Slashdot Mirror
American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes
Anarki2004 writes "The American Lung Association is jumping on board the ban-E-cigs-train. From the article: 'So, while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or gum.' For those of you not in the know, electronic cigarettes (also called personal vaporizers) are a nicotine delivery device that resembles a cigarette in shape and size, but does not burn tobacco. It is less a expensive alternative to the traditional tobacco cigarette that is by all appearances (though not thoroughly researched) also healthier."
But the ALA has an agenda to push, and logic and reason be damned.
Free Martian Whores!
Of course lets ignore the more "healthier" alternative, quit smoking!!!
As long as you continue to feed your nicotine addiction, you will never be able to break yourself away from these crutches.
Cold turkey is the only method that actually works short of medication (which has its own problems).
How about we sell cigs that don't contain so much bullshit? I mean honestly...is all that crap really necessary?
Living With a Nerd
Nicotine is far from harmless. Best to keep people away from it if at all possible.
Not by force of law necessarily, but by education and social support.
'HEY! THOSE PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING SOMETHING WE DONT APPROVE OF! STOP THEM!'
They always came off that way anyways with the attitude of their messages.
Perhaps it has something to do with their potential misuse for the delivery of other, less harmless, substances...
One has to wonder why they would even do this. Why push for a ban on something that is so obviously better for you than actual cigarettes? You have to think Big Tobacco is stuffing money in their pocket to strengthen the legitmacy of this ban request, but why make such an obvious move? It only weakens what credibility they might have had before this.
...give me a seat next to an electric cigarette smoker over a cigarette smoker any day.
There's a lot of FUD about nicotine, when it is not apparent that nicotine is dangerous, compared to all the other chemicals that get delivered with the traditional nicotine cigarette.
I've never seen the need for treating nicotine like a controlled substance outside cigarettes. If I want Nicorette for uses other than smoking-cessation, how is that any more dangerous than my ability to buy aspirin, acetaminophen, or caffeine tablets, all of which can be used to a harmful degree?
The moment drugs are being discussed, logic, sense and reason dissapear. And we're suprised every time.
People who derive gratification from telling others what to do and what is good for them. They always have a convoluted explanation, but it always comes down to others having to adapt to busybody's choices.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill
I am not a smoker.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
http://www.joelspitzer.com/whyquit/joel/Joel_01_13_gradual_withdrawal.html
Wouldn't that be "electrical cigarettes"? Those things don't have transistors in them, do they?
Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction?
Who said it's rational and not just a "I don't like cigarette smoke, therefore anything related to that is bad" reaction?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
No, it isn't. It is just less harmful.
If you don't know the difference, probably you say a gunshot wound is healthier than stepping on a landmine.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So while the rest of the toxic crap that is added to cigarettes (much of it to keep them burning) might not be present, the inhaled mixture itself isn't good for your lungs regardless. So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If they were not the delivery devices for addictive drugs then they would be illegal.
Many states have laws against carrying "infernal devices" in public that belch smoke, stink, and otherwise create unpleasantness.
I gotta say those e-cigs smell pretty darned nasty. Have you ever smelled one?
I occasionally smoke cigarettes (we're talking a few times a month). They're horrible for your lungs, full of tar, and your lungs work like a sponge. Ask a smoking friend to see their cigarette when they're done and look at the filter.
The less people who smoke cigarettes, the better. It's terrible for them, but it's also bad for people around them inhaling the smoke. Good riddance.
But these e-cigarettes are nicotine and some flavoring, with a battery vaporizer. Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison. But nicotine alone vs. nicotine, tar, formaldehyde, etc... all in one package - it doesn't take a genius to figure out which you should be encouraging people to use.
Most smokers I know are acutely aware of how bad it is for them (actually, most are medical professionals of some sort). Some of them want to stop and can't, and some of them just don't care. But they know it's bad, they're not in denial about it. The people I hang out tend to be well educated about this sort of stuff, but many aren't. If the ALA were to come out and say "hey guys, smoke this instead! same great effects, no tar, woohoo... vastly vastly reduced risk of cancer" well they'd probably switch.
In fact, straight nicotine basically doesn't affect the lungs - it'll mess up your arteries and brain, but largely ignore your lungs. <conspiracy_theory>Maybe they're worried about being put out of business</conspiracy_theory>
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
Beloved Spouse has been using these. They smell less bad, they're not as bad for you, and they make it a lot easier to taper down nicotine to get rid of it -- without taking away the fidget. Seems like a great idea, and I am pretty sure the only reason to ban them is that they could result in many people ceasing to use the pure-cancer form of nicotine delivery.
One caveat, though, the cartridges don't seem to last NEARLY as long as advertised. Still cheaper that traditional cigs.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Why do I get the feeling Philip Morris USA has already bought and paid for the American Lung Association?
Patches, I assume, provide nicotine via dermal penetration. Gum provides it via absorption in the GI tract. Wouldn't vaporized nicotine basically hit the throat and be swallowed?
It isn't hard to find chemical free cigarettes. Most of the convenience stores around here stock at least one variety, like this brand. They aren't really any healthier though. The health problems with cigarettes have far less to do with the chemicals, and more to do with partially combusted hydrocarbons (tar) sticking to the most sensitive parts of your lungs.
The chemicals are put into cigarettes for various reasons - some to make the smoke "smoother", some for flavor, some to make the cigarette burn faster, and others actually increase the combustion of the leaves, decreasing some of the more harmful naturally occurring components of tar.
So they shouldn't be banned unless cigarettes are banned too.
It's ridiculous to say that a less-harmful thing can't be allowed while the more-harmful thing is allowed. These things exist only to let cigarette smokers stop inhaling smoke. They're a step forwards.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Rachel: "Do you mind if I smoke electronic cigarettes?"
Decker: "It won't affect the test. Give me a hit."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
combustion doesn't occur if you vaporize somthing electronically
RTFA
The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?
Quoting from her bio on the site: Kristin Noll-Marsh is a charter member of the board of directors of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), Vapers International and a member of the Vaper's Coalition, a cooperation of organizations working to encourage the use and understanding of smoke-free alternatives. She receives no funding (directly or indirectly) from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or trade assocations.
Do you honestly believe that those organizations listed do not receive substantial sponsorshipf from e-cigarette companies and affiliated interests?
Test your net with Netalyzr
I'm an ex-smoker (yeah yeah I know reformed whore), & have switched to using a vaporizer for my fine herbals. I rarely smoke anymore, but now have realized I have no means of partaking outside my home without going back to old ways.
What electronic cigs have you used for a mid priced unit & what if any manufacturer would you recommend or stay away from?
Thanks
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
We're witnessing, in our own time, a version of the 'Edison DC'/'Tesla AC' debate. Except there's more law and fewer dead elephants.
In the one corner, tobacco. Long-known, home-grown, proven mood-adjuster. People can self-medicate throughout their normal day by taking what's known as a 'smoke break', as little or as often as necessary. There are no debilitating effects, like with alcohol or marijuana, that otherwise interfere with your daily life. It is messy, yes, but quite effective and relatively cheap (before taxes).
In the other corner, prescription drugs. Little pills exist for every problem. Your doctor tells you how many to take, and your pharmacy tells you how much it costs. When they don't work quite well enough, go back to the doc and get some more. Eventually you'll need a box with seven compartments to keep it all straight, but you might just wind up feeling exactly the way you want, all the time. Look at Chantix, for example. One-for-one transition with that one: nicotine to prescriptions.
Now ask yourself, who staffs the ALA? Who makes their policy decisions? Lay persons, or medical industry types?
Occam's Razor applies here. Unless you really think that it makes MORE sense that the ALA has collectively taken leave of its senses.
What is in the inhaled mixture of an e-cig other than the nicotine? Anyone know by chance?
It's over. Accept it. The GNAA trolls' heyday is past, most of the teenagers responsible got girlfriends, grew up and moved on, and attempts to reinvigorate it will never recapture its former "glory".
It's like a pop group that was once really famous and sold shitloads, then went not entirely out of fashion but were no longer the premier flavor du jour. They continue to sell records, and once in a while a single of theirs may graze the top 10, but they'll never ever be as big as they once were.
As intentionally offensive and semi-creative trolls go, this one's actually not too bad. (Though the boilerplate at the end really needs updating. 130MB bittorrent? That's the sort of size/quality we were downloading in 2004. Was this laziness or an acknowledgement of your roots?)
And even if your later material knocked spots off the smash hits of your peak, it'll still only reach #14 for a couple of weeks.
Fair or not, that's life... just accept it.
The regular kind has powerful lobbies behind it...
Think of this as an invasion of evil robot cigarettes, and it should be obvious that you must fight.
Nicotine causes significant circulatory problems.
And nicotine addiction is far, far stronger than caffeine addiction--comparable cocaine addiction.
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs
Citation please.
How about we ban organizations that propose bans!
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known, and is twice as toxic (in terms of LD50) as cocaine. And the use of nicotine gum and patches during pregnancy causes an increase in the risk of birth defects.
I call bullshit on TFA. I smell either a shill or an addict trying to justify their behavior.
That said: it's your body, and so long as you keep the fumes to yourself, I support your right to make your own decisions. But regularly and habitually using nicotine, in burning plant matter or in any other form, is a dammed dumb decision.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
From another forum, but very true:
I'm seriously starting to feel that it's time to drag some of these petty enforcers and ticket-writers, spies and interlopers, social-servicy puritanical do-gooder liberty-infringing family-befouling irritating holier-than-thou socially controlling progressive pecker-checker hypocrites into the swamps and hack them to death with machetes.
It's the banality of evil all over again. -theGringo
Like traditional "analog" cigarettes, the vast majority of the "smoke" is water vapor.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal.
Aren't you glad that you don't have to worry about that nasty hard process of making your own decisions and bothering with informing yourself? Just know that as long as you follow the law, you will be safe.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Can someone please justify banning e-cigarettes without first banning traditional cigarettes?
Absent a logical reason for this, the ALA is putting its stinky foot in its mouth.
Do you know about any good studies on nicotine vaporizers? I have had a couple people ask me about them, but haven't been able to find any reliable info on them. The folks selling them of course claim that they are 100% harmless. The only info out of the FDA basically amounts to "we haven't studied these, and no one should be allowed to use anything we haven't approved". In addition to health affects I also haven't been able to find any credible information about the nicotine content of any second hand vapor.
I think the ALA is retarded for demanding that these be banned while cigarettes remain legal. But it would be nice to know how they compare to patches for people trying to quit, or to cigarettes for smokers that want to decrease their chances of lung cancer, or just get around indoor smoking bans.
Nicotine suspended in Polyproplene Glycol, or Vegetable Glycerine. Checking these two out you will find that not only are they safe but where considered in the past for vaporizing into the air within hospitals to make the environment safer.
Got Code?
I know this is anecdote and all, but I would argue that caffeine is pretty addictive as well.
Speaking of which, time for my pot of coffee.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
Perhaps, if that was their point, but it wasn't. Their point is that E-Cigs should be banned while regular cigarettes should not. This does not compute and smells of money changing hands, lots of it.
I just called my local branch of the ALA and it turns out this article is mostly scaremongering.
As it was described to me they are pushing for two things currently;
Prohibit the sale to those under the age of 18.
and
Investigate the safety of the ingredients.
They're not trying to blindly take away your e-cigs, they're pressing for things that are actually rather reasonable. The person I spoke to stated that they are NOT pushing for a blanket ban, only a request for testing with decisions to be made after official, legitimate research has taken place.
Seeing as how I want an ingredients list and some sort of quality control on the stuff I'm puffing on right now, this is directly in line with my own interests as an e-cigarette user.
bend like the reed
eCigs have about 1/1000th the health risk of a normal cigarette. Somehow moving society forward to a far less harmful way to maintain a nicotine addiction is a bad thing? Sure, addiction is bad, but dying of cancer is a lot worse. This is a way to significantly avoid cancer. It's completely antithetical to the ALA's stated purpose to be against these.
I think the ALA is just pissed cause they aren't going to be able to continue their free ride where they are funded by a cut of cigarette taxes. Of course they are against that, as they are becoming irrelevant.
It's like the RIAA/MPAA witch hunt, only instead of trying to mess with people rights and freedom, they are trying to take away people's lives. Even worse.
Lets face it, eCigs are very disruptive technology - the old way is breathing in burning smoke with all kinds of carcinogens (and lots of taxes on it since it's truly dangerous), the new way is inhaling vaporized nicotine (Not much of an excuse for a sin tax on a nearly safe product.) and all the tax-funded entities aren't going to get their cut, so of course they are against it.
It's safer, by far, so let's ban it. That makes sense.
eCigs have the potential to save millions from the agonizing death of lung cancer, this should be the key point and the reason society should back eCigs wholeheartedly. My grandparents might still be alive if this product existed back in the day.
I thought the ALA and other anti-smoking outfits had a purpose - trying to keep people from using a highly dangerous product. This just makes me completely disrespect them.
Fully dumb - for every day they fight these things, that's another thousand people who will get cancer.
Are eCigs completely safe? No, they are not, but they are around three orders of magnitude safer than real cigarettes, so that should be the deciding factor.
Ban tobacco smoking, no problem now, there's a better alternative.
Banning something with a dangerosity level on the level of coffee is just asinine and futile.
Just more money-grubbing pigs, ignore them and help millions avoid cancer.
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So I suppose you're saying the inhaled corticosteroid I use for asthma, not to mention the short-acting bronchodilator, is bad for my lungs because they're both delivered as an "airborne solid"?
Quite frankly, you sound like you're just making shit up. Unless you can identify a specific compound in these devices that damages the lungs, I see no reason to assume they're any worse than any other inhaled drug preparation (of which there are many).
Nicotine LD50: 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40 - 60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be fatal for humans.
Caffeine LD50: 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats. Estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass, roughly 80 to 100 cups of coffee for an average adult.
Nicotine is much more toxic to humans than caffeine.
Sources: Nicotine, caffeine.
Consideration One: A fair few of the "electronic cigarettes" floating around these days are dodgy Chinese imports that have been subjected to absolutely fuck-all inspection, quality control, or standards of any kind. Unless you think that any and all imports standards and restrictions are a fascist conspiracy, you will probably agree that this is a bad thing. If people are going to be inhaling this shit in quantity, basic testing to the effect that it is, in fact, what it says on the label(and that it says on the label what it is) is pretty much essential.
Consideration Two: If, rather than supporting the reasonable standards of Consideration One, above, the ALA does some "Oh NOES! It looks like a Cigarette and will destroy the youth!!!" thing, they can go shove it up their bronchial tubes. Nicotine is crazy addictive; but, in itself, not particularly dangerous. A cigarette-like nicotine delivery mechanism; but without all the other exciting combustion products, has Massive harm reduction potential. Anybody who actually cares about human health, rather than some more-or-less-covert anti-intoxicant-bodily-purity crap, should overwhelmingly welcome such a tool.
Trying to turn nicotine addicts into non-nicotine addicts is quite difficult, and doesn't actually have significant health payoffs(in specific cases, like schizophrenia, it might even have negative ones). Turning Cigarette smokers into people who get their nicotine in virtually any other way, though, could well be much easier, and have much greater health payoffs, both for the smokers themselves, and for those who have to breath their crap.
So, would anybody like to speculate about the ALA's motives? Are they simply full of crusading zeal, and wish to wipe out all "sin", preferring "willpower" to harm reduction approaches? Or is there some sort of sick co-dependent relationship, where the cigarette companies are a reliable villain(and quite profitable, enough to skim off in taxes and PSA ad campaigns) for the ALA to crusade against, while the e-cigarette guys are a bunch of shallow-pocketed non villains?
"The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine."
WTF?
Caffeine's LD50 is 150-200mg / kg.
Nicotine's LD50 is 40–60 mg / kg.
Sounds like nicotine is almost 3 times more toxic than caffeine to me.
There is a war going on for your mind.
That's not flamebait, it's human natue. Like all other self-righteous do-gooders and cause-sellers who want to tell you how to live your life, the ALA wants you to do it THEIR WAY and their way ONLY.
Also, an environmentalist doesn't want you to just pick any old way to reduce carbon (i.e. clean coal, hyrdro-electric, nuclear), they want you to pick THEIR chosen ways of doing it (wind and solar) and those ONLY.
Also, a bible-thumper doesn't want you to come to Jesus just any old way, they want you to do it through THEIR particular sect or denomination and theirs ONLY.
etc.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Propylene glycol.
and it produces NO weed smell when you smoke weed with the electronic cigarette but the filament burns out quickly and the device doesn't last long. Haven't tried it with oil yet.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Sheesh! If nothing else, e-cigs should cut down on all the trash that many smokers seem to think is okay to just throw on the ground.
I used an e-cig to quit tobacco completely -- day one. Eight months later I was still using an e-cig but had cut out nicotine completely. Twelve months later I had stopped using an e-cig at all. It's now been four months since I put down the e-cig for the last time.
There are lots of ways to quit -- the cold turkey argument holds no water. It's just the kind of thing that gets bandied about when cigarette smoking and quitting gets mentioned -- it's a meme.
Furthermore, harm reduction is a perfectly rational and useful goal to pursue -- if people don't want to or can't quit, then providing them with options which reduce the harm they do to themselves should be promoted and not decried. There's really very little harm is using nicotine responsibly and if people choose to do so it's really nobody else's business. In the same way it's nobody else's business if someone chooses to use caffeine, for example.
Thought thinks itself.
I'm onboard with the bans on public smoking/second hand smoke. SH smoke can't be controlled, it can't be avoided and is largely forced on to other people. While I doubt smokers intend it, forcing SH smoke is really a selfish act that is detrimental to society at large. It's forcing others to accept your choice.
But if you want to smoke, full speed ahead! You do want you want with my blessing.
This thinking on banning electronic cigarrettes seems to be similar to a lot of the logic that goes on in pushing for more outlawing of thought crime. Nothing's taking place that is harming anyone whatsoever (even the smoker) but someone somewhere deems it wrong or immoral or whatever. We should have the right to kill ourselves in anyway we desire so long as there is no direct or indirect (to a couple of levels) harm to other people.
Going on a rant.. but I really hate our backwards false-puritanical society. Religion, god, faith, allah, $other_diety$.. it's all a crock of mind-control horseshit.
FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes
by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/fda-smoke-screen-on-e-cigarettes/
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a press conference late last month to scare Americans about the so-called "e-cigarette" -- claiming it was loaded with harmful "toxins" and "carcinogens." The agency was implicitly saying: Stay away from these newfangled, untested cigarette substitutes -- better to stick with the real ones, the ones that we are more familiar with, the ones that cause over 450,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
In making its distorted, incomplete and misleading statement, FDA was violating its long-cherished tradition of sticking to sound science as the basis for its policies. And in doing so, it is putting the lives and health of millions of Americans at risk."
The FDA has shown E-Cigarettes to be less likely to cause cancer than even nicotine gum based on nitrosamine content.
FDA report on nitrosamine content of cigarettes, Nicotine replacements and E-Cigs
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
Canadian report on nitrosamine levels in commercial cigarettes
http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/Canadian%20Cigarette%20Data%202004.ods
Website that has compiled data and presented a table of the data for quick viewing
http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/nitrosaminelevels.htm
There are no airborne solids in e-cig vapor. It's all liquid droplets. Most of it is propylene glycol. Note that hospitals have been considering aerosolized PG as an infection control measure. That is, they are considering dispensing non-nicotine e-cig vapor into the air to protect their patients.
This is a philosophical battle. Some people believe abstinence is the only answer to addiction, while others think addiction isn't the problem, it is the harm addiction causes that is the problem. To the first group, devices like this are insidious evils which corrupt the innocent with the promise of harm free drug use. To which the second group usually responds with something along the lines of, "LOLwhat? Without harm, what's the fucking problem, you tightass sonsabitches?" It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Has anyone thought of how much more toxic all the e-butts on the ground will be than regular butts?
The ALA can go fuck itself. E-cigs are from what I've noticed the single best way to quit smoking and apparently the ALA doesn't want people to actually quit smoking. Patches and all that jazz don't work so I wonder how much ALA funding is coming from the makers of those.
It's quite clear there's more to a cigarette addiction than just a nicotine addiction. Patches and all that crap barely work for that very reason.
I know a lot of people who have tried to quit for years or decades without much success. Then they tried e-cigs and after a while they don't smoke at all anymore or at most once a week. Quite a few have even stopped smoking e-cigs as well. If I remember studies show the success rate to be absurdly better than any other approach.
Completely isolate yourself from the rest of humanity, and see how that works out for you. You and your tea bagger idiot friends are social animals, so stop pretending you are not. Your actions have consequences to others around you, law or no law. Speeders kill other people. Drunk drivers kill other people. Smokers harm other people's health, and are a drag on the economy. Fat unhealthy people overtax our health care system. You don't live in a vacuum, other than the intellectual vacuum of Fox News and Glen Beck. Even your idiocy is a drag on the rest of us. Change the channel, fucking nitwit.
Lung function reduction.
By the time you get to your fifties, you're down below 50% function and your oxygen saturation levels go off a cliff if you even stand up and take a few steps. Walking, isn't possible.
It might be worth thinking about what your lungs are for a moment. They are a very high surface area membrane which allows oxygen and CO2 to pass across between the environment and blood stream. Anything which damages it is likely to cause scarring, probably permanent and the scarred membrane no longer functions.
Just a percent or two a year, you probably won't even notice it happening. But go ahead, the world is overpopulated anyway.
Deleted
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs.
Some Doctors have the opposite opinion:
"propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal"
Plus, the nicotine delivered by electronic cigarettes is minuscule:
"They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette,"
So, If the propylene glycol helps prevent one from getting the flu, and it's really just the hand-to-mouth and fake smoke and not the nicotine that is satisfying the ecig user... what's the problem?
I was going to post a citation... ...But then I got high.
This is how things go: If you do something legally or morally wrong, unpopular and/or politically wrong, you better control 9or at least keep in check) the opposition. That's how things get played by the big guys. So, this message goes to the American Lung Association: STOP lobbying for the big tobacco, and start pushing bans on nicotine/tar products and cigarettes itself.
Bunch of vipers....
I've used e-cigarettes, albeit not in the way most users do (hint: think green[ish]) but I'm pretty intimately familiar with them after developing my own ..um.. formula.
The basic e-cigarette devices is roughly the same size and shape as a regular cigarette and are composed of a battery (lithium-ion in most cases) which screws into the atomizer and cartridge with a led at the tip (of the battery) which lights up as you draw air through the atomizers (usually referred to simply as the atty).
E-cigs deliver nicotine in a solution based on either Propylene Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin. This liquid is what they put into the cartridges, which use a simple wick to get bring the nicotine solution (commonly referred to as e-juice) into contact with the atomizer (which produces relatively low heat to vaporize the solution).
Most commercial e-juice has a lot of additional crap in it, including flavoring, stabilizers and other chemicals. While it's been pretty well established that the combustion by-products produced by burning tobacco are pretty bad for you I suspect very little is known about the possible effects of vaporizing the various chemicals delivered by the e-cigarettes, particularly the possible build-up of either Propylene Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin in the lungs.
That said, if the ALA is serious about it's primary mission I'd prefer they sponsor research into possible health effects and/or benefits of using one of these devices over smoking traditional cigarettes because for many people these are useful devices that provide a reasonable means of nicotine delivery. And if we consider the relatively small doses of nicotine safe I think these devices are perfectly acceptable chemical delivery systems, however they are health/medical devices and probably *should* be seeing some critical scrutiny.
Most e-cigarettes are manufactured in China and use a fairly similar/common design across brands. Calling them a healthy alternative without any real hard data to back that claim up (in regard to either the vaporized e-juice or the device itself as it's been designed) seems pretty questionable.
Quack, quack.
The airborn chemicals you speak of is generally Proplyene Glycol. This "chemical" has been given the status of "GRAS" by the FDA which means "generally regarded as safe" for human consumption.
Propylene Glycol is in many makeup products and some food additives.
That's typical of the anti-addiction crusader control freaks. I sure wish these analites would get a clue and realize addiction is a natural consequence of a complex nervous system - i.e. a symptom of being human.
If someone becomes addicted to these new e-cigs instead of the real thing, then good. The negative health effects of getting your nicotine jones from one of these "crutches" is substantially lower than the negative health effects of getting nicotine in one of the more normal ways.
Yes, at the end of the day the person is still addicted to nicotine and could still find themselves going back to cigarettes at some point, but that is always a danger with addiction, with or without the crutches. Either you never got addicted to nicotine, or you had an easier time quitting than most, because you don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is for most people to quit. It takes most people several tries to get it right, and Ozzy Osbourne once said it was harder for him to quit cigarettes than to quit heroin, yet you make it sound like it should be no more difficult than giving up a particular brand of coffee or a particular TV show.
My article on getting started with e-cigarettes, including purchase links. I make $0 off of this.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
but you can't replace the battery and the EULA stipulates you have to wear black while smoking it.
Nullius in verba
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
When their agenda includes banning a legal product because they think it sends the wrong message, then they've crossed the line. They've done noble work over the years, but they're becoming as bad as those fools from the Center For Science In The Public Interest. If you want to convince someone to change habits, more power to them. If you're trying to ban a legal product because, well, you just know what's good for them, then ALA can go pound sand.
Note: I don't even smoke. Never have. But ALA is just being a nannying busybody here.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Its funny, unfortunately i can't find it now, but somewhere on the net is a study of the long term effects of propylene glycol (major component in e-cigs) that stated they saw a higher resistance to airborne diseases and no ill effects (except for those who were allergic). Propylene glycol is a liquid which happens to get metabolized by the body (even in the lungs).
So theres a chance you could be wrong.
The moral is there isn't enough scientific data on this subject over a long enough time period to say anything either way.
Vapor has no smell unless you add additives. I've vaped in restaurants and museums and had people right next to me not notice. Your evidence is anecdotal. My article on getting started with e-cigarettes, including purchase links. I make $0 off of this.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
the idea that nicotine isn't harmful is laughable and flies in the face of fifty years of rigorous medical studies. the effects on the circulatory system are long documented and begin within seconds of nicotine entering the bloodstream. the only question is of permanence. does the damage to the body diminish after quitting? in many cases yes, if nicotine users actually stop, but that's small comfort to someone dying of heart attack or facing amputations from buerger's disease.
if e-cigs are primarily used by older smokers looking for less harmful alternatives that may be an argument in favor, even if they should get off the nic habit entirely. prescriptions for e-cigs or other alternatives could mitigate this issue.
the real damage is to the next generation of kids who listen to bullshit rants from e-cig apologists and corporate shills. kids who would never consider smoking cigarettes but who now find themselves stuck in an electronic addiction out of some misguided idea there's no harm being done to their bodies.
but there's plenty of harm.
these aren't safe cigarettes.
they're merely proposed to be less deadly to some degree.
and that's a major effing difference you aren't copping to kristin.
- js.
There are some great communities dedicated to personal vaporizers (e-cigs): http://www.vapersforum.com/ http://www.nu-vapor.com/forum/forum.php http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ Folks at any of these forums will happily recommend a model, offer advise, and give information to all that ask. Most are very reasonable. Anecdotally I smoked for 10 years and tried to quit unsuccessfully several times. I would always cheat within days. I purchased my first e-cig Nov. 22nd and have not smoked a real cig since Nov. 23rd. I am all for preventing minors from purchasing e-cigs, I do not mind not being able to use it indoors, and I don't flash mine around children. Most vapers are all for research and some of the communities above even raise money for research purposes.
They themselves have in a press release asked for an absolute BAN
http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/e-cigarettes-action.html
"Our organizations thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership in urging the FDA to remove these products from the market and echo his call that the FDA move quickly to remove these products from the marketplace. "
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I have to mention this, because my 'must argue with the internets' nerve is tingling...
Does nobody else here think that folks smoking e-cigs look slightly foolish? I don't mean to detract from e-cigs health benefits or effectiveness in any way, but I just had to put that out there.
Admittedly, my only exposure was watching a video of a gentlman enjoying his e-cig whilst travelling by train.
He gave an unmistakable air of "look, I'm smoking. On a train. You can't say anything to me because it's an e-cigaratte. I *dare* you to say anything. Look. LOOK. I'm SMOKING here. Anyone?". The amount of smugness he was emitting really was magnitudes higher than any noxious chemicals.
Anyone see the 60 minutes special on the SNUS ? After around 30 years, the European studies are rolling in and this type of tobacco looks pretty harmless. No lung or mouth cancer. A questionable uptick in pancreatic cancer, and slightly higher blood pressure. Tobacco without spitting.
So we should ban E-Cigs
No, but like other nicotine products, they should not be sold at mall kiosks.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?
I suspect it is, at least in part, a case of them picking their battles. It is easier to stop a new product than kill an existing one; and if their interest is in lung health they should take action against things that are bad for lung health. They likely realize that there is no chance in hell of pulling off a full bad on regular cigarettes - at least not with a pro-business government - so they might as well put energy into something they might be able to get some traction on.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What kind of arm-chair reporting is that??? Just a few milligrams is enough to kill a human. It's a poison - one that works well as an organic OMRI approved pesticide too. What ya'll claim next? That strictnine is "safe?" Perhaps we should all start eating rat poison then? Rubbish.
Electronic Cigarettes are saving me from a horrible addiction. I went from smoking around 16 regular cigarettes a day to only 4, on my first day. Have you ever been at an event with fog machines? It's the same base as fog juice which is propylene glycol. You can also use vegetable glycerine in the e-cigs as well. The "juice" is 3 things: PG or VG, food-safe flavoring, and nicotine(diluted). The "atomizer" lightly warms the fluid mixture as to vaporize is into a cool stream of fog. I like menthols, and the e-cigs really do it right!
I talked to a friend who I had not seen in a while, and he said that he stopped regular smoking after the first try. He was not intending on quitting, he just wanted to see what they were like. I am very happy and much healthier because of them. My girlfriend is thrilled, and so is my family. Google ecig express if you wanna find out more. If you don't smoke, and there is ever an opportunity to vote on these devices, please consider supporting them. I hate second-hand smoke, too.
back me up here, but i could have sworn there were a boatload of studies in the 90's claiming nicotine was more addictive than heroin. was that true or am i just high on desk cleaner?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Vaporizers are a whole lot healthier when comparing with smoking for medical marijuana, there's no reason they shouldn't be much healthier with tobacco also. The ALA looks pretty stupid here, a couple more moves like this and they'll seem as intelligent as those 'birthers' who refuse to believe Hawaii officials about who was born there.
I'll be calling the ALA in my state and speaking to them about this. I guess I'll have to dig up some information about what they've been saying so they can't lie to me without me knowing. It'll be nice to inform them that I am friends with several drug addiction counselors who would love to hear the shit they're pulling.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
It's 'less unhealthy', because there is nothing healthy in the first place about e-cigs or cigs.
This is an astroturf article.
As someone who switched, and someone who knows their body(like we all should), I feel as if I have quit completely.
I can smell, I can taste, I can BREATH like a normal person, and I never realized how bad it had gotten.
The only thing in this wonderful device that is harmful is nicotine. 60MG(pretty much a single drop) of pure nicotine can kill a human, so theres no question about whether I am ingesting a poison.
There is a distinct difference in my health and lung function, and I no longer ever get dizzy from standing.
I can tell you first hand this electronic cigarette saved my life from being taken by lung cancer.
From the summary:
numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
Disregarding the highly addictive nature of nicotine (hey, whatever floats your boat and caffeine is addictive too), that statement isn't entirely true. From the Wikipedia article on nicotine:
I'm not saying nicotine should be illegal or anything of the sort, just that its use shouldn't exactly be encouraged either and users should be made aware of its potential dangers.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Ban all nicotine containing items make nicotine = illegal substances like heroin meth and cocaine
I typically ignore "people" who don't capitalize.
Such people all seem to have the same brain-workings and general issues with reality. -They all tend to write with the outward fire of social rebellion, and yet despite this public display, never fail to subtly align themselves with one manner of corporate/government propaganda or another.
Seriously; Read this guy's post and then compare with the posting patterns of similar people. They're like a species of weed or fungus or something. Usually it's best to avoid such sorts because they are incapable of learning or advancing, (though they can adapt in the same manner that a weed will adapt to environmental conditions, but they will never be able to separate themselves from their essential 'weedness'. -Or at least, I've never seen it happen yet). Thus, as far as I can tell, parlay with such types is largely a pointless exercise. But in this case, I'll make an exception because his (its) post is destructively false. (Which is always the case with noxious organisms, I suppose.)
Basically, there have been many accusations leveled at nicotine, but a perusal of the Wikipedia article on nicotine toxicology will highlight the phrase, "remains to be proven".
Nicotine is an exceptional drug with numerous very useful qualities, one of which is that it has the singular effect of quieting and sharpening the mind without affecting judgment. It is no wonder to me at all that governments are loath to encourage its use, particularly as it counters the effect of FUD; one of the primary tools used to control populations.
-FL
Forget e-cigs, I want whatever the ALA is smoking ;-}
blowing water vapor.
Screw cigarettes and those fake e-cigs. I get my nicotine from snus. Real Swedish snus, not the candy-like snus made here in the U.S.. Much safer than American dip, too.
Ettan, General, Grov, Nick & Johnny, Skruf, Thunder and Roda Lacket!!!
> absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
In a word, no.
Well, in terms of *addictiveness* it's comparable to caffeine (which is to say, the withdrawal symptoms make you so cranky, after a few hours your friends and family will either drive you out of the house or physically compel you to go back on the drug).
However, in terms of the medical risks of nicotine, lung issues are about the third or fourth thing down the list. The heart, the brain, the blood vessels, and a number of other minor systems are all damaged and/or at risk.
Caffeine (when taken in excess, as is extremely common in American society) is also not particularly good for you, granted; but it's not nearly as damaging as nicotine.
The other thing is, comparison to caffeine is kind of disingenuous anyway. I know it's socially accepted, for historical reasons, but that's a grandfather-clause effect. If caffeine were a new product, the company that came up with it wouldn't even have the nerve to *apply* for FDA approval. (Well, maybe for oncology, if it killed cancer cells. You can pretty much get FDA approval for chemotherapy use of a mixture of arsenic and heroine if you can show that it kills cancer cells.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
MY lungs. Mine. not yours.
e-cigs - well well, how about we deal with really big problems, like oh i don't know, people that snore on the bus. THEY ARE POLLUTING MY AIR WITH THEIR NOISE!
this is bullshit.
In regards to harm reduction, there's a similar debate going on about Snus (steam-cured chewing tobacco). The carcinogenic potential of snus is believed to be lower than snuff, and a simple substitution would be expected to save lives.
However, a simple one-to-one swapping of snuff users may not necessarily be what happens in reality as snus marketshare expands -- it is being marketed heavily towards demographics outside the traditional snuff market. There are also ethnical issues in allowing promotion of a still-not-really-safe product as being "more healthy". So for now, it is not allowed to advertise its lower carcinogen content.
Sure, the genetically superior like yourself are compelled to inhale toxins even though they know it could kill them.
As someone who has been rather well screwed over by the current medical insurance regime - my family and have been denied insurance because we have had some tests, not that they indicated anything - I'm very interested in health care reform. But if we are ever to get real health care reform working, I'd rather not pay for the medical issues of people who voluntarily maintain their addictions. It strikes me that if you have good socialized medicine and business-operated addictions, the purveyors of addictives are pretty big drains on the system. They'd have to be taxed pretty heavily to balance it out.
Bruce Perens.
The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
A couple of quotes from Wikipedia:
"The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine"
"40-60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans"
"Nicotine has very powerful effects on arteries throughout the body. Nicotine is a stimulant, it raises blood pressure, and is a vasoconstrictor, making it harder for the heart to pump through the constricted arteries. It causes the body to release its stores of fat and cholesterol into the blood"
I couldn't find anything about the toxicity of caffeine, but it is definitely not as dangerous as nicotine by many miles. It is more realistically compared to heroin; in fact, there seems to far fewer health effects from long-term use of heroin as such - the detrimental effects come from dirty needles and impure heroin, and when heroin was first marketed in the 19th century, it was hailed as a safe alternative to morphine and opium for that very reason.
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So while the rest of the toxic crap that is added to cigarettes (much of it to keep them burning) might not be present, the inhaled mixture itself isn't good for your lungs regardless. So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
There are no airborne solids in e-cigarette vapor. It is an aerosol consisting primarily of propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin and condensed water vapor with a small amount of nicotine and food grade flavoring. The solid matter you refer to is the result of combustion which does not occur in an electronic cigarette. The lack of combustion means there is also no Carbon Monoxide and the lack of MAO inhibitors found in traditional cigarettes severely diminishes their potential for addiction. Recent study results from Health New Zealand have been published showing the e-cigarette to have a safety profile on par with FDA approved NRTs.
Research dating as far back as 1942 shows that vaporized propylene glycol actually has germicidal properties. Rather than being "as dangerous as cigarettes" as the FDA falsely asserted, lab rats subjected to a constant high concentration of propylene glycol vapor were reported as being "healthier and happier than ever".
Nicotine suspended in Polyproplene Glycol, or Vegetable Glycerine. Checking these two out you will find that not only are they safe but where considered in the past for vaporizing into the air within hospitals to make the environment safer.
PPG is NOT HARMLESS. Breakdown of vegetable compounds at high temperatures tends to result in some harmful byproducts. I used those clear rolling papers for a little while until I read up on 'em, and while the temperatures at the center of a cherry are hot enough to break them down into harmless products, the temperatures downstream from the cherry will vary between that temperature and just over room temp. Therefore some harmful combustion byproducts must be produced. The same will necessarily be true of the e-Cigs as well, because you cannot immediately convert 100% of the material into vapor.
In addition, the body produces free radicals when it breaks down Nicotine, so Nicotine itself is carcinogenic. There's nothing good about smoking it that isn't outweighed by the harm it can do. The REAL reason people smoke is that it's one of only two drugs it's legal to do in public, and people want public drugs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the one corner, tobacco. Long-known, home-grown, proven mood-adjuster. People can self-medicate throughout their normal day by taking what's known as a 'smoke break', as little or as often as necessary. There are no debilitating effects, like with alcohol or marijuana, that otherwise interfere with your daily life.
Smoking tobacco is hazardous to your health, but smoking marijuana is not. Or at least, no studies have ever shown harm, while every serious study of tobacco smoking has done so. You are a troll. Smoking marijuana has even been shown not to raise your cancer risk at a study carried out at a U.S. university, in spite of the general difficulty in executing marijuana-related studies in this country today what with it being one of our most-prohibited drugs and all, in spite of being non-addictive and generally harmless.
In the other corner, prescription drugs.
False dichotomy. There are also other corners. How about simply not consuming recreational drugs? I mean, if you think they're all harmful except for tobacco, which is clearly, provably harmful. Are we so weak we must all have an addictive habit? The ALA is also not promoting use of prescription drugs for recreation, so not only have you committed the sin of False Dichotomy, and based your entire comment on false statements about tobacco ("no debilitating effects?" you're obviously a liar, a shill, or just hopelessly ignorant) but you've also attacked a Straw Man.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs.~ ~So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad
so you have PROOF that this is correct? yes? what an idiot, do some research BEFORE you speak. the ALA has no 'good research' either that isn't totally biased.
There are no debilitating effects, like with alcohol or marijuana, that otherwise interfere with your daily life.
Smoking tobacco is hazardous to your health, but smoking marijuana is not. Or at least, no studies have ever shown harm, while every serious study of tobacco smoking has done so. You are a troll.
Perhaps you toked up a while before you read what I wrote?
Look, I never said anything about health risks of marijuana. I did, however, say that it has a debilitating effect. You would not want to get high and try to land an airplane, for example.
Read all the words before labeling me as a troll, please. And don't be so defensive. Marijuana is a tangent here, no one is attacking nor addressing it at all.
In the other corner, prescription drugs.
False dichotomy. There are also other corners.
It isn't a dichotomy, it is an analogy. By labeling this as a dichotomy, you're basically arguing that there are only two boxers on the planet. I am specifically looking at this one angle of competing interests. OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHERS. Don't be dense.
How about simply not consuming recreational drugs?
Prozac is not recreational. In many ways neither is nicotine.
I mean, if you think they're all harmful except for tobacco, which is clearly, provably harmful.
I specifically said nicotine, sir. This would be the very topic - nicotine without tobacco - as mentioned in the damn summary. You're twisting my words so you can attack them.
Are we so weak we must all have an addictive habit?
Wherein 'we' includes the entire population, yes. People use chemicals to alter moods. Deal with it.
The ALA is also not promoting use of prescription drugs for recreation, so not only have you committed the sin of False Dichotomy
I make my case on this that they are medical professionals. Unless you're saying that none of them have ever written a script for Prozac, for example, I'm not sure you've refuted my point.
and based your entire comment on false statements about tobacco ("no debilitating effects?"
As I said above, I clearly meant that nicotine doesn't interfere with you having an otherwise normal life. Alcohol and marijuana clearly do. Again, you can't use those drugs and operate heavy machinery safely. You CANNOT say the same thing about nicotine, and you damn well know it.
you're obviously a liar, a shill, or just hopelessly ignorant)
You're obviously an asshole with poor reading comprehension. What does my opinion of you, or your opinion of me, have to do with the topic at hand?
but you've also attacked a Straw Man.
I realize this is Slashdot, and we all have our repertoire, but the words 'straw man' and 'false dichotomy' have meanings. They don't simply mean 'arguments I do not like'. You've demonstrated neither a dichotomy nor a straw man. You're attacking me ad hominem. Maybe your dad died of lung cancer. Maybe you're a staunch marijuana supporter. I don't particularly care. There are points in the post I made above. Please try and see if you can either participate in that line of discussion or please create your own thread. I'm not particularly discussing either tobacco nor marijuana in what I wrote, only in what you read into it.
Sure, and when the investigation shows that nicotine is a toxic, addictive drug, the ALA will then claim that a total ban is justified.
This crusade against e-cigarettes reminds me of what happened to MADD. They started out with a laudable goal (reduce drunk driving fatalities), but once they largely ACHIEVED that goal, they shape-shifted into a neo-prohibitionist organization which seems to be working toward the criminalization of DRINKING, not drunk driving. Witness the calls for ever lower BAC limits, which could have some people "legally drunk" after a single beer.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
as I said, my husband's throat will swell shut if he is around too many smokers, even outside.
I think the key word there is "generally".
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Interesting idea, however, it contradicts reality. While, in general, inhaling other stuff is not good for your lungs, you should know that the primary inhaled vapor in e-cigarettes is also the primary inhaled vapor in ATHSMA INHALERS. research has been done (back in the 40s) proving not only that large doses of inhaled propylene glycol are not harmful, but that vaporized propylene glycol is an anti-bacterial agent, which is why it was proposed as a fogging solution for hospitals, to reduce the bacterial growth associated with hospital environments. The solution was not practical, in part because the vapor is not invisible (who wants to walk through foggy clouds all day long) , which is also the primary reason it is attractive as a smoking alternative. No argument on nicotine inhalation being less healthy than non-nicotine inhalation, but nicotine does not affect lung tissue, preferring to target the blood system. This is not a lung issue, other than the health benefits of not smoking cigarettes.
what brand of ecigs would people recommend
currently a smoker looking for a healthier choice
waiting on the just quit crowd ?!?!?!?!?
STFU! Seriously! If you cared enough to do even the slightest amount of research before blasting off your mouths you would have never posted this inane crap. There have been a fair number of studies done on e-cigs, just not in the US. So here are a few corrections/facts to mull over:
@ The Antifreeze comments: Ecigs and the nicotine solution DO NOT contain Antifreeze. Some solutions have a base of Propylene Glycol which is used in some Antifreeze, but is also used in the majority of makeup, air fresheners, ASTHMA INHALERS, and even in a lot of food. It has been declared safe for human consumption and inhalation. Dyethylene Glycol was found during the FDA analysis in an amount too small to be measured in 1 of the samples, but was deemed to be due to a cross contamination.
@ The comments about exhaled Vapor: There are trace amounts of nicotine in the exhaled vapor. TRACE amounts this means not enough to be measured. It cannot hurt anyone who comes into contact with the exhaled vapor. There are some lingering parts of the flavoring used in the exhaled vapor as well, but again these are deemed generally safe for consumption and cannot harm you. 2nd hand vapor is not going to hurt anyone.
@ the comments about carcinogens in the solution/vapor: In SOME, not all, there are extremely small amounts of Tobacco specific carcinogens. These are only present in solutions made from tobacco. Other solutions use either a synthetic (lab created) nicotine or nicotine derived from other plants that contain it (such as tomatoes). This being said, the amounts of those carcinogens are roughly equal to the ecig user smoking 1 cigarette a year, if the ecig user used the ecig on an hourly basis and took an average of 10 puffs per session. So not enough to significantly increase your chance of getting cancer from that of a non-smoker.
@ the comments about Nicotine being bad for people: Well, yes, it is, but not any worse than Caffeine. If you ever drink Caffeinated Soda, Coffee, Tea, or an Energy drink than you don't have a leg to stand on here.
If you want REAL information about ecigs from the people who have used them, and want to hear about their health improvements that have been measured by their physicians than go to:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com
Did you ever wonder why a lot of those old remedies are no longer available? Could it be that many of them were found to be a useless waste of time and money, and many were actually quite harmful? Should we have the hospitals return to slapping a poultice on major woulds instead of using antibiotics and bandages, because "that's how granma handled it"?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
PPG is NOT HARMLESS
Did you even read what you linked? From the linked article:
The estimated acceptable daily intake is 25 mg/kg (17th Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 1974)
I go through a 3ml (note ml, not mg) bottle in a week, and I vape a lot. Safe enough?
7.3 Carcinogenicity
No data available.
7.4 Teratogenicity
No teratogenic effects were seen in the rabbit (Schumacher et al, 1968).
7.5 Mutagenicity
No data available.
7.6 Interactions
No data available.
Again... safe enough?
Sony ha
Do you eat ice cream? Yea, thought so.
Got Code?
Then maybe the ALA should get to work banning all vehicles and factory production, since they are the biggest contributors to those airborne solids. We can go back to riding horses and making all of our own clothing and household goods.
The ingredients in e-liquid are propylene glycol, nicotine and flavoring, less ingredients than the patch, gum, lozenge or inhaler and approximately the same amount of carcinogenics. Propylene Glycol in itself is even being looked at for use in the air systems of large public places, such as schools, to inhibit the transfer of airborne infections.
Why will some people not understand that it's 3 ingredients or 599, because most e-cigarette users will simply go back to smoking after a ban. If you have to share space with a smoker for any reason, which would you rather breathe?
What is in the inhaled mixture of an e-cig other than the nicotine? Anyone know by chance?
Propylene Glycol and flavorings. 3 ingredients total. Propylene Glycol is commonly used in fog machines, including the ones you can buy at discount stores during Halloween.