Vaping vs Smoking

[Kent C]

We "didn't know" the hazards of smoking until 50 years later .....

While there were cigarettes in rations in WWI and WWII, the widespread use of cigarettes was more prominent after WWII and by the 50's shortly after, is when the links to cancer were established and further promoted and established - basically a decade or less after widespread use of cigarettes by the population of the US

wiki:
The widespread smoking of cigarettes in the Western world is largely a 20th-century phenomenon. At the start of the 20th century, the per capita annual consumption in the USA was 54 cigarettes (with less than 0.5% of the population smoking more than 100 cigarettes per year), and consumption there peaked at 4,259 per capita in 1965. At that time, about 50% of men and 33% of women smoked (defined as smoking more than 100 cigarettes per year). "tobacco Use, United States 1990-1999". Oncology (Williston Park) 13 (12). December 1999.


In 1950, Richard Doll published research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954, the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40,000 doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related.

 

[dcdozer]

We need to asses vaping on its own merits, not compared to smoking.

Disagreed. As long as cigarettes are widely available, and vaping can help keep people off of them, then we should absolutely be considering them together. This is the crux of "Tobacco Harm Reduction".

Why do you think they need to be considered independently?

 

[Woofer]

We need to asses vaping on its own merits, not compared to smoking.

The above from the person who started a thread titled "smoking vs vaping" and posted the following in the first post.

I am always looking for an excuse that vaping is safer than smoking. It's articles like this that won't let me.

Your "we" does not include me.

 

[Lessifer]

We "didn't know" the hazards of smoking until 50 years later .....

What exactly are you talking about? People have been smoking tobacco for centuries. The link to lung cancer was first made in the 1940's.

We "didn't know" the hazards of doctors not washing their hands for centuries.

There's a difference between not knowing, because no one was looking, and looking but not being able to find anything.

 

[Robino1]

We "didn't know" the hazards of smoking until 50 years later .....

But do we really?

Lung cancer is on the rise for never smokers, never around smokers. Could it be that lung cancer is a genetics thing? Or even environmental?

I will concede that smoking will accerbate conditions that a person is already predisposed to contracting. Whether it actually is the cause? I'm not entirely convinced.

As smoking rates decline, cancer rates stabilize or, as in the case of lung cancer, continue to rise. But then are they really rising?

My theory: let's say 100 people (just to throw a figure out here)

Smoking is the norm and 75 of these are smokers. 25 get lung cancer. 10 of those are non smokers. Which means 15 are smokers.

In this next scenario, smoking is not the norm. 25 get lung cancer. 10 of those are smokers. Which means 15 are non smokers.

Notice the rate of people getting cancer does not change but in this theory, it can be said that there is a rise in non smokers getting lung cancer.

I wonder how much data really does get massaged to fit agendas?

Is it just possible those 25 people, in both examples, were pre disposed to getting lung cancer?

 

[Exchaner]

The above from the person who started a thread titled "smoking vs vaping" and posted the following in the first post.



Your "we" does not include me.

I stand by what I said. What is your objection to my post, the word "excuse?"

 

[skoony]

In which case smoking and vaping are both without hazard. Is that what you are saying?

No, of course not.
As far as smoking goes I never believed it to be causing all the harm at the levels
claimed by the powers that be. The 450,000 to 500,000 yearly death rate that has been
used and oft quoted since the mid 90's is an example. I am not saying smoking is without
harm.
The never smoked population has increased while the the smoking population has
decreased. Yet the death toll remains stagnant. I'm no math wiz here but,there is
something amiss. There should by now be visible health benefits being noticed.
As of today there is no credible evidence vaping is or has caused any serious disease
or toxic harm. Something should be there considering that some with the right (or wrong)
genetic make up should as with smoking have earlier onsets of illness or toxic effects.
This doesn't mean we are out of the woods concerning vaping but,surely the pasture
is visible through the tree's.
Smoking can be harmful. Vaping can be be safe.
Regards
Mike

 

[Exchaner]

Could it be that lung cancer is a genetics thing? Or even environmental?

Exactly right, and there is some evidence to prove it. However, not everyone has the correct genes to fight lung cancer.

 

[LaraC]

By 1959, when I began playing around with occasional cigarettes during high school, it was common to call them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails."

 

[Lessifer]

The above from the person who started a thread titled "smoking vs vaping" and posted the following in the first post.



Your "we" does not include me.

You beat me to it.

I actually feel that we need to consider vaping both in regards to smoking, and on its own merit.

I think there is little doubt, even among those in tobacco control, that vaping is "healthier" than smoking. Even Zeller believes that.

As for vaping, on its own, there has been no evidence of significant harm to date and plenty of prospects for actual benefits, aside from being an alternative to smoking.

 

[Exchaner]

What exactly are you talking about? People have been smoking tobacco for centuries. The link to lung cancer was first made in the 1940's.

That may be true, but not everyone believed it until years later. I see parallels here with skepticism we see of research done on vaping. People are skeptical - just like they were in the 40's.

 

[Exchaner]

You beat me to it.

I still don't see the objection to my OP. Perhaps you can clarify....

 

[dcdozer]

I still don't see the objection to my OP. Perhaps you can clarify....

Ok, I apologize for accusing you for playing us, and I realize that I'm guilty of what Robino1 mentioned earlier this afternoon. But I also have to thank you for this highly entertaining thread! And I'm being serious - I can't stop reading it!

 

[Exchaner]

Ok, I apologize for accusing you for playing us, and I realize that I'm guilty of what Robino1 mentioned earlier this afternoon. But I also have to thank you for this highly entertaining thread! And I'm being serious - I can't stop reading it!

Thanks, but really, what did I say in my OP that has so many people riled up? I just don't get it, but perhaps that is because I am not in tune with everyone here ...

 

[Lessifer]

I still don't see the objection to my OP. Perhaps you can clarify....

The wording of your OP implies that you don't believe vaping to be safer than smoking, based on an article that really only says that one aspect of vaping may have different effects than smoking. And then you say we need to not compare vaping to smoking. Your thread title also directly pits vaping against smoking.

 

[Exchaner]

Lung cancer is on the rise for never smokers, never around smokers. Could it be that lung cancer is a genetics thing? Or even environmental?

Lung cancer is not the only concern. Emphysema, COPD, high blood pressure, gum disease perhaps , etc. etc.

 

[dcdozer]

Thanks, but really, what did I say in my OP that has so many people riled up? I just don't get it, but perhaps that is because I am not in tune with everyone here ...

Lessifer has already replied, and more will likely follow. But I would still like to know why you think vaping should be considered on its own merits? I explained my position of coming from a THR perspective.

 

[Exchaner]

The wording of your OP implies that you don't believe vaping to be safer than smoking, based on an article that really only says that one aspect of vaping may have different effects than smoking. And then you say we need to not compare vaping to smoking. Your thread title also directly pits vaping against smoking.

Hmmm.... Got to be more careful choosing my words

 

[Lessifer]

Hmmm.... Got to be more careful choosing my words

Perhaps you would like to clarify?

 

[Exchaner]

Perhaps you would like to clarify?

Be happy to,even though I have done so before. I happen to believe vaping might be the safer alternative with one proviso: I reserve the right to change my mind in 20- 50 years when the long term effects are known. Meantime, I refuse to reject out of hand any report that sheds a negative light on vaping.