CNN Demonizes Vaping

[OutHouse]

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.

its not smoking. why is that so hard for some of you to understand that. Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars.

millions of people have stopped smoking and now vape. that is a good thing. no matter how you slice it. big tobacco and government sin tax is getting hit hard by the reduction in smoking revenue. big tobacco is blasting the airwaves with the blu and Vuse commercials. humm i thought smoking commercials were banned. Im waiting to see how government deals with this loss of money.

 

[WelshBloke]

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.

Again, no one's saying nicotine causes cancer (at least no one that I'm aware of) but that nicotine promotes the growth of tumours caused by other agents. (which is one reason posited why smoking is such a cancer causer.)

Most researchers and health professionals see that tobacco replacements cause much, much less harm than tobacco alone.

I'm not sure that your counter has anything to do with the point that you're countering TBH.

 

[lxskllr]

Im waiting to see how government deals with this loss of money.

I'm certain they'll cut expenditures to match the new income



:^D
:^D
:^D
:^D

 

[CZroe]

A few days ago I saw a young store clerk warning a girl he seemed to know that "these things kill your brain cells" when she was buying a permanent marker. Sounds like he called it because she sheepishly clutched it against herself as if to conceal it, self-consciously looking around at me and others around her while telling him to "Ssssshh! Shut uuuUUUuuup!"

Ichinisan took that picture at a grocery store today and asked me if it was a good idea to teach kids to sniff markers. Nope, but scented markers that are harmless should not be illegal just because some other markers are harmful.

We can't act like all vapors have nicotine and other drugs. Even when adults voluntarily chose to consume vapors with those things, we can't just ban them under imagined threats. Adults are allowed to harm themselves. You have to prove that it is harmful for bystanders to regulate it for those concerns. It has to threaten your liberty. You simply cannot skip this step.

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.

Because unlike vapors, they all contain nicotine and, thus, sales are regulated so kids cannot buy them. I am OK with sales being banned for children because getting someone addicted to something before they are mature enough to make a reasoned, adult, decision removes their liberty to make the choice freely after they have matured enough. Liberty was infringed. Any harm to finances or health was not legally voluntary when the child was not mature enough to consider the ramifications, which is why statutory rape is still rape regardless of consent. It's the only reason anything that is legal for adults is ever illegal for children.

 

[CZroe]

Again, no one's saying nicotine causes cancer (at least no one that I'm aware of) but that nicotine promotes the growth of tumours caused by other agents. (which is one reason posited why smoking is such a cancer causer.)

Most researchers and health professionals see that tobacco replacements cause much, much less harm than tobacco alone.

I'm not sure that your counter has anything to do with the point that you're countering TBH.

Mostly because the effects are cumulative and ongoing accumulation is driven by an addictive substance. People smoking similar materials without nicotine don't smoke as much, as often, or as much of their life, as smokers who are addictive. It's very easy to misrepresent this.

 

[WelshBloke]

Mostly because the effects are cumulative and driven by an addictive substance.

It's more because you don't end up inhaling lots of tar and carbon monoxide and hot particulate matter.

People smoking similar materials without nicotine don't smoke as much, as often, or as much of their life, as smokers who are addictive. It's very easy to misrepresent this.

Tobacco replacement products contain nicotine.

Nicotine chewing gum = tobacco replacement
Regular chewing gum =/= tobacco replacement

 

[RadiclDreamer]

http://us.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/vaping-abuse/index.html

Note how they mix "the problem" (of people using drugs) into one single pot with vaping.

They demonize vapers and vape-stores and make it sound as if vape-stores promote the use of drugs.

As someone who vapes and enjoys it and thinks that vaping is the FAR better alternative to smoking I am insulted by this article and the way it is written. It is ON THE FIRST PAGE on CNN.

I wonder how much Marlboro/RJ Reynolds etc are paying them to run this article?

 

[JMapleton]

its not smoking. why is that so hard for some of you to understand that. Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars.

millions of people have stopped smoking and now vape. that is a good thing. no matter how you slice it. big tobacco and government sin tax is getting hit hard by the reduction in smoking revenue. big tobacco is blasting the airwaves with the blu and Vuse commercials. humm i thought smoking commercials were banned. Im waiting to see how government deals with this loss of money.

What the fark are you talking about? I never said it was smoking.

I'm saying vaping was originally presented, 10 plus years ago, as a way to ween you off cigarettes.

 

[CZroe]

It's more because you don't end up inhaling lots of tar and carbon monoxide and hot particulate matter.




Tobacco replacement products contain nicotine.

Nicotine chewing gum = tobacco replacement
Regular chewing gum =/= tobacco replacement

Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. What causes this kind of cancer is usually the particulates coating your lungs forming tar that smothers/kills lung cells and triggers cellular regeneration (potential for mutation).

With that response I was still challenging your silly assertion that tobacco is more cancerous because of the nicotine and, thus, nicotine without tobacco is cancerous. I'm saying that anyone smoking clove/chive cigarettes instead of tobacco would have less health issues mostly because they are not compelled to smoke more often and for a longer period of their life. IOW, add nicotine to these things and compare a three-pack-a-day clove cigarette smoker to a three-pack-a-day cigarette smoker and you are going to see almost identical health concerns.

Here's the kicker: even if nicotine is still a health concern with vaping, not all vaped contain nicotine and you have to prove that either variety is harmful to bystanders.

 

[CZroe]

What the fark are you talking about? I never said it was smoking.



I'm saying vaping was originally presented, 10 plus years ago, as a way to ween you off cigarettes.

Most were still called eCigs back then.

 

[GasX]

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

ecigarettes are not the healthy alternative that everyone thinks they are. Meaningful research is only just beginning to come in, but it does not look good. The base ingredients of most eliquid is fairly innocous apart from nicotine. However, convert it to vapor and all hell breaks loose. In particular, you get large amounts of formaldehyde and other nasty things. More studies will flesh out exactly what is going into your lungs, but the short version of the story is that ecigs may or may not be safer than cigarettes and are definitively not a "safe alternative".

 

[Thump553]

I was around in the 1960s. The same arguments put forth in this thread as to how vaping is so wonderful, totally harmless, nicotine not proven to cause cancer, secondhand smoke/vap is harmless, etc. were almost vehemently argued then as well by the faithful and the foolish and surreptitiously by big tobacco money.

Vaping is just a revised system of injecting one of the most addictive chemicals known to man (nicotine)-one which have major and well known harmful effects and trivial, if any, benefits.

The wisest course for society would be to treat and regulate vaping exactly like tobacco smoking until it is proven safe-rather than let it run unfettered for a decade or so while the damage accumulates.

 

[Darwin333]

I must assume that every last person in this thread that is so terrified of second hand vapor and demanding laws to protect themselves from it are also demanding that every last coal fired power plant in the US be shut down and coal fired power as a whole be made illegal.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of "accepted" things spewed into the air that we breathe that we know for an absolute fact are harmful that they aren't concerned about. Some guy exhaling essentially flavored water vapor with zero proof that second hand exposure to said flavored water vapor and holey shit we've got a problem!!!

You know what I don't like, assholes that eat too much garlic and smell like ass or people that don't shower after they hit the gym and smell like a gym bag ooh and assholes who have BO or bad breath. I want a law passed banning all of that stuff because it offends my nose and it hasn't been proven that second hand garlic isn't harmful!

 

[CZroe]

I was around in the 1960s. The same arguments put forth in this thread as to how vaping is so wonderful, totally harmless, nicotine not proven to cause cancer, secondhand smoke/vap is harmless, etc. were almost vehemently argued then as well by the faithful and the foolish and surreptitiously by big tobacco money.

Vaping is just a revised system of injecting one of the most addictive chemicals known to man (nicotine)-one which have major and well known harmful effects and trivial, if any, benefits.

You are forgetting that vapors without nicotine or THC or any other drug are also a thing. You are also forgetting that the harmful effects alone only matter for BYSTANDERS. People who chose to do it are free do so if only they have to live with the consequences of doing something so rash. It's only when it can be proven to harm people who DON'T chose to do it that you can regulate that part. More directly, children don't have the mental capacity to make a reasoned decision so they are the first to get protected once direct exposure is shown to be harmful, but you still have to prove it's effects are harmful to bystanders before you can regulate it further.

The wisest course for society would be to treat and regulate vaping exactly like tobacco smoking until it is proven safe-rather than let it run unfettered for a decade or so while the damage accumulates.

*facepalm*

SOCIETY is free to do exactly that. You and I are "society." You and I can both avoid/object to exposure and we can both refuse to vape. We can both disallow it wherever we have the authority. GOVERNMENT is not allowed until it can reasonably be shown to illegally infringe on someone else's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. THAT'S civilized liberty.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

My wife switched to ecigs after about 20 years of smoking real cigarettes. I can say her breathing has improved immensely. She started with nicotine and weened herself down to zero mg after 2-3 years but cant bring herself to give it up completely.

Every study ive seen so far has shown it to be very safe in comparison but not completely without risks. One study showed about a 5% increase risk in stroke, which was about on par with coffee. Im ok with that level of risk.

 

[Darwin333]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes

No they haven't. Test data is sparse and no real long term studies have been done.

Its almost certain that vaping is much much less harmful than cigs, but outright saying that they're fine and completely healthy is stupid.

I guarantee you that big tobacco has tested the shit out of vaping to try and find a negative, any negative, that they could use to publicly slander it and try to get legislation passed. Remember all the money they spent trying to say smoking didn't cause cancer? Yes, I know PM reluctantly got into the ecig market a year or so ago with their "cigalike" ecigs but their market share is stagnant while the rest is steadily growing despite having the power to have them sold and marketed almost everywhere cigarettes are sold. They are the big boys with all of the money, marketing, power, bigtime lobbyists competing with relatively tiny companies and they can't even get half of the market share. They have and do want ecigs banned.

Also of note, people that use Phillip Morris's cig-a-likes are much less likely to quit smoking than people that use other vaping products and they almost exclusively sell traditional tobacco flavors in prefilled cartridges. Anyone honestly believe that's a coincidence?

 

[Darwin333]

I was around in the 1960s. The same arguments put forth in this thread as to how vaping is so wonderful, totally harmless, nicotine not proven to cause cancer, secondhand smoke/vap is harmless, etc. were almost vehemently argued then as well by the faithful and the foolish and surreptitiously by big tobacco money.

Vaping is just a revised system of injecting one of the most addictive chemicals known to man (nicotine)-one which have major and well known harmful effects and trivial, if any, benefits.

The wisest course for society would be to treat and regulate vaping exactly like tobacco smoking until it is proven safe-rather than let it run unfettered for a decade or so while the damage accumulates.

Nicotine has not been proven to cause cancer. It's a stimulant that carries all the risks that other stimulants do but it's all the other shit in cigarettes that cause cancer and a plethora of other problems. All of that other shit is not present in vaping...

 

[Grooveriding]

How can anyone kid themselves that ingesting nicotine, regardless of delivery method, is somehow helping with the addiction to it ? What a pile of nonsense. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known, up there with heroin and meth.

While the position that its less harmful since you are no longer burning anything to inhale its smoke and avoiding the chemical additives found in cigarettes to get your nicotine has the ring of making sense. There have not been enough thorough studies - and most importantly - time elapsed to judge the impact of vaping usage.

I think it's a smart gimmick in more modern times to produce a new herd of addicts to sell to. The vaping machines have a cool factor to them that appeals to young people with all the modifications and gadget like nature of the hardware. It is a modern day cool factor applied to nicotine addiction to replace the old image of the marlboro man or James Dean being cool with a cigarette in their mouth.

Who knows what garbage is getting put in that liquid and it's all being absorbed into your body. The biggest concern is the lack of oversight of that industry. A decade from now we'll likely find ourselves seeing vaping liquid with much more thorough content monitoring. I see people ordering this crap from overseas from who knows where and what possible garbage is in there.

 

[OutHouse]

My wife switched to ecigs after about 20 years of smoking real cigarettes. I can say her breathing has improved immensely. She started with nicotine and weened herself down to zero mg after 2-3 years but cant bring herself to give it up completely.

Every study ive seen so far has shown it to be very safe in comparison but not completely without risks. One study showed about a 5% increase risk in stroke, which was about on par with coffee. Im ok with that level of risk.

Tats great.

 

[CZroe]

How can anyone kid themselves that ingesting nicotine, regardless of delivery method, is somehow helping with the addiction to it ? What a pile of nonsense. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known, up there with heroin and meth.

Well, I can see how the gun and patches might help. First, you disassociate the cravings with the unhealthy activity of smoking. When you stop feeding the craving, your body no longer associates that activity with the craving.

Substituting one inhaled form for another is not as disassociative and, I suspect, far less effective. Luckily, that's not the argument we are having here. Not all vapors have nicotine or THC.

 

[OutHouse]

The wisest course for society would be to treat and regulate vaping exactly like tobacco smoking until it is proven safe-rather than let it run unfettered for a decade or so while the damage accumulates.

So no tv commercials, and you have to be 18 to buy. In colorado you do indeed need to be 18 to buy, just like tobacco.

How else is tobacco regulated?

 

[CZroe]

So no tv commercials, and you have to be 18 to buy. In colorado you do indeed need to be 18 to buy, just like tobacco.



How else is tobacco regulated?

Are you kidding? It's illegal to smoke almost anywhere outside your home that isn't purpose-built. That's pretty damned regulated.

No sidewalks, no doorways, minimum distance from buildings and walkways, not even bars.

This is exactly what the "don't blow it in my face" anti-vape people in this thread are demanding.

Note: I am not bemoaning the regulations. I enjoy them because daily inescapable second-hand smoke is proven harmful. I've never smoked, I don't smoke, and I never will smoke.

 

[Ichinisan]

So no tv commercials, and you have to be 18 to buy. In colorado you do indeed need to be 18 to buy, just like tobacco.

How else is tobacco regulated?

Tobacco products are taxed differently. Also, Blu e-cigs definitely had TV commercials for a while.

 

[WelshBloke]

Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. What causes this kind of cancer is usually the particulates coating your lungs forming tar that smothers/kills lung cells and triggers cellular regeneration (potential for mutation).

That's not really how it works. Particulate matter does cause emphysema whether it's carcinogenic or not though.

With that response I was still challenging your silly assertion that tobacco is more cancerous because of the nicotine and, thus, nicotine without tobacco is cancerous.

I've never said or implied that nicotine is carcinogenic in any way. Go read things again.

I'm saying that anyone smoking clove/chive cigarettes instead of tobacco would have less health issues mostly because they are not compelled to smoke more often and for a longer period of their life. IOW, add nicotine to these things and compare a three-pack-a-day clove cigarette smoker to a three-pack-a-day cigarette smoker and you are going to see almost identical health concerns.

I take it that thats a study you have done or read about?

Here's the kicker: even if nicotine is still a health concern with vaping, not all vaped contain nicotine and you have to prove that either variety is harmful to bystanders.

Why? That's not something I've been arguing either way.

 

[CZroe]

Here's the kicker: even if nicotine is still a health concern with vaping, not all vapors contain nicotine and you have to prove that either variety is harmful to bystanders.

Why? That's not something I've been arguing either way.

Because that's not how free society works.

Someone harming themselves is perfectly legal as long as it does not infringe on your or my legally-protected liberties. It's why other people can eat themselves to death if they want to and junk food is not illegal. You can't just ban something until it is proven safe because being safe to the user is not a legal requirement.

If it does infringe on your legally-protected liberties as it would where it can be shown to harm bystanders who did not willingly inflict the harm on themselves, then it can be regulated in the name of protecting the public's liberty.

The role of the law is to preserve external threats to your life and liberty, not to preserve itself nor is it to protect you from yourself.