Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Never understood the vitriol against E-Cigs. I know several smokers who have tried unsuccessfully to quit for years, they’re all on E-Cigs now and haven’t smoked a real cigarette in years. Their lungs are clearer, their wallets are heavier, the air around them is cleaner, everyone wins.

I understand why these things have tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies who sell those worthless gums and patches worried. But everyone else should be applauding the E-Cigarette.

I can only assume those campaigning against E-Cigs aren’t really concerned about health at all and are instead being driven by some sort fanatical puritanism and desire to stop people enjoying themselves in ways they disapprove of.

Oh and the 'normalises smoking' argument is tosh. it's like being opposed to hydrogen powered cars (assuming they are ever invented) because they 'normalise driving'.

"Tired of those restrictions on where you can drink? Try the new AlcoPatch! All the alcoholic content of a night on the town but with the freedom to be hammered wherever you like! Never have to worry about breath tests or finding a brown paper bag for your booze again! Now available with cool designs - can you collect em all?"

 LuciusAR wrote:

I can only assume those campaigning against E-Cigs aren’t really concerned about health at all and are instead being driven by some sort fanatical puritanism and desire to stop people enjoying themselves in ways they disapprove of.

No one is complaining about e-cigarettes, they are complaining about the advertising of e-cigarettes in a way designed to entice non smokers, including children, to take it up. Fanatical puritanism has nothing to do with it.

 LuciusAR wrote:

Oh and the 'normalises smoking' argument is tosh. it's like being opposed to hydrogen powered cars (assuming they are ever invented) because they 'normalise driving'.

If driving was addictive and had no objective use then you might have a point.

I really hope that anyone who thinks that breathing the second hand vapor from e-cigs is dangerous never goes to a concert or haunted house. The fog machines they use is essentially the same stuff, but in MUCH higher concentrations.

And how often do people attend concerts or haunted houses with fog machines? I don't know that I've ever been to a concert with a fog machine.

 d-usa wrote:
Such rebuttal. Very argument. Wow. So convinced.

No, please tell me. Why should your concern matter? What makes your concern a valid reason for regulating, or controlling anything? Why should your concern be given more weight than another's unconcern?

If the concern is valid, it doesn't really matter who expresses it or is indifferent to it.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
I really hope that anyone who thinks that breathing the second hand vapor from e-cigs is dangerous never goes to a concert or haunted house. The fog machines they use is essentially the same stuff, but in MUCH higher concentrations.

They use nicotine and flavoring agents in concerts and haunted houses?
Do they also have spontaneous concerts and haunted houses while I am eating with my family? Or do people choose to go to these places just like they choose to go to a place filled with smokers?

Also, pro-tip:

If you want to make a point about how harmless something is you probably should not compare it to applications that have shown that they are not all that harmless.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20151/abstract

Chronic work-related wheezing and chest tightness were significantly associated with increased cumulative exposure to fogs (mineral oil and glycols) over the previous 2 years. Acute cough and dry throat were associated with acute exposure to glycol-based fogs; increased acute upper airway symptoms were associated with increased fog aerosol overall. Lung function was significantly lower among those working closest to the fog source.

http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/safesan/finalreport.pdf

Peak levels of glycol exposure are associated with reported symptoms of mucus membrane irritation. This is consistent with the chemical and physical properties of glycols, since they have irritative and drying properties at high doses. There are consistent, statistically significant associations between an overall increase in throat symptoms with increasing glycol exposure. Similarly, symptoms such as coated vocal cords, hoarseness, and voice change were associated with increasing glycol exposure, as were sykmptoms of nasal irritation

http://oem.bmj.com/content/58/10/649.full

RESULTS After exposure to PG mist for 1 minute tear film stability decreased, ocular and throat symptoms increased, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) was slightly reduced, and self rated severity of dyspnoea was slightly increased. No effect was found for nasal patency, vital capacity (VC), FVC, nasal symptoms, dermal symptoms, smell of solvent, or any systemic symptoms. Those exposed to the higher concentrations in the afternoon had a more pronounced increase of throat symptoms, and a more pronounced decrease of tear film stability. In four subjects who reported development of irritative cough during exposure to PG, FEV1 was decreased by 5%, but FEV1 was unchanged among those who did not develop a cough. Those who developed a cough also had an increased perception of mild dyspnoea.

CONCLUSION Short exposure to PG mist from artificial smoke generators may cause acute ocular and upper airway irritation in non-asthmatic subjects. A few may also react with cough and slight airway obstruction.

So to summarize, so far the arguments against regulations have been this:

1) Being addicted to cigarettes is exactly the same as being addicted to e-cigarettes because both satisfy the same physical and psychological cravings that are caused by nicotine addiction. So it's totally common sense and totally predictable that people who are addicted to "nicotine and throat hits and drawing and having something in their hands" would switch from one option to the other because as far as the addiction is concerned they are totally the same thing. But it's also stupid and puritan to assume that people would switch the other way just because it satisfies the exact same psychological and physiological cravings.

2) We shouldn't regulate it because it is just like all these other things that are already regulated and have restrictions in how they could be advertises.

3) People shouldn't be worried about the vapor that has nicotine and additional substances added to it because it is just like this other stuff that has already been shown to have adverse health effects even without the addition of nicotine, flavors, and other substances added to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lordhat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Such rebuttal. Very argument. Wow. So convinced.

No, please tell me. Why should your concern matter? What makes your concern a valid reason for regulating, or controlling anything? Why should your concern be given more weight than another's unconcern?

Why should anybody care that you don't care?

 d-usa wrote:

They use nicotine and flavoring agents in concerts and haunted houses?

A surprisingly interesting idea, what if someone set up a fog machine that dispersed nicotine? Perhaps people would become addicted to said haunted house?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They use nicotine and flavoring agents in concerts and haunted houses?

A surprisingly interesting idea, what if someone set up a fog machine that dispersed nicotine? Perhaps people would become addicted to said haunted house?

They probably already do this to make you addicted to rock concerts. Then after listening to the music there long enough you end up pirating their music. Then you open up your computer and spin your hard-drive backwards to decipher the hidden instructions of satan-worship.

Satan-worship through rock has gotten a lot harder with digital music...

Back in my day, rock music made us worship the dark lord Satan and we liked it that way!

 d-usa wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
I really hope that anyone who thinks that breathing the second hand vapor from e-cigs is dangerous never goes to a concert or haunted house. The fog machines they use is essentially the same stuff, but in MUCH higher concentrations.

They use nicotine and flavoring agents in concerts and haunted houses?
Do they also have spontaneous concerts and haunted houses while I am eating with my family? Or do people choose to go to these places just like they choose to go to a place filled with smokers?

Nicotine no, but not all e-cigs and vapors use nicotine. Flavoring agents, yes. Fog agents generally have a "bubble gum" or "cotton candy" agent in them. As to the health risks associated, you are talking about massive differences in dosage, duration, and overall exposure. A few drops in an e-cig (most of which is going to the user) vs a gallon or more being pumped directly into the air.

I'm not saying that they are harmless, and I'm also not saying that there shouldn't be any regulation, but until you can prove to me that the associated risks equal or exceed that of actual cigarettes, I will happily vilify those that attempt to attach the same stigma to e-cig/vapers as they do to regular cigarette smokers.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Back in my day, rock music made us worship the dark lord Satan and we liked it that way!

This reminds me on a special i saw on satanism in rock music when during judas priests court case they said the only phrase they heard when listening to their record backwards was "mom I asked for a peppermint"

Fun to see Tattoo's , piercings and body modifying having less of a stigma then smoking has these days.

As long as smokers have some courtesy when they smoke, they can stick in their mouth whatever they want IMHO.

So if they are smoking some [another term for rooster] you are cool with that?

*edited for bad words*

Well if it is ok in your country why should i be offended? would record it for the internet off course.

I think smoking [rooster] is considered ok in most countries dependent on sex and location and local laws, however recording it without some ones prior knowledge is frowned upon.. you deviant.

Bullockist wrote:
So if they are smoking some [another term for rooster] you are cool with that?

*edited for bad words*

Well, it has it's risks, but the electronic substitute makes your teeth tingle.