WHO urges stiff regulatory curbs on e-cigarettes

[surfsatwerk]

Uninformed? ... but I'm the one putting a substance that doesn't need to be in my body into it.

Inform me again why you want to consume nicotine? Oh, yeah, because you're addicted to it. Why are you addicted to it? Because you were woefully uninformed (or just plain stupid) when you started to use it.

So explain to me again who's the uninformed one again. Please. Go on...

Everyone has their dope, being a busybody seems to be your current drug of choice.

 

[MongGrel]

but I don't have any problem with regulating the sale to minors

+1

 

[akugami]

If adults want to vape, that's on them. I have no problems with it. Due to the nicotine content, I agree with others that it should be regulated but no more stiffly than regular cigarettes.

With that said, I don't want you vaping next to me. It would be idiotic to think that the mist/smoke/crap coming out and floating in the air doesn't contain nicotine and whatever else chemicals they have in there. Just because YOU choose to partake of it doesn't mean I want to.

 

[Chaotic42]

Just treat them like cigarettes with regard to where you can use them. As long as I don't have to breathe in your smoke, I don't care if you use them or not.

 

[MongGrel]

Just treat them like cigarettes with regard to where you can use them. As long as I don't have to breathe in your smoke, I don't care if you use them or not.

It's not smoke, but whatever.

Vicks vaporizers used to be a popular thing to use many years ago when you had a cold or the flu to actually clear your lungs etc out when you were sick.

Same thing more or less, in a smaller portable form.

 

[MongGrel]

I guess they still do make them.

Vicks Personal Steam Inhaler

http://www.amazon.com/Vicks-V1200-Pe...icks+vaporizer

 

[JEDIYoda]

Nicotine is just a stimulant. Like caffeine. But yeah, I'll take health advice from a real estate agent.

actually your being an idiot!! There really has been no definitive studies as to whether ecigs are good for you or harmful.......why take the chance at present that they may be worse than cigarettes...

 

[MongGrel]

actually your being an idiot!! There really has been no definitive studies as to whether ecigs are good for you or harmful.......why take the chance at present that they may be worse than cigarettes...

I usually don't disagree with you but I'd have a hard time thinking they'd be worse myself.

 

[surfsatwerk]

actually your being an idiot!! There really has been no definitive studies as to whether ecigs are good for you or harmful.......why take the chance at present that they may be worse than cigarettes...

OK mom

 

[JD50]

OK mom

Ignore the fact that jediyoda is a fucking idiot, why do you smoke e-cigs? I'm genuinely curious here, I don't smoke. Do you get some sort of high or are you just addicted?

 

[SunnyD]

Ignore the fact that jediyoda is a fucking idiot, why do you smoke e-cigs? I'm genuinely curious here, I don't smoke. Do you get some sort of high or are you just addicted?

Why does anybody smoke anything with nicotine in it? Because nicotine causes a physiological reward-response in the human body... ie: It's addictive. In fact, it's been proven as or more addictive as heroin and cocaine.

Fun fact: Why would tobacco companies support e-cigarettes?
Answer: Because nicotine is a byproduct of cigarette manufacturing, and due to its continual decline for other uses (especially pesticides), tobacco companies would absolutely love to have another outlet to dump the shit. And as a side bonus since it's extremely addictive, the tobacco companies have a whole brand new generation of addicts to sell to under the guise of "but it's safe!"

 

[Eug]

I get the hate against tobacco use, its a no brainer its bad for you. but what i dont get is the hate against vaping. The whole gateway path is such bullshit, id rather have kids take up vaping that cigs but i guess nobody can do something they enjoy that is not hurting anybody without some busybody saying NOOOOO thats bad, you cant do that because i said so.

I almost wonder if this is sarcasm, but I'm thinking no.

If my kid took up either smoking or e-cigs, there'd be hell to pay.

Given that involves the use of an addictive drug, I think it should most definitely should be regulated, just like nicotine patches.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Ignore the fact that jediyoda is a fucking idiot, why do you smoke e-cigs? I'm genuinely curious here, I don't smoke. Do you get some sort of high or are you just addicted?

I don't. I quit smoking years ago and use snus as my way to consume nicotine. But I am thrilled with the idea of having different ways to consume my drug of choice. In the past I've gone years without any nicotine consumption at all.

It's a lot like coffee for me, but without keeping me buzzed for hours at a time. I suppose that's as simple as I can describe it: I don't like caffeine and nicotine gives me a smaller buzz that wears off faster.

 

[surfsatwerk]

addictive drug

Srsly just shut up about this. If there were carcinogens in coffee beans you would see just as many "dirty drinkers" dying of cancer as smokers. But instead we find caffeine in about a billion different products and it's just as potentially dangerous as nicotine.

All people want is to break up Big Tobacco and get a safe and easy way to consume nicotine.

 

[Phoenix86]

Ignore the fact that jediyoda is a fucking idiot, why do you smoke e-cigs? I'm genuinely curious here, I don't smoke. Do you get some sort of high or are you just addicted?

I smoke e-cigs so I won't smoke real tobacco. I'm perfectly fine with stating e-cigs are a unknown at worst (relatively safe at best). Tobacco, however, is a massively known bad product.

I saw a chart in my docs office with the health benefits of stopping tobacco use (cigarettes). It basically listed how long certain health aspects came back to you. Improved sense of smell after X days, improved breathing after Y days, etc. Several of the items in the list I wouldn't notice, like reduced chance of heart attack, but the ones I would recognize like smell and lung improvement? Those happen within days of the chart when I switched.

No, it's not as healthy as quitting completely. However, I did seem to get most (all?) of the benefits of quitting.

Previous I quit smoking to go to e-cigs. It worked, then I stopped smoking e-cigs. After a few months of that, I started smoking again. :|

Back to e-cigs again, stopped smoking. Don't really plan on stopping e-cigs this time around.

If you understand why smoking is bad, you should understand why e-cigs are good. I was literally able to throw away the pack of smokes I had when the e-cig arrived. It was instant, and easy to switch.

 

[Eug]

Srsly just shut up about this. If there were carcinogens in coffee beans you would see just as many "dirty drinkers" dying of cancer as smokers. But instead we find caffeine in about a billion different products and it's just as potentially dangerous as nicotine.

This is a lame argument, and one that is full of fallacy.

Caffeine is considerably less addictive than nicotine. It's also considerably less harmful than nicotine in usual doses.

If you understand why smoking is bad, you should understand why e-cigs are good. I was literally able to throw away the pack of smokes I had when the e-cig arrived. It was instant, and easy to switch.

It's useful as a smoking cessation product, but it's not something I would want my kids doing. I'd rather they not regularly consume any nicotine at all.

ie. Yes, it's probably less harmful than cigarettes, but it's still more harmful than not using e-cigs.

 

[Phoenix86]

It's useful as a smoking cessation product, but it's not something I would want my kids doing. I'd rather they not regularly consume any nicotine at all.

I'm about 99.9% sure that's smoke and mirrors. I have never seen any kids use a vaporizer. Sure, I bet some do, perhaps to look cool, but it's not a real problem. It's "someone think of the children" cry to elicit an emotional response. All of the smoke shops around here I have been to won't sell to under 18, and I have seen them ask for IDs. I haven't seen kids in a shop.

That being said, sure I think non-smokers looking to use a nicotine based liquid is a bad idea, but I'd rather them use this than a cigarette.

The bottom line is, we can't stop people from making bad decisions. It's not like this product is such a known bad that we should severely restrict it's use (some restrictions like legally regulating age are likely needed). Of course if you follow that line of thinking, shouldn't we probably also limit caffeine to over 18? I doubt anyone would support that, but it's a stimulant and addictive, yet extremely common.

 

[Eug]

I'm about 99.9% sure that's smoke and mirrors. I have never seen any kids use a vaporizer. Sure, I bet some do, perhaps to look cool, but it's not a real problem. It's "someone think of the children" cry to elicit an emotional response. All of the smoke shops around here I have been to won't sell to under 18, and I have seen them ask for IDs. I haven't seen kids in a shop.

That being said, sure I think non-smokers looking to use a nicotine based liquid is a bad idea, but I'd rather them use this than a cigarette.

The bottom line is, we can't stop people from making bad decisions. It's not like this product is such a known bad that we should severely restrict it's use (some restrictions like legally regulating age are likely needed). Of course if you follow that line of thinking, shouldn't we probably also limit caffeine to over 18? I doubt anyone would support that, but it's a stimulant and addictive, yet extremely common.

I would not disagree with limiting the regulation to minors, for nicotine. However, I would prefer outright regulation.

For caffeine? Not so much. It's simply much less addictive and harmful than nicotine.

That said, I don't support selling pure caffeine pills or powdered caffeine either. More risk with that than coffee or tea.

BTW, the number of kids trying e-cigs is increasing with time. A study by the CDC in 2012 indicated it was 7% of students in grades 6-12. That number was only 3% in 2011. (The studies included 25000 students and 19000 students respectively.)

Your 99.9% sureness is not backed up by the facts.

 

[OutHouse]

It's also considerably less harmful than nicotine in usual doses.

Nicotine is not a carcinogen. And it is not toxic in the amount delivered by a cigarette. Many smokers, and even some physicians, falsely believe that nicotine is the primary cancer-causing agent in cigarette smoking. Its the smoke that kills not nicotine. people who vape are separating the deadly smoke for the nicotine fix.

it's probably less harmful than cigarettes, but it's still more harmful than not using e-cigs.

care to back that up with something other than uninformed opinion?

I would prefer outright regulation.

you have to be 18 to buy ecigs. the regulation is there what more do you want?

 

[Eug]

Nicotine is not a carcinogen. And it is not toxic in the amount delivered by a cigarette. Many smokers, and even some physicians, falsely believe that nicotine is the primary cancer-causing agent in cigarette smoking. Its the smoke that kills not nicotine. people who vape are separating the deadly smoke for the nicotine fix.

I never actually said nicotine is a carcinogen. However, it is incorrect to believe that nicotine is definitely not a human carcinogen, since not enough study exists on nicotine alone. With the advent of e-cigs, this may become necessary however.

However, the fact that you bring this up suggests to me you totally missed the point of the WHO statement. The statement is NOT about nicotine being a carcinogen. Nicotine doesn't have to be a carcinogen to be harmful. For example, in the link you provided in your first post, they provide warnings about use in pregnancy. It's already been shown to be a likely teratogen in animal studies, without the necessity of cigarette smoke.

Quite frankly, those arguing that nicotine is not harmful are simply deluded. However, as others have indicated, there can be some benefits to e-cigarettes, such as with smoking cessation.

 

[disappoint]

Yep. And built on top of those bonds is a huge house of cards. Talk about a nightmare unfolding. If they don't get paid, its a real shit storm and heads will roll.
They thought it was a sure bet. They knew smokers would literally die before quitting. BT secured their profits and the states secured their bonds on the lives of Americans. Fuck them both. Its fail time.

Here's just one article on it.
http://www.fyi3.com/electronic-cigarettes-are-already-threatening-tobacco-bonds/whats-buzzin.html

B..b...but...they're too big to fail!!! Bailout time. Why should they suffer less yachts per year when the tax payer should suffer less meals per day instead?

 

[blackangst1]

I never actually said nicotine is a carcinogen. However, it is incorrect to believe that nicotine is definitely not a human carcinogen, since not enough study exists on nicotine alone. With the advent of e-cigs, this may become necessary however.

However, the fact that you bring this up suggests to me you totally missed the point of the WHO statement. The statement is NOT about nicotine being a carcinogen. Nicotine doesn't have to be a carcinogen to be harmful. For example, in the link you provided in your first post, they provide warnings about use in pregnancy. It's already been shown to be a likely teratogen in animal studies, without the necessity of cigarette smoke.

Quite frankly, those arguing that nicotine is not harmful are simply deluded. However, as others have indicated, there can be some benefits to e-cigarettes, such as with smoking cessation.

Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen. Please provide links that says it is, and Ill counter with 5x as many links that says it isnt.

 

[Eug]

Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen. Please provide links that says it is, and Ill counter with 5x as many links that says it isnt.

Like I already said, I never claimed nicotine is a carcinogen. However, I also said the jury is still out on that point in humans, since most of the study here has not been with nicotine in isolation.

However, my main point of the post was that if you bring up nicotine not being a carcinogen as a response to the WHO statement, then you've completely missed the point, since the point of the WHO statement is NOT about nicotine being a carcinogen. It's also missing the point to use this response to someone saying nicotine is harmful, because a substance doesn't have to be a carcinogen to be harmful.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I went to Indy for the 500 this year and parked right next to us along the main drag was a booth that was selling e-cigs and supplies. The funny thing is that the workers would go behind the booth on break to ... wait for it ... smoke cigarettes!

Me thinks e-cigs ARE a gateway and the tobacco industry knows it and is banking on it...


Brian

 

[surfsatwerk]

This is a lame argument, and one that is full of fallacy.

Caffeine is considerably less addictive than nicotine. It's also considerably less harmful than nicotine in usual doses.

I accept your opinion