E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

ahh. it's back! I can read now. Thanks

[Spiny Norman]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

They allow a smoker(EX) to have the feeling they are smoking,because sometimes it is the look and feel,and not the nicotine that is part of the addiction.

I tried that approach years ago by using herbal cigarettes ( no nicotine ). It didn't work, and I also got funny looks because people thought I was smoking cannabis!

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

All I can say is it worked for me,but I was a LONG time smoker(50 years) so maybe it was just time...but glad it worked.

[Spiny Norman]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

All I can say is it worked for me,but I was a LONG time smoker(50 years) so maybe it was just time...but glad it worked.

Sure, if it works it's worth doing!

[Kiesha'ra]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I know Harvard did a recent study about it showing it can cause "Popcorn lung" due to the chemicals used to make the flavored oils is the has by product as those chemicals of people working in instant popcorn bag factories. Here is a link to the article and study. So there are side effects.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/12/popcorn-lung-seen-in-e-cigarette-smokers/

Also someone I know at my university switched to it to quit smoking, turned out he was highly allergic, even to the oils that are mostly veg oil based. Made him breakout in hives and his face and ears looked sun burned for days before he realized it was the e-cig oil.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I found that full study elsewhere in more detail and it sound like they used a full cartridge and ran it to empty to get their results which could be anywhere from a several hours worth of use to a day or more. In the cases of the compounds found, the diacetyl was less than what is found in a single cigarette and thats a full cartridge worth of e-juice = to many cigarettes and cigarettes aren't linked to popcorn lung. You can see this link that shows tobacco cigarettes contain two of the tree chemicals found in factories linked to popcorn lung, and smoker receive higher quantities than workers but again smoking isn't linked to that condition. Heres that link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24635357 Heres another link that says the levels of diacetyl are 750 times lower for vapers compared to smokers http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...-diacetyl.html I couldn't find anything on the third chemical found other than it is also used as an additive for flavoring cigarettes.

Also at the time of the popcorn lung/factory news story I remember the scientists said it was related to a compound used to line the bags and make them nonstick maybe my memory fails me but thats what I remember.

[Marradin]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I'm resurrecting this thread as this is a subject near and dear to my heart
Ecigs are a complicated issue - I will give them that
My simple answer is that They should be soft touch regulation- regulated like coffee in it's various forms - for contaminants and safety of devices as consumer products. From my research the Equivalent harm from 3ml of ecig liquid is to that of a cup (not a mug) of coffee. A 3 ml tank lasts most people a day or more. (yes people, coffee has some REALLY dangerous chemicals in it - just in small doses.)

I started E-cigs only after 6 month of research. I am at university and until my disability prevented me from going further I studied chemistry and Biology (Completed 2 years of both, and started my first 3rd year subject - I was and am studying part time due to responsibilities and Health issues that are now unrelated to my smoking - I HAD smoking related problems as well).

I had previously tried everything I could (Sprays, lozenges, gum, inhalers, ect.) I could not use the medications as I have Cyclic depression with suicidal tendencies - and one of the possible side effects of both the anti smoking meds is suicidal ideation.

I took it up- and was sick as a dog for about 3 weeks coughing up black speckled phlegm nearly constantly. but since then I have been healthier and able to finally get some surgery that I really needed.

In the 6 months I read ever scientific article I could - and discovered that the vast majority were flawed towards confirmation Bias. What qualifies me to think that? 2 years of Chemistry and biology, 2 years of philosophy and a willingness to send articles beyond me to my mother and father ( Mum has a Masters in Chemistry and taught for 20 years, Dad has a Masters in Pharmacology and 20+ years in the Pharmaceuticals industry, first purely as a pharmacologist, then as a marketing pharmacologist) Dad even advised me not to bother with several articles as the were 'Junk for Publicity with no scientific value'

Then I found a very interesting blog, and researched the blog writer. He was Carl V. Philips, an Epidemiologist and long time Tobacco Harm Reduction proponent. He also advocates other products like Chewing Tobacco and Snus.
His blog is very interesting and I strongly suggest anyone wanting to know more on this subject read it.

http://antithrlies.com

He approaches the subject in a scientific but still easy to follow manner and it links to his other blogs - one more hardcore science one more political. He also uncovered several articles that had to be pulled that had been written by anti -e-cig scientists because they had Faked getting their articles pier reviewed and instead paid a company to make it seem that they had. This is the ethical caliber of most of the opposition to E-cigs. They have strongly held beliefs and because of that ANYTHING they do in achieving this goal is good and right - Even breaching ethics standards by failing to debrief participants after their 'psychological' studies. That by the way is so illegal here in Aus they would have had their degrees striped and be spending 10+ years in jail if it had happened here.

So when one side is trying to teach about the safety of something through education and further research and the other is producing useless 'junk' Publicity stunts and breaching ethics and integrity standards I know who I believe about somethings safety or otherwise.

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I might mention I was a LONG time smoker,well over 50 years,and tried many ways to quit. The electronic smokes did the trick,I did them for a month,and then just quit. I am over a year without a cigg,I do get the cravings from time to time,but hardly remember smoking now after a year.

Better than the med things with their side effects.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I would also like to post a link I found that is run by a Dr. Farsalinos. He is a former smoker who also rebuts anti-ecig studies and explains them in an understandable way on this site: http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php He has also done, and continues to do, his own studies. One of which compared blood pressure and a sonigram of the heart of ecig users on 12mg nicotine eliquid, smokers and nonsmokers and found no difference between ecig users and nonsmokers. That study has persuaded me to go from 24mg eliquid(the equivalent level to a high nicotine cigarette like a Marlboro Red) to 12mg. Lets hope I transition smoothly.