What do non-smokers think of e-cigarettes?

[epiphany]

I like it when folk think they are better qualified than medical professionals.

 

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2009/07/ecigarettes-warning-electronic-cigarettes-health-risks-fda-and-ecigarettes-ban-on-ecigarettes-.html

 

The Food and Drug Administration has announced a warning on electronic cigarettes, also known as “e-cigarettes,” after a lab analysis found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze that may be harmful to humans. E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that generally contain cartridges filled with nicotine, flavor, and other chemicals that are inhaled by the user.

 

That warning was based on one specific type of e-cig they tested. Not what I would call a comprehensive study. Yes, all bow down to the FDA and their big pharma lobbyists.

 

Now for a more reasoned, objective analysis...

 

American Association of Public Health Physicians: http://www.aaphp.org/Resources/Documents/20100207FDAPetitionSummary.pdf

 

Boston University study: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-evidence-e-cigs-safer-cigarettes.html

[PeteMorris]

That warning was based on one specific type of e-cig they tested. Not what I would call a comprehensive study. Yes, all bow down to the FDA and their big pharma lobbyists.

 

Now for a more reasoned, objective analysis...

 

American Association of Public Health Physicians: http://www.aaphp.org/Resources/Documents/20100207FDAPetitionSummary.pdf

 

Boston University study: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-evidence-e-cigs-safer-cigarettes.html

 

I see one of your links there is dated 2010...Would things not have moved on somewhat since then?..Just wondering!...Not saying it's right or wrong, but an almost 3 year old article!....I'd never even heard or dreamed of them that long ago.

[epiphany]

I see one of your links there is dated 2010...Would things not have moved on somewhat since then?..Just wondering!...Not saying it's right or wrong, but an almost 3 year old article!....I'd never even heard or dreamed of them that long ago.

 

Yes, but these were responses to the FDA's study a year earlier (2009). Things have indeed moved on since then, so not only is the FDA's scare study pretty much redundant (not to mention debunked) now, there is now a far more sophisticated e-cig market and therefore more information and more choice for consumers.

[XXTickerXX]

I see one of your links there is dated 2010...Would things not have moved on somewhat since then?..Just wondering!...Not saying it's right or wrong, but an almost 3 year old article!....I'd never even heard or dreamed of them that long ago.

 

If you want to read up on it Pete this is a good board for it...

 

http://allaboute-cigarettes.proboards.com/board/25/promoting-campaigning-articles-vaping-media

[PeteMorris]

Yes, but these were responses to the FDA's study a year earlier (2009). Things have indeed moved on since then, so not only is the FDA's scare study pretty much redundant (not to mention debunked) now, there is now a far more sophisticated e-cig market and therefore more information and more choice for consumers.

 

Ah...I see that's fine.

 

---------- Post added 26-03-2013 at 18:28 ----------

 

If you want to read up on it Pete this is a good board for it...

 

http://allaboute-cigarettes.proboards.com/board/25/promoting-campaigning-articles-vaping-media

 

Good grief, I could spend a month going through that lot....thanks for the link anyway!

[Uptowngirl]

That warning was based on one specific type of e-cig they tested. Not what I would call a comprehensive study. Yes, all bow down to the FDA and their big pharma lobbyists.

 

Now for a more reasoned, objective analysis...

 

American Association of Public Health Physicians: http://www.aaphp.org/Resources/Documents/20100207FDAPetitionSummary.pdf

 

Boston University study: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-evidence-e-cigs-safer-cigarettes.html

 

Ah yes. Drag out the tame stooges. I wonder which ones the UK law makers will listen to.

 

Dream on suckers. Believe anything you want to believe. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

[andygardener]

Ah yes. Drag out the tame stooges. I wonder which ones the UK law makers will listen to.

 

Dream on suckers. Believe anything you want to believe. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

 

What is your problem with ecigs? I can understand nonsmokers objection to actual fags but this vitriol against something that helps them stop is mental.

[skinz]

What is your problem with ecigs? I can understand nonsmokers objection to actual fags but this vitriol against something that helps them stop is mental.

 

 

Could be the whole concept of smoking that gets some non smokers..and any paraphernalia that goes with it. Whether it's the real thing, or the real thing that doesn't do any harm is irrelevant..it's the image of addiction which is wrapped up in both, which allows the high and mighty to pontificate...smokers are "dirty weak people" first and "people" second.

 

Personally I don't have any problem with addiction as long as harmful addiction is replaced by harmless addiction. Ironically the controlling effect the fag haters want is as controlling as the present addiction that harms smokers. They all have something in common. Control and being controlled.

[I1L2T3]

Is this about smokers' rights or about the clinical use of e-cigs to control addiction?

 

Clearly e-cigs look like they could save many lives. In fact they change peoples' lives as we have seen on this thread. That is a fantastic thing and IMO if people have to do something that is smoking or mimics smoking they should be encouraged down the least harmful route: e-cigs.

 

The argument really should be that simple but then it gets hijacked by the smokers' rights lobby, by people who in the past have often aggressively argued for their right to stink pubs and other public places out and inflict their habit on everyone else, basically without giving two hoots about anybody else.

 

I think this e-cig debate is really two debates. One about control and cessation of addiction and one about the rights of people who do not want to stop their addiction and want to freely flaunt it in public.

[Phanerothyme]

I think this e-cig debate is really two debates. One about control and cessation of addiction and one about the rights of people who do not want to stop their addiction and want to freely flaunt it in public.

 

I don't think it's about cessation at all, it's nicotine habit maintenance. And why do you use the word "freely flaunt"? I appreciate that ecigs are a bit new, and people are unsure about them, but do caffeine addicts "freely flaunt" their addiction waving cappuccinos about, do alcohol addicts "freely flaunt" their addiction in pubs?

 

If they do, then I'd argue that ecigs should have parity in the "freely flaunted" stakes.

 

Replace "freely flaunt" with a less emotively loaded term, like "satisfy" and we have a less emotive question: So should the rights of people who do not want to stop their addiction and want to satisfy it in public be restricted for those addicted to nicotine?

 

I think much of the vitriol and apparent anger stems from the fact that for a while, smokers were regarded as unclean sinners by some members of society, giving them a feeling of superiority that they rather enjoyed. But they feel that smokers are somehow cheating them out of that moral high ground with ecigs.