Problem with e-cigs; they habituate people to nicotine and are more expensive and more trouble, so folks who can’t get e-cigs or don’t want the hassle will choose tobacco products.
You can buy them for less than the price of a packet of fags everywhere you can buy a packet of fags, here.
E-cigs are significantly cheaper than tobacco- In the area of less than half.
1 Like
Not long ago I was having a beer and some chow in a bar and out of the corner of my eye I saw what appeared to be a rapidly dissipating puff of smoke. Turned out to be a dude puffing on a vaporizer at the bar, and while his exhalations did seem to be scented, it was certainly nowhere near as annoying as having a cigarette smoker in the same vicinity. That I could smell his exhalations caused me some concern since I haven’t the faintest idea about second-hand effects from these things (I agree that more information is needed in this area), and I did finish my meal somewhat more quickly to move away from the smoker.
my mistake, I assumed a high tech item was more expensive, but wait til they start taxing them. Any response to the issue of habituation to nicotine?
True this. Plus there are a shit-ton of carcinogens that people scoff down with little care, no one seems to give a fuck that what’s coming out of cars is by most measures far worse and in far greater volume and other behaviours which increase the risk of cancer aren’t thought of by the wider public to be as insidious or dangerous as they really are (like drinking).
Many interesting points, but this is misleading since most research suggests there is an elevated risk of cancer from using snus.
From the wiki on the subject:
A study of almost 10,000 Swedish men published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2008 found a statistically significant increase in the incidence of the combined category of oral and pharyngeal cancer among daily users of snus.[10] Other studies and opinion pieces in renowned journals, such as the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, do not confirm any correlation between snus usage and oral cancer, but they suggest a probable increased risk of pancreatic cancer as a result of snus use.
The Lancet study they refer to includes this table of results:
Mortality rate* for cancers of oral cavity, lung, and pancreas in Swedish male construction workers, according to tobacco use
- Deaths per 100 000 human-years. Data based on incidence rates from Luo and others1 and 5-year case-fatality rates: oral cavity (41%), lung (85%), and pancreas (95%) from US National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program.
PS: Snus is awesome… it is a strange feeling to get head spins like you’ve smoked a couple of reds in a row by just putting a thing in your mouth. I also don’t know if it was my brain doing this but when I had one I felt WIRED for hours.
@maggiek Should we also look at banning suburban assholes from driving huge trucks despite having no need for them because of the increased risk to public health? I say yes.
There haven’t been any recent studies as what is the point in doing what has already been done,Propylene glycol has been proven to be considered safe (nothing is confirmed safe by the FDA) and has been used to sanitize air conditioning in hospitals http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/dis_tss_docs/dis-11.htm .It kills the influenza virus http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091104/Propylene-glycol-in-e-cigarettes-might-keep-us-healthy-says-researchers.aspx
1 Like
You commented confidently on a subject despite having no knowledge of it and basing your commentary merely on your assumptions? Where are we, the internet?
Provided they do turn out to be significantly less harmful than cigarette smoking, why would anyone start taxing them? You realise the taxes on cigarettes exist to recoup the cost to society imposed by smoking related illness and even here in Australia where a packet of cigarettes will set you back $20-$22 that revenue raised doesn’t even come close to covering that cost.
I seriously doubt anyone will take up smoking or vaping because of vapes. The cigarette companies spent a lot of money making smoking “cool” and no matter which way you do it, breathing vapour through an illuminated, pen-looking-thing cannot be cool… though you can blow vape rings. And awesome mouth smoke tricks will always be cool in my books… unless its a bong hit because then you’re just being wasteful!
2 Likes
There has never been a study. But, you’re certain?
I sense a smidge of bias there.
Is it possible that second hand vapor has no effect on people around the “vaper”? Sure, but don’t tell me it’s safe. I seem to recall that going badly for a number of things in the past.
Oh BoingBoing, I expect better of you. Despite the headlines, the study the NYT seems to be referencing doesn’t say this at all.
"The epithelial cells were exposed to both a low and high concentration of nicotine in the ECIG vapor- or TCIG smoke-conditioned media. The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells. The higher concentration was chosen to represent the anticipated nicotine levels to which the epithelial cells of smokers are actually exposed. "
So, as I understand the abstract, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) do not provide enough nicotine to damage cells. Smoking does however.
2 Likes
Well, of course it is. That’s why the DEA allows over-the-counter sales of patches, gum, and pills containing nicotine. They say it’s to help with smoking cessation, but really, it’s a conspiracy to kill us all!
Seriously, there was a recent article in Discover magazine discussing the potential benefits of nicotine, on its own, without all the additives that come with tobacco or a liquid solution.
I agree with Maggie that people shouldn’t be subject to second-hand vapor, especially if it’s proven to be harmful. On the other hand, one thing that’s universally true is that humans like to alter their states of consciousness, and are always going to use drugs, including nicotine, no matter how expensive or illegal the authorities make it. The trick is to find a middle ground that works for almost everyone.
2 Likes
I admitted i was mistaken about the price difference. Why don’t you reply to my comment about these things acclimating people to nicotine, then, when e-cigs are unavailable, people addicted to nicotine will switch to fags?
Its not about coolness, its about the drug nicotine.
[mod edit: removed flamebait]
There is some debate on the legality since the Prescription Drug List exempts a variety of smoking cessation aids including “(d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 milligrams or less of nicotine per dosage unit”. Recent tests have shown it takes about 25 puffs at an insanely high nicotine level to get close to 4mg. http://ectaofcanada.com/pubs/nicyieldstudy.php
So basically Health Canada accidentally exempted them when they exempted dry nicotine inhalers sold as an NRT. That’s why they haven’t enforced anything beyond border seizures and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get hauled into court by vendors over those seized shipments.
I agree with that. I was recently in an airport and saw a self important man striding through the terminal smoking an e-cig…the vapor trail caught an unrelated young girl in the face and she made a ‘ew, stinkola’ face. Such behavior should not be allowed. Not just because it may be cancer causing (that’s bad enough)…but because it’s coming out of your mouth. The same ‘it’s only harmless vapor’ people might have issues with someone spitting on them and assuring them its almost the same as rain.
You also admitted you wrote it without doing any prior research. Why did you even bother writing anything if you know nothing on the subject and don’t even care to do a google search to confirm your assumption? You’re mistaken on all fronts and you lashing out at me only serves to show how hurt you were to be called out.
Why don’t you reply to my comment about these things acclimating people to nicotine
I addressed this in my third paragraph. You are a confirmed fool if you think it’s got nothing to do with coolness. In what situation do you imagine people to take up this as a new habit? Several anecdotes in this thread (which I could, but care not to add to) have suggested that vaporisers have reduced people’s smoking habit to very low or nil. The way you consume this stuff is not like cigarettes are consumed and they don’t have the historical context of cigarettes which have had hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars spent on marketing them for over a century.
when e-cigs are unavailable, people addicted to nicotine will switch to fags?
In what situation do you imagine this to be a plausible outcome? Some sort of collapse of democracy and capitalism as we know it? The liquid you buy to put in these things lasts months and you can get it in bottles big enough to last years. You can buy it for almost nothing online and have it sent to you wherever you are in the world.
[mod edit: removed response to flamebait]
1 Like
Do you also advocate for regulating exhalation because, and I hate to be the one to break this to you but, breath also comes out of people’s mouths.
Spit/Rain is not comparable to Vapour/Exhalation… but nice one.
PS: In many cases the ‘ew, stinkola’ face is the face passive aggressive cowards make to tell you they don’t like what you’re doing, even in cases where it’s none of their fucking business. Use words like a grown up and people will often do what you ask them.
4 Likes
This is a myth. The reason why is actually pretty intuitive. Smokers die young but not extremely young. This allows them to maximize the amount of taxes they pay while they have a shorter retirement. The greatest danger to a health care system’s financial stability is life expectancy.
? That’s an article on obesity.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4891
This article confirms what you say, but is from 1994 and relates to America. I should have pointed out that in America you’re fucked either way because of the spiraling cost of healthcare. My understanding is - and I have to do some actual work for money now, so I’ll try to look it up when I get a chance - the deficit in Australia between costs imposed on the healthcare system vs revenue raised is 2/3, taking into account longer lifespans of non-dying people.
This is one of those cases where you need to do a risk-benefit analysis. Is the risk of delaying the use of e-cigs worth the health of smokers without an effective alternative. Smoking is an addiction. Only 3% of people are successful each time they attempt to quit. And approximately 50% of the cigarettes smoked are smoked by people with mental illnesses.
In my opinion, the point where we use shame, taxes, and harassment to decrease smoking is over. Now it just needs to be treated as a very difficult addiction. And e-cigs may be the technology to do that. If we continue to stigmatize e-cigs like actual cigarettes (for example, the Washington State proposal to tax them at 95%), we might actually drive people away from using them. And that might be exceedingly foolish. I think we need to give it time and focus on facts, not potentials. We live in a society that convinced people for decades that marijuana causes violence, bath salts make people eat faces, and crack creates deformed babies (none of these are true). And there are enormous private interests that benefit from keeping people smoking and pushing lies. So until we know that e-cigs are dangerous in general (not just one provider), we should give the scientists enough time to fully study it before making laws that may require decades of counter-misinformation lobbying to repeal.
3 Likes
