Electronic cigarettes

[gay_Aleks]

Well, e-weed is a thing, so why not e-heroine?

So long as you pay your debts to the e-Mafia.

 

[Narz]

Well smoking is disgusting, as an unwilling 2nd hand consumer I support ecigs.

 

[onejayhawk]

Bump

J

 

[sophie]

Bump

J

I don't recommend attempting to snort e-liquid

 

[Kyriakos]

To update my own post too, i used e-cig (still have one, actually). They are quite ok, but it is tiresome routine to have to buy new parts every half month or similar. (and you have to recharge them as well).

But they surely are HUGELY healthier than actual cigarettes. Moreover a lot cheaper. And reasonably effective/pleasant for having a nicotine hit.

 

[MobBoss]

As a non-smoker, I appreciate the butterscotch and other type of flavors far more pleasant to be around than just regular smokes.

 

[Agent327]

As a smoker I find all smoke distasteful.

To update my own post too, i used e-cig (still have one, actually). They are quite ok, but it is tiresome routine to have to buy new parts every half month or similar. (and you have to recharge them as well).

But they surely are HUGELY healthier than actual cigarettes.

There's nothing healthy about smoking. And AFAIK there's no research yet on the health detriments of e-smoking.

 

[Borachio]

I don't recommend attempting to snort e-liquid

Why? Have you tried?

I'll wager someone's tried injecting themselves with it already.

I knew some hard drug users once, who'd inject themselves with practically anything with even the outside chance of giving them a high. One chap tried injecting himself with the stuff out of an asthma inhaler and behaved very oddly indeed.

I very much doubt if any of them are still alive.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There's nothing healthy about smoking. And AFAIK there's no research yet on the health detriments of e-smoking.

I've seen a lot of articles that use studies that show detrimental effects from e-cig use. But if you actually read the articles (as opposed to just the attention-grabbing headlines) or the source studies, typically they show a much more nuanced view. Or the studies were downright inconclusive or of small sample size, etc.

I fully expect there to be detrimental health effects to vaping. In addition to having nicotine, there is some chance that the heating coils can convert some of the benign chemicals in the e-juice to more toxic byproducts. Even still, I expect that vaping will come out far and ahead of normal tobacco use on health impacts both to the user and bystanders.

What bugs me though is that there appears to be a bias on the part of authors/editors/magazines/websites to do everything they can to demonize e-cig use with highly misleading article titles or just poorly-written articles. This may simply be bad journalism that is going for attention-grabbing rather than malicious intent, however, it's still mis-informing the public. And the bans on e-cig use are extremely frustrating given they seem to be catering to the non-smoking public that knows nothing about e-cigs.

In a perfect world, I could support e-cig bans due to an absence of health information. I would then expect those bans to be overturned if and when data shows how little effect they have on bystanders. But that won't happen; I don't expect bans to ever be overturned, particularly when the media seems to be pushing hard against e-cigs as the next 'worst thing ever/public health disaster'.


Also also also, the new attention grabbing headlines lately seem to be all based on the premise "Under-age teens use them illegally and like them, therefore they must be the NEW HEALTH CRISIS FOR ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES IN ALL SITUATIONS EVER".

 

[Kyriakos]

I've seen a lot of articles that use studies that show detrimental effects from e-cig use. But if you actually read the articles (as opposed to just the attention-grabbing headlines) or the source studies, typically they show a much more nuanced view. Or the studies were downright inconclusive or of small sample size, etc.

I fully expect there to be detrimental health effects to vaping. In addition to having nicotine, there is some chance that the heating coils can convert some of the benign chemicals in the e-juice to more toxic byproducts. Even still, I expect that vaping will come out far and ahead of normal tobacco use on health impacts both to the user and bystanders.

What bugs me though is that there appears to be a bias on the part of authors/editors/magazines/websites to do everything they can to demonize e-cig use with highly misleading article titles or just poorly-written articles. This may simply be bad journalism that is going for attention-grabbing rather than malicious intent, however, it's still mis-informing the public. And the bans on e-cig use are extremely frustrating given they seem to be catering to the non-smoking public that knows nothing about e-cigs.

In a perfect world, I could support e-cig bans due to an absence of health information. I would then expect those bans to be overturned if and when data shows how little effect they have on bystanders. But that won't happen; I don't expect bans to ever be overturned, particularly when the media seems to be pushing hard against e-cigs as the next 'worst thing ever/public health disaster'.


Also also also, the new attention grabbing headlines lately seem to be all based on the premise "Under-age teens use them illegally and like them, therefore they must be the NEW HEALTH CRISIS FOR ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES IN ALL SITUATIONS EVER".

There is the other angle too, given that most bans (and total bans) happened in countries which are very much main tobacco producers/exporters, so anti-ecig articles can also be paid by tobacco interests at some places.

Only certain thing is that ecig use has a very evident healthier effect on body function than analogous regular cigarette use. People can run easier, do manual labor easier, etc. As noted the long-term effects of unknown byproducts of the vaping are not yet researched much.

 

[Borachio]

I heard that some tobacco manufacturers are starting to switch to e-cigarette manufacture in any case.

And tobacco growers are looking to the biofuel market. Which would be a nice idea, except that I expect it'll turn out to be a scam. These things usually do.

 

[onejayhawk]

To update my own post too, i used e-cig (still have one, actually). They are quite ok, but it is tiresome routine to have to buy new parts every half month or similar. (and you have to recharge them as well).

But they surely are HUGELY healthier than actual cigarettes. Moreover a lot cheaper. And reasonably effective/pleasant for having a nicotine hit.

The nicotine hit is more pure, but that is not all a smoker gets from a drag. Hence, most smokers find e-cigs unsatisfying. However, they are much less harmful, even given the increased nicotine. Much (most?) of the harmful effects of smoke are common to any smoke.

Burn products are irritants on a good day. That goes double for THC. Weed burns hotter than tobacco and is usually inhaled closer to the source, causing super-heated gas issues.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

The nicotine hit is more pure, but that is not all a smoker gets from a drag. Hence, most smokers find e-cigs unsatisfying. However, they are much less harmful, even given the increased nicotine. Much (most?) of the harmful effects of smoke are common to any smoke.

Burn products are irritants on a good day. That goes double for THC. Weed burns hotter than tobacco and is usually inhaled closer to the source, causing super-heated gas issues.

J

Maybe they should manufacture red mercury oxide sunray-based heaters for mass personal use, or a photosynthesis kit, and we can all enjoy purer air for a natural high

(i dislike smoking too, btw... Trying to quit or at least go to 10 cigarettes at the most each day).

 

[Borachio]

Just don't start in the first place, is the sensible option. Which is why I'm in favour of every measure designed to not encourage people to take it up. Including things like plain packaging, keeping the product out of sight at the point of sale, and reducing smoking in public places. And, of course, not advertizing the thing in any way.

 

[onejayhawk]

Maybe they should manufacture red mercury oxide sunray-based heaters for mass personal use, or a photosynthesis kit, and we can all enjoy purer air for a natural high

(i dislike smoking too, btw... Trying to quit or at least go to 10 cigarettes at the most each day).

I am told that building you smoke times into a schedule helps a great deal. If you get the urge, you can check the time and tell yourself that it will be only x minutes. Also cinnamon toothpicks to simulate the burning sensation.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Just don't start in the first place, is the sensible option. Which is why I'm in favour of every measure designed to not encourage people to take it up. Including things like plain packaging and keeping the product out of sight at the point of sale.

14 year old boys smoke--to prove their manhood.
40 year old men try to quit--to prove their manhood.

"Quitting smoking is the easiest thing there is. I do it every morning."
Mark Twain

J

 

[dutchfire]

Bump

J

538 just reported on the issue: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-safety-of-e-cigarettes/

 

[Sonereal]

In the end, policymakers face a complicated calculus. How much of an increase in total smoking are they willing to accept in exchange for some of that smoking to come from lower-risk e-cigarettes? Regulation of e-cigarettes (i.e. restricting their use in the same way as is common for traditional cigarettes) is likely to mitigate any possible increase in demand, but it may also limit the number of smokers switching from traditional cigarettes. The health risks are murky, the demand effects are murky, and even if both were known, the right policy decisions would not be clear.

The study linked in this article says this.

E-cigarettes, with or without nicotine, were modestly effective at helping smokers to quit, with similar achievement of abstinence as with nicotine patches, and few adverse events. Uncertainty exists about the place of e-cigarettes in tobacco control, and more research is urgently needed to clearly establish their overall benefits and harms at both individual and population levels.

The study was also done in Australia, so it might work differently elsewhere, especially factoring in the anti-smoking tax regime in America. It is a problem, however, because policymakers want to mitigate the health effects of increased smoking, but at the same time cut down on the greater of two evils. If regulations put e-cigarette prices too high, even at comparable levels to regular smoking, I believe people will be harder pressed to make the switch on price reasons.

However, if it is priced too low, you just end up with more people being able to start smoking. Without longer-term studies, there's no way we can be sure that e-cigarette use doesn't ultimately segue into real cigarettes as teenagers grow older, join the workforce, and have more money to spend.

Like the article says, it is a complicated question and not all the facts are known. In light of that, policymakers should take a conservative approach of regulating e-cigarettes, but not to the level cigarettes are.

 

[Seraiel]

There is a study that concludes, that E-Cigaretts are causing no harm to others, because 99% of the vapor (not smoke!) gets taken up by the E-Cig-user.

I converted from 20-30 cigs / day to the E-cigarett. My health has become a lot better, and if I have to smoke standard cigs, I only need about 10 / day, so the E-cig reduced my smoking greatly.
After half a year of E-smoking, I even like the taste a lot more, and it's great that it only cost'y me half of what I smoked before.

People should cut their hate and get themelves some knowledge before hating blindly. The posts from the E-cig haters in thos thread have no weight at all because they understan nothing and show pure stupidity.

Pflasters and gums don't raise the sucess-quote of quitting smoking. E-cigs work though, so everybody should be glad theY exist.

Moderator Action: Statements like "the posts from the E-cig haters in thos thread have no weight at all because they understan nothing and show pure stupidity" constitute flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sonereal]

There is a study that concludes, that E-Cigaretts are causing no harm to others, because 99% of the vapor (not smoke!) gets taken up by the E-Cig-user.

Could you link the study? I'm having troubles finding it.

This is the American Lung's Associations official statement on e-cigarettes, their effectiveness at getting smokers to switch, and potential secondhand smoke problems.

Also unknown is what the potential harm may be to people exposed to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (all carcinogens) coming from those secondhand emissions. Other studies have shown that chemicals exhaled by users also contain formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other potential irritants. While there is a great deal more to learn about these products, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about, especially in the absence of FDA oversight.

I converted from 20-30 cigs / day to the E-cigarett. My health has become a lot better, and if I have to smoke standard cigs, I only need about 10 / day, so the E-cig reduced my smoking greatly.

Sample size n=1.

Pflasters and gums don't raise the sucess-quote of quitting smoking. E-cigs work though, so everybody should be glad theY exist.

Studies are showing that e-cigarettes have roughly the same chance of getting users to quit as a placebo and nicotine patches. If there is a study pointing to substantially higher quit rates for smokers who use e-cigarettes, I can't find it at this time.