CNN Demonizes Vaping

[OutHouse]

There is real doubt on the safety of the supposedly "perfectly safe" vaping fluids, but more to the point, what about the stuff that is intended to produce an effect -- you know, stuff like hash oil? I have no issue with adults smoking pot so long as they do so without effecting others but with vaping the problem is the vaping fluid can be almost anything.

With traditional smoking materials you had: cigarettes which almost all contained nicotine and a child couldn't smoke them because of the drug nicotine. With vaping, however, it is more difficult to know what's in the "smoke" and therefore children, if permitted to vape as many here seem to think, could just as well be smoking something illegal as legal.

Additionally, getting back to the "perfectly safe" bullshit you guys are promoting, one need only think about the Chinese made crayons and other children's items that were found to be loaded with lead. Guess what, there was no indication of lead on any of the labeling of those items.

So, one again, we will find that vaping will be regulated more or less as cigarettes and the pussies that want to do so in public will once again be left whining and crying because they can no longer do so. This is 100% guaranteed so smoke em while you can because before you know it you'll be stepping outside in the cold so you can vape with the other vapers next to the dumpster!


Brian

Words fail me on how ignorant this is.

 

[MongGrel]

looks to me like vaping is demonizing vaping.....

Have a cup of coffee.

 

[flexy]

with vaping the problem is the vaping fluid can be almost anything.

With traditional smoking materials you had: cigarettes which almost all contained nicotine and a child couldn't smoke them because of the drug nicotine. With vaping, however, it is more difficult to know what's in the "smoke" and therefore children, if permitted to vape as many here seem to think, could just as well be smoking something illegal as legal.

You have a problem here. And the problem is not "vaping", but it's your children, your inability to supervise/educate your children or the kids your children hang out with IF THEY TAKE DRUGS.

If your kids vape hash oil, sniff glue, inhale XYZ or pop pill ZYX to get high, I am sorry, this is an entirely different problem where the existence of vaping/vaping liquids/e-cigs is NOT the primary problem.

If you're already so far that you "need to ask yourself what's in your kid's vaping device because you can't smell it"...you want to blame vaping vendors or the "vaping community" as a whole because your children fricking take drugs? You don't see anything wrong here?

**

Edit: As an avid vaper who enjoys not only to try out devices like the iStick, various liquids and also started mixing my own liquids I already frequently MANY, pretty much all vaping related websites here in Spain and many in Germany, and I am also active on at least ONE major vaping forum.

None of the (many) vendors and none of the forums sells or even mentions drug/MJ related devices such as cannabis oil, let alone vapable synthetic drugs. NOT ONE SINGLE VENDOR.

( Although I have seen several specialized "herb vaporizers" on specialized Grow Shop sites which Spain by the way has a shitload )

Again: None of the vaping stores sells anything drug related or promotes the use of using the devices for taking drugs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What I find interesting and funny is that all the arguments vapers use to support vaping were the same arguments they used to condone smoking!!!

 

[MongGrel]

What I find interesting and funny is that all the arguments vapers use to support vaping were the same arguments they used to condone smoking!!!

Not really.

So what was the argument used as a non smoking thing prior to vaping ?

Smoke cigarettes to get off Heroin ?

What did you just say that made any sense ?

 

[WelshBloke]

You walked right into that one too. The main thing that makes cigarette smoke worse than the same amount of smoke from most any other random plant material is that it is addictive so you voluntarily increase your daily exposure. If you exposed your lungs to the same amount of nearly any inert particulate (even dust) then cancer rates would also be elevated. You are smothering and killing lung cells, which need to be replaced. It's mostly the increased cellular replication that causes DNA and RNA damage mutations which ultimately lead to cancer. You can start listing all the chemicals and poisons and toxins in cigarette smoke and what concerns are linked to each one and I will tell you that you can get a similarly scary list from just about any kind of burned plant. The MAIN difference is the addictive substance forcing users to return for more so that environmental exposure to these particulates is increased exponentially and the effect accumulate. I don't willingly run over 40 ant hills a day with the lawn mower and inhale the dust without a mask just to keep up with a 2-pack a day smoker to compare the effects, but I'd be willing to bet that it would increase my chances for lung cancer exponentially.

I hope you learned something here.

The main problem with cigarettes (with regards to cancer) is that cigarette smoke contains highly carcinogenic materials, the act of inhaling hot smoke reduces your lungs ability to rid itself of said materials and that nicotine itself promotes the growth of tumours.

So no, it's not the same as burning any plant material or running over lots of anthills in a lawnmower.

 

[pmv]

I still find it odd that there's so much concern about passive-smoking, and even passive-vaping, and yet its fine for me to have to breath in diesel particulates in vast quantities. Air quality here is constantly above the legally allowed levels, but nobody cares, as long as motorists can get around more cheaply.

Hell, they even deliberately incentivized diesel-use via the tax system.

 

[Murloc]

I still find it odd that there's so much concern about passive-smoking, and even passive-vaping, and yet its fine for me to have to breath in diesel particulates in vast quantities. Air quality here is constantly above the legally allowed levels, but nobody cares, as long as motorists can get around more cheaply.

Hell, they even deliberately incentivized diesel-use via the tax system.

Apples to oranges.

Cigarette smoke is a problem only in the immediate vicinity if you're in the open space, otherwise they're not pollutant due to the low quantity of smoke.
Cars aren't turned on inside of restaurants usually so you're exposed mostly to the generalized smog (garages are an exception), which is important because of how many cars there are.

Pollution is above the legal levels only in some cities. It's the cities fault and the government's fault if they do not enforce this, most probably because people keep electing those who don't want to enforce the safe level by doing stuff such as creating a fee to enter the centre and using it to finance mass transit.
That's because the perceived personal risk is low.

It's retarded to promote diesel via the tax system indeed, I'll never understand why they did and keep doing that in Italy.

 

[CZroe]

With traditional smoking materials you had: cigarettes which almost all contained nicotine and a child couldn't smoke them because of the drug nicotine. With vaping, however, it is more difficult to know what's in the "smoke" and therefore children, if permitted to vape as many here seem to think, could just as well be smoking something illegal as legal.


Brian

I have no idea what is in your kids' plastic cup and I cannot determine if it is legal for them to have or not. If permitted to sip, as many here seem to think they should, they could just as well be sipping something illegal as something legal. This is clearly a good argument that plastic cups as a fluid delivery system should be illegal for children. My logic is flawless.

The main problem with cigarettes (with regards to cancer) is that cigarette smoke contains highly carcinogenic materials, the act of inhaling hot smoke reduces your lungs ability to rid itself of said materials and that nicotine itself promotes the growth of tumours.

So no, it's not the same as burning any plant material or running over lots of anthills in a lawnmower.

So, you really think that tobacco smoke itself just happens to be more cancerous than other burning plants? If you could completely remove the nicotine and somehow convince people to inhale the same amount of tobacco smoke anyway, their cancer rates would remain virtually unchanged. Nicotine may be a stimulant, but it's not nearly the only stimulant.

Almost anything that will trigger or promote cellular regeneration is cancerous. Having a high metabolism and eating a lot is cancerous. That's right: Carbs are CANCER! Hell, if the temperature of the smoke really matters, then HEAT causes cancer!

Do you see what I'm saying here?

Environmental exposure to particulates/vapors in the air is not the same as deliberately putting it into your lungs by orders of magnitude. The effects of second-hand exposure to the public (not talking about family members forced to endure regularly in an inescapable environment) have always been over-blown. Laundromats in California have warnings about cigarette carcinogens because someone who smokes may have used the washer or dryer on their clothes before yours.

Because we are starting with something that is likely to be orders of magnitude safer if not perfectly safe, banning it until safety for bystanders can be proven is extremely premature. Ludicrous even, just like the laundry signs in Cali.

Mark my words though: People are going to find health concerns that relate with environmental exposure to water vapor and spin them as health concerns that only apply to vape exposure. For example, if water vapor promoted bacterial growth/infection, expect that angle to get played up. No one will thing twice about exposure to the public from other sources of water vapor, so Six Flags amusement parks will continue misting water on the people waiting in line (saw this at Magic Mountain) and grocery stores will continue misting their fresh veggies in open refrigerators.

We're smarter than that, right? Right?

 

[WelshBloke]

Do you see what I'm saying here?

I can see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CZroe]

I can see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Just had to respond with SOMETHING, I see.

 

[IronWing]

Just had to respond with SOMETHING, I see.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[CZroe]

Pot, meet kettle.

I responded. His non-response gave me nothing to respond to. I called him out on it. You don't think I responded that way knowing full well that someone like you would look at it superficially and respond that way? All you have done is reveal your own simplistic understanding. I was ready with my explanation.

Once again, your knee-jerk response reveals that I was one step ahead of you. Why does this keep happeneing? Maybe because I actually THINK before I come to a conclusion and can explain my logic. I don't just pick a position and then defend it like you seem to do.

 

[IronWing]

I responded. His non-response gave me nothing to respond to. I called him out on it. You don't think I responded that way knowing full well that someone like you would look at it superficially and respond that way? All you have done is reveal your own misunderstanding and I was ready with my explanation.

Always one step ahead of you because I actually THINK before I come to a conclusion and can explain my logic. I don't just pick a position and then defend it like you seem to do.

No, you just spew bullshit with a firehose in hope that eventually everybody will walk away from the thread, leaving you king of your dung heap.

 

[CZroe]

No, you just spew bullshit with a firehose in hope that eventually everybody will walk away from the thread, leaving you king of your dung heap.

Just had to respond with SOMETHING, I see.

DAMN. You walked right into that one.

 

[IronWing]

Just had to respond with SOMETHING, I see.

Now I have this vision of you driving in traffic, yelling at your windshield.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, you just spew bullshit with a firehose in hope that eventually everybody will walk away from the thread, leaving you king of your dung heap.

That was particularly accurate. Nicely put.

 

[JMapleton]

What I find interesting, is that when electronic cigarettes/vaping first came out it was touted as a stepping stone to quit smoking, then quit nicotine altogether.

Now lowly educated people are just using it as another addiction to add to their collection. I know a few people who actually smoke cigarettes and vape.....at the same time....while drinking.

Some people always need something to get addicted to.

 

[OutHouse]

The main problem with cigarettes (with regards to cancer) is that cigarette smoke contains highly carcinogenic materials, the act of inhaling hot smoke reduces your lungs ability to rid itself of said materials and that nicotine itself promotes the growth of tumours.

So no, it's not the same as burning any plant material or running over lots of anthills in a lawnmower.

100% wrong! Its a proven fact scientific fact nicotine does not play a part in stimulating tumor development or growth.

 

[BUTCH1]

What I find interesting, is that when electronic cigarettes/vaping first came out it was touted as a stepping stone to quit smoking, then quit nicotine altogether.

Now lowly educated people are just using it as another addiction to add to their collection. I know a few people who actually smoke cigarettes and vape.....at the same time....while drinking.

Some people always need something to get addicted to.

If your already addicted to nicotine via cigs vaping won't magically stop it but offer a much safer way to deliver said nicotine.

 

[WelshBloke]

Its a proven fact nicotine does not cause cancer.

I didn't say it caused cancer, I said it promotes the growth of tumours.

Which is particularly nasty in conjunction with something that is highly carcinogenic.

 

[OutHouse]

I didn't say it caused cancer, I said it promotes the growth of tumours.

Which is particularly nasty in conjunction with something that is highly carcinogenic.

you are still wrong and i edited my post to be more specific.

 

[WelshBloke]

you are still wrong and i edited my post to be more specific.

I'm curious to see where that's been proven.

There's a fair bit of research on nicotine as a tumour promoter and all of it points to it as actively promoting both tumour size and distribution. I've not seen any that proves that it doesn't play a part.


https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=nicotine+tumor+promoter&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

 

[JMapleton]

If your already addicted to nicotine via cigs vaping won't magically stop it but offer a much safer way to deliver said nicotine.

Obviously. But it was originally marketed as a way to ween you off smoking, like nicotine gum does.

It was originally presented as an anti-smoking device. Now it's an addiction in itself.

 

[OutHouse]

I'm curious to see where that's been proven.

There's a fair bit of research on nicotine as a tumour promoter and all of it points to it as actively promoting both tumour size and distribution. I've not seen any that proves that it doesn't play a part.


https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=nicotine+tumor+promoter&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Those are some pretty old studies. ill go with something a little more current.
http://www.nysmokefree.com/Subpage.aspx?P=40&P1=4030

based upoin the Nicotine causes cancer and tumor growth arguement ill counter with this. Nicotine patches and gum have been around for decades. I am curious on why the anti-vaping crowd and researchers have not gone after those products.