren't the kind that want to dictate who can vape or not, but I read another thread earlier where people were actively trying to discourage a non-smoker from starting to vape. *sigh*

 

[Nate760]

I'm glad to see that quite a few people here aren't the kind that want to dictate who can vape or not, but I read another thread earlier where people were actively trying to discourage a non-smoker from starting to vape. *sigh*

I think I still have a palm mark on my forehead from that thread.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm also libertarian. I think that is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I don't care what other people do or how they decide to live their lives as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights. Plain and simple.

I'm glad to see that quite a few people here aren't the kind that want to dictate who can vape or not, but I read another thread earlier where people were actively trying to discourage a non-smoker from starting to vape. *sigh*

I feel much the same; I don't hurt anybody, and I don't want anybody hurting me -- including, perhaps *especially*, my own government! They're supposed to be on my side, not be my worst enemy! But in recent years, they've striven mightily to be the worst enemy of every American on the planet, and are well on their way to succeeding.

For a non-smoker who's NEVER smoked to want to vape, I kinda feel like, why? What's the point? Because it's "cool"? That was my juvenile reasoning for starting to smoke at the age of 13, and at the age of nearly-53, I see how stupid that was, and I guess I feel like it's just as stupid to start vaping for that reason. But last I checked, they hadn't yet made a LAW against stupidity; they'd have to lock up 3/4 the population if they did. If someone over the age of 18 wants to vape, regardless of smoking history or lack thereof, regardless of the possible stupidity of their reasons, I don't think there's really a need to stop them; if they try to vape nicotine with no history of its use, they'll soon find out the stupidity of their action, and either stop the whole endeavor, or start vaping 0mg -- so I don't see a problem with it at all.

For a ex-smoker who's powerfully tempted to start smoking again, I would urge them strongly to try vaping instead. For a non-smoker who's never smoked but who has compelling medical reasons to self-medicate with nicotine, sure, why not? Apparently it's a stimulant on the same order as Ritalin, capable of coordinating chemical processes in the brain, and may even be a valuable drug in preventing various kinds of dementia.

Apparently BP discovered years ago that nicotine is not harmful, in low doses, or all those patches and gums would still be prescription-only; it's the very essence of venal hypocrisy for them to now to have qualms over the "safety" of nicotine use -- the only legitimate qualms they have is over their bottom line, and the fact that when they were offered e-cigarettes back in the early 60's, they took a pass -- the ship has sailed, and they're standing on the pier, watching it sail off with all the money that could have been theirs, if they'd decided to have a go with e-cigarettes themselves. I think we should enjoy a rousing chorus of "neener, neener!"

Andria

 

[Bob Chill]

I'm a true libertarian as well. I voted for Gary Johnson. His views are more extreme than my own but without question the closest match between the 2 other choices. Johnson's strong views on civil liberty and freedom are awesome. For some reason our government is continuing down the road of making decisions for us and it's repulsive. I can take care of myself and my family just fine. Stay the F out of it. If I make a bad decision I will accept the consequences.

I've lived in the DC suburbs for 37 of the last 44 years. Our decision makers live in a bubble. They use the 10k foot view when drafting regulations on issues that affect regular people living on the ground. There is always collateral damage and unintended consequences.

We'll see how the FDA regs look later today once the hundreds of pages are sifted through. I personally doubt there are going to be many happy faces here today. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Katdarling]

I made an attempt to get thru some of those hundreds of pages this morning, then suddenly caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror.

You are quite correct, Bob.

 

[Steamer861]

It's nice to see some truth posted finally!

Side effects are minor and health benefits are substantial, especially for those who completely substitute smoking with EC use.

No opponent of APV's ever mentions This!

 

[3mg Meniere]

I differ from the libertarian viewpoint, in that I accept the authority of the US gov. It looks like the e-cig industry, and nicotine-containing products, in particular, are going to be forced to choose between the tobacco product and the NRT definitions. Tax-wise, I believe that NRT would be better, given the lower tax burden.

Thus, acceptance of long-term nicotine dependency and gradual reduction of nicotine consumption to a minimal level (6mg?) should be the focus. The proclamation revealed today increases the importance of studies which compare the effectiveness of PV's (beyond cigalikes) and other NRT's. They obviously understand that there is not yet enough information.

IMHO.

 

[Kent C]

I differ from the libertarian viewpoint, in that I accept the authority of the US gov.

Most libertarians accept the authority of the US Constitution. Likely, not what you mean... but it should be the same.

 

[AndriaD]

I differ from the libertarian viewpoint, in that I accept the authority of the US gov. It looks like the e-cig industry, and nicotine-containing products, in particular, are going to be forced to choose between the tobacco product and the NRT definitions. Tax-wise, I believe that NRT would be better, given the lower tax burden.

I'm somewhat of a libertarian, but I'm also a realist, and at this point, there is no getting rid of the US gov't; they're going to have their meddling fingers in every pie they can find, so it's wise to just accept that and try to minimize their damage, and what you said, about the tax burden being less if it's an NRT rather than a tobacco product, is the same conclusion I've come to, even though I feel strongly that e-cigs are NOT "cessation devices" but straight-up replacements. This also takes some of the burden off BT; if fewer cigarettes are sold, and e-cigs are not considered "tobacco products", their settlement payments fall, and they become less of an adversary in the "e-cig movement"; I have no objection to them having their own contribution to the e-cig market, as long as it's a FAIR market, where the consumer votes with their dollars. It seems that a lot of folks start with e-cigs with the Blu's, a BT product, but find out quickly how inadequate those are, and move on to something better; that seems quite fair to me -- money talks, BS walks! As long as this is still ostensibly a "free country," then the better products should prevail in the marketplace. That's been my entire objection to gov't sticking their meddling fingers into the e-cig controversy -- a free market is one of the bases of our entire economic and gov't system, so where do they get off, trying to weight the market in favor of one product over another?

Thus, acceptance of long-term nicotine dependency and gradual reduction of nicotine consumption to a minimal level (6mg?) should be the focus. The proclamation revealed today increases the importance of studies which compare the effectiveness of PV's (beyond cigalikes) and other NRT's. They obviously understand that there is not yet enough information.

I *started* at 6mg, but pretty soon found that it just wasn't enough; granted, I'm still fairly new to vaping and non-smoking, so that may change over the course of the next year. It's possible that as I get further and further from my active cigarette addiction, my need for nicotine will wane. But I object quite strongly to anyone telling me what strength nicotine I should or can use; the only determining factor should and must be what my own body needs, and will tolerate, and the only one who can determine that is ME.

The downside of classifying e-cigs as "cessation devices" will the increasing numbers of idjits who want to know when I'm going to stop vaping -- never, as far as I can tell right now, and that too should be my own choice, and not up for debate. I was never going to stop smoking -- until these things came along, I had no means of doing so, since the BP NRT is so abysmally ineffective. But now that these things HAVE come along, and are so much less harmful than any tobacco product, now I have no motivation for quitting -- I like vaping, and compared to smoking, it's almost entirely harm-free, so why SHOULD I ever have to stop? -- unless, of course, *I* determine that stopping would serve *me* in some way. Right now, I can't see that quitting vaping would serve anything except causing me such massive cravings that I'd almost certainly return to smoking.

Andria