Vaping Hypocricy?

[EddardinWinter]

I don't know if I believe it or not, but there have been studies to suggest nicotine causes birth defects and this warning about it does appear on a lot of nicotine products. I think, though I'd have to look at it again to be sure, but I think the last time I saw the warning was when I was purchasing my nic solution from Wizard. Even if there's the slightest chance it could, why would I want to risk it just to satiate my own desire to have a vape?

I challenge this assertion. Nicotine (alone) has never been shown to cause birth defects. The loss of oxygen in the blood pregnant mothers from SMOKING has been hypothesized to cause birth defects, but the support for this is rather weak. This is believed to be from inhaling carbon monoxide, not nicotine. I ask for citations to support this claim, it is news to me if it is in any way true.

Please don't cite studies of smoking to support it.

 

[Mrs C]

. . . and has nicotine in it, and smells like whatever you're vaping.

I've seen you twice now make the claim that there is nicotine in 2nd hand vapor.
Please post a link to a credible study that backs up that claim.

While you are looking for it, please look on page 1 of this one. Specifically the paragraph stating results.
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

 

[EddardinWinter]

I believe that was determined back in the 70's. Unless you're using symantics (causes versus higher risk)? Nicotine use among pregnant women leads to a higher percentage of birth defects than non. Smoking in general does the same, and most of the chemicals in smoking causes/increase the risk in different defects. Nocotine, for example, causes blood vessels to constrict which may reduce oxygen to the fetus. I thought this was a well known fact, no?

It is not a well known fact that nicotine causes birth defects. I bet that all the studies you can find will indicate smoking is associated with higher risk of birth defects.

 

[vaperature]

I challenge this assertion. Nicotine (alone) has never been shown to cause birth defects. The loss of oxygen in the blood pregnant mothers from SMOKING has been hypothesized to cause birth defects, but the support for this is rather weak. This is believed to be from inhaling carbon monoxide, not nicotine. I ask for citations to support this claim, it is news to me if it is in any way true.

Please don't cite studies of smoking to support it.

I'm really not on any mission to convince you of anything. If you don't believe it, that's fine, you may be right, so act accordingly. I on the other hand don't feel any need to take any risks at the sake of someone else's health. If the studies are blurry and things aren't clear I'll take the side of caution. I've heard that nicotine could potentially cause birth defects. I'm not trying to convince you it's absolutely true, I'm just telling you what I've heard. Since it's no sweat off my back if I vape outside or inside, I'd rather just play it safe.

 

[Joshinthecity]

This kind of makes my point. Nobody abused nicotine for it's import to be banned. It was done for some other reason.

What I am saying is this. Well-lobbied groups are behind nearly 100% of the bans in the United States. Vapers don't cause bans, in my experience.

I would assume that as a matter of fact, back in the dark ages somewhere, there was some kind of issue with high concentrated nicotine. An accident or incident of some kind that caused it to be banned as a poison. Here, it would be a fair assumption that yes, somebody abused nicotine for it to become banned.
Please remember though, it is perfectly legal and a complete non-issue as it relates to vaping. Vaping is accepted and encouraged in most circles here (including medical professionals) just as it is there... It's a technicality, not related to vaping, (or smoking) and as such, it seems to me unreasonable to use as an argument. Again, the "ban" on nicotine in Australia, is NOT related to it's use in vaping or smoking, and we are expecting the sale of nic juice to be perfectly legal here as it is there, very soon.
I suspect the sale of raw (poison) nicotine will remain illegal, as I would agree it should..

As for your lobby groups, I'm prepared to be educated.. that system is known (but not completely understood) by most outside the U.S I'd say.
It certainly sounds like an absolutely crazy situation, but that may just be because we don't understand it.

We may have found the crux right here.
Vapers (me) can cause or avoid there own bans here, based on their behaviour and the necessity created or avoided by themselves.
Vapers (you) will have bans imposed on them there, regardless. Partly because of their actions, but primarily because of Big Business, and the lobbyists for them ?

A clearer picture is evolving in my head.
Or I could have it completely wrong..

j.

 

[spartanstew]

It is not a well known fact that nicotine causes birth defects. I bet that all the studies you can find will indicate smoking is associated with higher risk of birth defects.

True, smoking is the delivery system, but the nicotine in it is what constricts the vessels (and the other components in a cigarette do other things). I don't believe there has been a study where then just injected nicotine into pregnant women, but if they did, you're asserting that it would have zero effect?

 

[vaperature]

I've seen you twice now make the claim that there is nicotine in 2nd hand vapor.
Please post a link to a credible study that backs up that claim.

While you are looking for it, please look on page 1 of this one. Specifically the paragraph stating results.
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

I'm loading that pdf to see what you're talking about, but I'm just wondering if there is nicotine when it goes into your lungs, why do you think there isn't nicotine in it when it comes out of your lungs. Surely you aren't suggesting that 100% of the nicotine in the vapor is absorbed into your body.

 

[Mrs C]

I don't know if I believe it or not, but there have been studies to suggest nicotine causes birth defects and this warning about it does appear on a lot of nicotine products. I think, though I'd have to look at it again to be sure, but I think the last time I saw the warning was when I was purchasing my nic solution from Wizard. Even if there's the slightest chance it could, why would I want to risk it just to satiate my own desire to have a vape?

Link to the study(ies)?

 

[Mrs C]

I'm loading that pdf to see what you're talking about, but I'm just wondering if there is nicotine when it goes into your lungs, why do you think there isn't nicotine in it when it comes out of your lungs. Surely you aren't suggesting that 100% of the nicotine in the vapor is absorbed into your body.

Until I see a credible study that shows it is in exhale vapor I will go by what information is available.

 

[DC2]

I would assume that as a matter of fact, back in the dark ages somewhere, there was some kind of issue with high concentrated nicotine. An accident or incident of some kind that caused it to be banned as a poison. Here, it would be a fair assumption that yes, somebody abused nicotine for it to become banned.

Your assumption would, in fact, be entirely wrong...

During the past 27 years, the only child death related to tobacco involved a child that had both cigarettes and Valium in his system. Perhaps the Valium suppressed the body's natural defense mechanism against nicotine poisoning. Or perhaps the Valium itself killed the child.

The majority of cases require no medical treatment whatsoever. For example in 2009, out of 8,774 tobacco exposures, 1602 cases were treated in a medical facility, and only 4 cases were considered "Major". Of 1,307 pharmaceutical nicotine exposures, 315 were treated in a medical facility, and 2 cases were considered Major. There were no Deaths in either category.

 

[vaperature]

Link to the study(ies)?

Once again I'm not on any mission to prove a point here. If you don't believe it, then fine, act according to your beliefs. You may very well be right that it's the cigarette smoke and not the nicotine that was studied. It really doesn't concern me much. I don't vape or feel the need to vape where vape is unwelcome, whether it be a real threat or even a threat merely perceived by others. I'll eventually do some research to see if nicotine itself has ever been proven to cause birth defects, but doing that now and posting links if they even exist would feel to me like I'm trying to prove that I'm right, which I'm not. I'm just telling you MY view. Since I'm unclear about it, I'll side with caution on the matter.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I would assume that as a matter of fact, back in the dark ages somewhere, there was some kind of issue with high concentrated nicotine. An accident or incident of some kind that caused it to be banned as a poison. Here, it would be a fair assumption that yes, somebody abused nicotine for it to become banned.
Please remember though, it is perfectly legal and a complete non-issue as it relates to vaping. Vaping is accepted and encouraged in most circles here (including medical professionals) just as it is there... It's a technicality, not related to vaping, (or smoking) and as such, it seems to me unreasonable to use as an argument. Again, the "ban" on nicotine in Australia, is NOT related to it's use in vaping or smoking, and we are expecting the sale of nic juice to be perfectly legal here as it is there, very soon.
I suspect the sale of raw (poison) nicotine will remain illegal, as I would agree it should..

As for your lobby groups, I'm prepared to be educated.. that system is known (but not completely understood) by most outside the U.S I'd say.
It certainly sounds like an absolutely crazy situation, but that may just be because we don't understand it.

We may have found the crux right here.
Vapers (me) can cause or avoid there own bans here, based on their behaviour and the necessity created or avoided by themselves.
Vapers (you) will have bans imposed on them there, regardless. Partly because of their actions, but primarily because of Big Business, and the lobbyists for them ?

A clearer picture is evolving in my head.
Or I could have it completely wrong..

j.

That is very close. I believe the overwhelming majority of bans here in the US have nothing to do with vapers. So I don't think it has anything to do with their actions at all. But you have the gist of it.

I suspect the sale of raw (poison) nicotine will remain illegal, as I would agree it should..

I am curious, why do you think concentrated nicotine sales should remain illegal? Nicotine flavorings could be made in Australia importing only concentrated nicotine if they were permitted. Our juice makers here in the US have a very nice cottage industry going.

Here is what the law states.

The current situation for Australian e-cigarette users is that it is not possible to sell nicotine base or e-liquid within Australia because it is classified as an S7 poison. For it to be possible to buy a product containing nicotine (other than cigarettes) you would have be licensed to import or manufacture it for use in an industrial application (eg pesticide manufacture or similar) or for the individual to have a doctor's prescription for it. Since nicotine on its own is not currently a prescribable drug and is not available from a pharmacy, this is not possible.

It is however possible in Australia to import a quantity of an S7 poison for personal use. The allowable quantity is "3 months supply" and this gives us the latitude to import and use nicotine base and e-liquids containing nicotine for personal use only.

http://www.electroniccigaretteban.org/country-Australia-electronic-cigarettes-ecigs-ban.htm

 

[DC2]

I'm loading that pdf to see what you're talking about, but I'm just wondering if there is nicotine when it goes into your lungs, why do you think there isn't nicotine in it when it comes out of your lungs. Surely you aren't suggesting that 100% of the nicotine in the vapor is absorbed into your body.

Then this thread is for you...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...312547-nicotine-absorption-contradiction.html

Pay special attention to the posts by Rolygate.
It's mostly a bunch of random speculation until he starts chiming in.

 

[vaperature]

Until I see a credible study that shows it is not in exhale vapor I will go by what information is available.

You mean until you see a study that it IS in exhale vapor, right?

 

[Robino1]

I believe that was determined back in the 70's. Unless you're using symantics (causes versus higher risk)? Nicotine use among pregnant women leads to a higher percentage of birth defects than non. Smoking in general does the same, and most of the chemicals in smoking causes/increase the risk in different defects. Nocotine, for example, causes blood vessels to constrict which may reduce oxygen to the fetus. I thought this was a well known fact, no?

I think you may be mistaken. I had my first child in 1979 and I smoked in my hospital room. I had my second child in 1982 and I went to the smoking room on the same floor my room was located. Oh....they are both healthy. No birth defects.

Nicotine, by itself, has just recently begun to be studied Apart from smoking. Please check your facts before putting that statement out on the Internet. Some unsuspecting soul will read that and take it as truth. Now if you're talking about smoking being unhealthy for newborns, that supposedly has been decided as fact. But then again, there are a lot of people that were born to smokers and have no health issues. And another little known, but slowly getting out there, fact: second hand smoke isn't really that harmful It was an untruth meant to scare smokers into quitting.

 

[spartanstew]

It is not a well known fact that nicotine causes birth defects. I bet that all the studies you can find will indicate smoking is associated with higher risk of birth defects.

Incorrect. And while not entirely conclusive, I certainly wouldn't let the mother of my child to be inject Nicotine in any form.

Information

Some of the highlights:

Use of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy is not contraindicated, however it is also not free from risk. In theory, it is considered safer than smoking, because the pregnant mother avoids many other toxins in cigarette smoke that harm the foetus. However, there is little research on the safety of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy, so its real-life effects have not yet been established. Nicotine gum and patches cause increases in the mother's blood pressure and heart rate, and a smaller increase in foetal heart rate, but other nicotine replacement products produce a smaller effect than smoking.

Nicotine (from cigarettes or by itself) changes hormone patterns, affecting the endocrine profile of the infant. It affects the structure and functioning of the oviduct (fallopian tube) in ways that may impair fertility and complicate the pregnancy. Nicotine impairs the transport of essential nutrients across the placenta. Nicotine can alter embryonic movements that are important in the early development of the organs. It may interfere with foetal brain and lung development, although the long-term effects are not clear.

Many other links will state the same thing. So, again, would you like the woman who's bearing your children to use nicotine (in any form), or would you rather she didn't? Sure, vaping or the patch or nicoret is better than smoking (while pregnant), but it's not "safe"

 

[Fulgurant]

I'm loading that pdf to see what you're talking about, but I'm just wondering if there is nicotine when it goes into your lungs, why do you think there isn't nicotine in it when it comes out of your lungs. Surely you aren't suggesting that 100% of the nicotine in the vapor is absorbed into your body.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the nicotine exhaled by a vaper must remain in the ambient air in sufficient concentration for bystanders' lungs to absorb it? Why would you argue in the same breath that the primary user's absorption rate is inefficient, but on the other hand, that the bystander's absorption rate is extremely efficient?

The dose makes the poison. Second-hand vapor poses no health risk. The argument that second-hand vapor may contain trace amounts of nicotine is a canard.

 

[spartanstew]

I think you may be mistaken. I had my first child in 1979 and I smoked in my hospital room. I had my second child in 1982 and I went to the smoking room on the same floor my room was located. Oh....they are both healthy. No birth defects.

LOL, it doesn't cause them 100% of the time. It increases the risk. I survived a car crash without a seatbelt on in the 80's too, so apparently by your logic, seat belts don't save lives, right?

 

[wv2win]

I don't have to vape in any of these places. Now let's say I'm on a beach or in a park and I'd like to have a vape. Well, if there isn't someone close enough to me to be bothered by it, I'd probably do it inconspicuously and take my chances on not being caught, knowing that it's doubtful that the wind is going to carry the vape THAT far to actually bother anyone. On hospital property, um, that just goes without saying. Why do you need to vape in a hospital? On a college campus, well, probably there's some designated smoking area that you can vape in I would imagine, if not, just obey the rules--what's the problem?

So basically you are saying: just be a hypocrite - I'll vape where it is prohibited as long as the chance of getting caught are low. But other than that, just obey the rules.

We instead believe in vaping openly almost everywhere but respectfully. We also believe in fighting against idiotic restrictions that are based on prejudice and ignorance. Some, obviously, can't be bothered with working to keep vaping from being viewed as the same as smoking.

 

[spartanstew]

But then again, there are a lot of people that were born to smokers and have no health issues.

Priceless. I guess we should encourage all pregnant women to smoke then, eh?