'Ban E-cigarette use indoors,' says WHO

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

The World Health Organization says there should a ban on the use of e-cigarettes indoors and that sales to children should stop.

In a report the health body says there should be no claims that the devices can help people quit smoking - until there is evidence to support this.
...
The health experts say fruit, candy or alcoholic-drink style flavours should be banned too, while the sales of electronic cigarettes from vending machines should be heavily restricted.
...
And the WHO report expresses concerns that exhaled e-cigarette vapour could increase the background air levels of some toxicants and nicotine.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28937610

[JustAnotherGen]

1. But not in peoples'

Individual homes - right?

I don't disagree with the sale to minors bans - and HOW/Where they are sold -


But they helped me quit. One day - you just forget to vape and voila! Nicotine addiction is gone.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Congrats on going nicotine free.

Question, can you now continue to 'vape', simply without a 'nicotine cartridge'? The diagram in the linked article seems to suggest that would be a possibility.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. You could!

There is a 'vape shop' down in New Hope PA that has non nicotine vapor cartridges with good flavors.

I wanted the habit and the addiction gone - so I 'vaped' nasty cheap nJoys from 7-11.

I believe there is the 'habit' - be it soothing, with a cocktail, with a cup of coffee or tea, etc. etc.

then there is the

'Addiction' - which nothing worked prior to that. Not even lozenges or gum.

I think the nJoys put a quick dash of nicotine in my mouth that the lozenges and gum didn't do.

Vaping works differently than those products and the patch.

I also found twizzlers while I was driving and blow pops - they worked really well.

Like I would have a blow pop in my mouth at 6 in the morning!

[RobinA]

49. I Vape

with zero nicotine and have for awhile.

And e-cigs helped me quit smoking. I get that there is no scientific proof, but for me the question is settled.

[CreekDog]

54. why is the only issue about you?

there is value in quitting smoking, but to think the only issue is whether it helps you versus whether they release toxic emissions is a false choice.

like cigarettes themselves, you can consume them outside, you should take the risk for quitting smoking, not those indoors with you.

[RobinA]

88. I Have No Idea

what you are talking about. I have no "issue." I was answering the man's question about whether you could vape 0 nicotine by saying I vape 0 nicotine, so yes one can vape 0 nicotine.

I also chose to weigh in on whether it can help people to quit smoking by saying it helped me.

[Quackers]

98. My wife uses

A Vameo V5. She has different flavors and nicotine contents for it. They do have flavored juices that have 0% nicotine too.

[notadmblnd]

4. Every product that I've seen and bought (and I have used e-cigs since April)

Has 18+ on it. So it seems to me that as far as smoke shops go, they are policing themselves. I think it is a far better idea to ban the sale of cigarettes at party stores and gas stations. Perhaps then sales to minors will decrease?

[JustAnotherGen]

7. I agree

But I wonder if abroad they are being sold in the old 'cigarette machines' - do those even exist in the US anymore? We used to get them at the bars all the time that way in the 1990's.

[notadmblnd]

8. No cigarettes are not sold in vending machines any longer

[cbayer]

9. They are in Europe. All over Italy.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. This is true

Those little 'ten packs' - same machines as condoms and gum in Acri.

[cbayer]

12. I haven't noticed if they are selling e-cigs from them, but

I'm not sure there is much demand as it seems that everyone smokes here.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. I didn't see them there the last time we went

I could ask my one of my in laws. :dunno: Now there was one of those little casino/bar/tea/lotto places that had e cigs for sale behind the counter the last time I was there. But they didn't seem readily available all over the place.

I can't get my husband onto the vaping thing. He still rolls his one or two with American Spirit loose tobacco every day. But I really wish if he is going to continue he'd start vaping.

[cbayer]

15. I quit just a few weeks before coming to Italy.

I used a great book and smoked my last cigarette as I read the last chapter. I am truly delighted to be a non-smoker after over 45 years of heavy smoking.

But I had absolutely no interest in a nicotine substitute. I wanted to be free of the addiction, not just addicted in another form.

However, I truly believe that that is not the way it works for others and I support nicotine substitution if it is safer and if it leads to eventual cessation.

Anyway, cigarettes are very, very available here, but many people roll their own. I think that's a financial decision more than anything, though. I came here from Mexico, where very few people smoke these days, and I think that's clearly financial.

[JVS]

41. They have age verification devices on EU machines now.

[cbayer]

44. Not on the ones I have seen.

They are ancient. You put in your coins (no bills) and pull the lever.

[obxhead]

16. No new machines can be installed, but in many states

bars that had vending machines before the ban can maintain them. I saw one just 2 days ago in a local bar.

[B2G]

19. Las Vegas has them. That's about it. nt

[Go Vols]

86. They are in Tenn and Mo

that I know of,prolly more than just those two.
Just got a new one at my local watering hole.

Edit: United States Only in facilities where people under 18 are not allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_machine

[raven mad]

101. Yes, they're okay up here too.

A vending machine may be maintained only if it is on premises licensed as beverage dispensaries, clubs, or package stores, is as far as possible from the primary entrance and is directly and continually supervised by an employee of the premises when accessible to the public. Vending machines may also be located in an employee break room or other controlled area of a private workplace that is not generally considered a public place and the room or area must contain a posted warning sign indicating that possession of tobacco by a person less than 19 years of age is prohibited.

ALASKA STAT. § 11.76.100(b) (1998).

You generally only see them in bars/roadhouses.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I would hope WHO has some numbers to put out there.

Otherwise they're just going to get a ton of pushback from e-cig boosters who will say they're just operating on 'feelings'.

[cbayer]

11. Actually, as I read it, WHO is asking for numbers.

From their report: "there should be no claims that the devices can help people quit smoking - until there is evidence to support this." and I think they are reluctant to treat them differently until there is evidence.

[tridim]

5. Pardon me, I'll be vaping periodically in my cubicle, and bothering absolutely nobody.

When are they banning menthol and clove cigarettes?

[bbrady42]

45. It would bother me.

And it probably bothers people around you, but they don't want to say anything. It's not "just water vapor." If it were you wouldn't be interested in inhaling it. Nobody knows what's in that stuff.

When somebody was vaping in our office nobody said anything to him, but away from him there were plenty of complaints.

[RobinA]

52. By This Token

they should be questioning what's off-gassing from the synthetic walls, floors, carpets, ceilings, computers and furniture in their office/cubicles. Also the "ventilation" system.

I'll stipulate that these hermetically sealed indoor spaces are a soup of chemicals that nobody knows anything about. And if they do, they ain't sayin'

[Amonester]

55. And their cars (OMG) THEIR effin' CARS!!! ;)

[CreekDog]

64. actually many of us are trying to get stronger regulations on household chemicals

i don't understand why you are unable to mentally process the idea that not all chemicals will be banned or regulated simultaneously.

the argument you're making, that if you don't ban all those other chemicals, you can't even suggest e cigarettes be consumed outdoors -that makes no sense.

again, the issue is not the science. it's your thinking.

you can't accept that something that you like might get regulated while something else isn't banned.

so you overreact and post unscientific nonsense.

this is not about e cigarettes, it's about you now.

[RobinA]

89. What I Don't Understand

is why you seem to think that I am offering anything at all, much less an argument, on the subject of indoor vaping. I'm not. I don't care one way or the other about indoor vaping.

[tridim]

66. Also perfume/cologne, flatulence and fecal bacteria in the bathroom...

I vape about 1/2cc of 6mg e-juice per day in the office.. Statistically insignificant, even if it was as dangerous as big pharma/tobacco funded studies claim.

[Amonester]

53. Give (those it bothers) this link (or others):

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/home-foam-teflon-technology-ecotech-toxins.html

The Most Toxic Home Products

You expect to find toxic chemicals in cleaning products and pesticides. But you wouldn’t think toxins could be in your bed–or worse yet, your infant’s crib.

Unfortunately, harmful chemicals can be found in the foam in your bed and nursing pillows and in many more everyday products, including deodorants, air fresheners, plastic bottles and some pots and pans coated with Teflon. To boot, it’s nearly impossible to rid these toxins from our homes.

Even environmental scientists find it incredibly difficult to live toxin-free.

I bet they don't know...

[tridim]

60. It's just water vapor, and it smells like mint.

Horrors!

Coworkers all know I vape, they don't care in the least.

[pipoman]

14. Who gives a shit what WHO thinks or wants...

They also support keeping the pot prohibition going. They are bought and paid for politicians. ...their owners only direct them on issues that effect their wealth...

[PennyK]

17. Well, the anti-smokers are at it again

I quit after 45 years! And it has been nearly painless.
As far as the fruit and other flavors, I use many and haven't used tobacco flavor since my second week (past the six-month mark now).
The ingredients used in the liquids are either food flavorings or ingredients used in toothpaste and medications for asthmatics.
It's just anti-smoker mania that propels this. I hope desperately that I won't have to end up smoking again when and if e-cigs are banned.

[B2G]

18. Maybe WHO should focus on actual HEALTH issues

Idiots.

[frazzled]

21. There's an interesting article in the Times today that relates to this

It's about sodium levels and overreaction to the amount of salt intake one should have. As it turns out, there is no scientific evidence for the benefit of extremely low-sodium diets, and in fact, very low sodium intake has been found to correlate strongly with increased cardiovascular risk. (WHO is one of the culprits in setting the level too low.) The article ends with similar provisos about "extreme" reactions to cholesterol (continually lowering the bar, with no apparent reason) or vitamin needs (overreacting with megadoses that are either useless or potentially dangerous)

Why experts and organizations feel the need to go from one extreme to the other is unclear. But it’s unfortunately something we do far too often in medicine.

...

Too many calories are bad for us. That doesn’t mean we should consume none. Too little exercise can lead to bad outcomes. That doesn’t mean you exercise to the point of hurting yourself. Too much sun can cause cancer. That doesn’t mean we should never go outside.

It’s a cliché but true: In so many things moderation is our best bet. We have to learn that when one extreme is detrimental, it doesn’t mean the opposite is our safest course. It’s time to acknowledge that we may be going too far with many of our recommendations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/upshot/dash-of-salt-does-no-harm-extremes-are-the-enemy.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A5%22%7D&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[tridim]

22. The way I look at it, if something is required for life, like sodium...

you should eat as much as your body needs and ignore the "experts". They have an agenda, always.

And yes, cholesterol is required for life as well. Cut it out of your diet and you will suffer, there is no question.

[dixiegrrrrl]

38. "extreme" reactions to cholesterol (continually lowering the bar, with no apparent reason)"

You hit on one of my peeves.

Turns out, cholesterol levels of 240 were considered the norm not so long ago.
then the drug companies came up with their drugs for lowering it, targeted at folks who had very high levels of cholesterol.
THEN the drug companies went to work on making levels of 200 or more a "problem", so they could sell more of the drugs.

Mr. Dixie's ex-dr. was a HUGE pill pusher, resolutely writing scripts for a cholesterol level of 204, for a PSA level of one point over the "correct range".

We did the research, both as to cholesterol, and history of the drugs.
Added oatmeal 3 times a week to the diet, and apples for snacks, the next test was 180.
the doctor did not say a word...no "congrats", no "how did you do it"...zip. Nothing.

Like I said....ex-doctor.

[LeftyMom]

82. Your liver produces all of the cholesterol you'll ever need. If you got absolutely none in your diet

you'd do just fine and probably be better off.

[frazzled]

91. Um ... nobody's disputing that you don't need "more" cholesterol

It's the degree of "less" that is being disputed--in the best medical circles, btw. People with what were perfectly normal levels previously are now being told to be on medication to reduce their levels beyond what is necessary or desirable.

[LeftyMom]

94. The "healthy" levels are levels which still reflect poor cardiac outcomes.

The levels actually associated with improved cardiac health are those of people whose dietary intake is low or non-existent, and those are much lower than the disputed values.

[frazzled]

97. That's not correct, I believe

As the article states, "a majority of people’s serum cholesterol level has little to do with how much cholesterol is in their diet." See the links to studies provided, e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12074253

Genetics, ethnicity, post-menopausal hormonal status, etc. determines much of cholesterol level--and you can't oatmeal and non-cholesterol yourself out of it through eating. I knew a reed-thin woman, vegetarian, who had sky-high cholesterol levels in her 20s.

[CreekDog]

46. there are chemicals emitted from e-cigarettes, that is a health issue for bystanders

(not to mention users themselves)

your failure or inability to see it as a health issue doesn't mean it's not one. it means you are unable to accept that it is one, which is more about you, than the issue itself.

[B2G]

47. Care to provide some proof of that?

[CreekDog]

51. yes, from UCSF

e-cigarettes release toxic chemicals indoors, should be included in clean indoor air laws and policies
Submitted by sglantz on Wed, 2012-09-19 17:59

A study published in Indoor Air from the Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut in Germany examined secondhand emissions from several e-cigarettes in a human exposure chamber. Each e-cigarette was puffed 6 times and data were collected for a conventional cigarette, also puffed 6 times.

While the e-cigarette produced lower levels of toxins in the air for nonsmokers to breathe than the conventional cigarette, there were still elevated levels of acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, averaging around 20% of what the conventional cigarette put into the air.

Thus, while not as polluting as a conventional cigarette, the e-cigarettes are putting detectable levels of several significant carcinogens and toxins in the air.

No one should have to breathe these chemicals, whether they come out of a conventional or e-cigarette. No one should smoke e-cigarettes indoors that are free of other forms of tobacco smoke pollution.

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies

[RobinA]

56. If Formaldehyde

bothers you, I suggest you avoid clothing stores. That new clothes smell? Chemicals. A main one of which is formaldehyde.

Ban new clothes!

[CreekDog]

57. anti science

wow.

your post seems to say that you just care about you.

glad you aren't setting scientific policy.

[B2G]

67. Run and hide

Acetic acid = avoid vinegar at all costs
Acetone = don't do you nails
Isoprene = Aviod poplars, oaks and all forms of eucalyptus
Acetaldehyde = give up coffee
Formaldehyde = just crawl under a rock, too many uses to list

[CreekDog]

69. your position is that any compound found in the environment is ok in your home in any quantity?

uninformed, anti science, nonsense.

[RobinA]

90. New Clothes

aren't full of formaldehyde? I'm assuming that's what you mean when you accuse me of being anti-science, because its the only fact I stated.

[CreekDog]

92. no, the anti science part was your contention that if we don't ban clothing

we can't regulate e cigarettes.

not only was that anti science, it's one of the stupidest things i've read in weeks here.

and by the way, in my state, there is regulation of formaldehyde exposure.

[B2G]

93. Ah Creekdog...

continuing to win the hearts and minds.

Lol.

[RobinA]

100. Again

I have not commented on regulating e-cigs. I am commenting on the silliness of the sudden concern about e-cigs vis a vis the stuff we've been breathing in for years without comment, or with very little comment.

I find it interesting that there is sudden interest in this one relatively minor pollutant when indoor pollutants have been rampant for years. My own feeling is that e-cig regulating as a phenomenon has its roots somewhere other than pure interest in pollution. I'd be more convinced that it was about pollution if it were part of an on-going and equally loud effort to reduce indoor pollution as a whole. One that started back when buildings were sealed up and filled with synthetics.

[Demit]

68. Stanton Glantz is notorious in the vaping world.

This article gives you an idea of him: http://www.churnmag.com/news/latest-junk-science-e-cig-hater-stanton-glantz/

A list of researchers whose findings contradict/debunk Glantz: Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

A sample: Drexel University's Prof. Burstyn found no apparent concern for bystanders exposed to second hand E-Cigarette vapor. Some of his key conclusions:

  There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde, acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.

  The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.

  Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

[CreekDog]

70. the article i posted is not by Stanton Glatz, are you trying to pull a fast one on the readers here?

wow.

[Demit]

75. You link to a comment 'submitted by sglantz'. That is Stanton Glantz.

I don't understand your objection.

Here, btw, is a rebuttal to the Indoor Air study that Glantz references in that comment:

Diskin, et al. conducted a study of the concentrations of the common breath metabolites ammonia, acetone, isoprene, ethanol and acetaldehyde in the breath of five subjects over a period of 30 days. “Breath samples were taken and analysed in the early morning on arrival at the laboratory.” Time variation of ammonia, acetone, isoprene and ethanol in breath: a quantitative SIFT-MS study over 30 days | Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO) | US EPA

It is enlightening to compare their results for the three compounds that correspond to three of the six e-cigarette exhaled vapor compounds in the Indoor Air study.

The Indoor Air study measured a concentration of 25 mcg/m3 of Acetone, which converts to 10.39 PPB. In Diskin’s study, Acetone ranged from 293-870 PPB.
The Indoor Air study found 10 mcg/m3 of Isoprene, which converts to 3.54 PPB. Compare to 55-171 PPB in Diskin’s study.
The Indoor Air study found 3 mcg/m3 of Acetaldehyde, which converts to 1.64 PPB, compared with 2-5 PPB in Diskin’s study.

Therefore for these three compounds, bystanders would be in greater danger if exposed to exhaled breath of ordinary non-smoking, non-vaping citizens.

Three additional compounds were noted in the Indoor Air study. The quantities were reported as micrograms per cubic meter by the German researchers. OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) are expressed as milligrams per cubic meter. To convert to mg/m3, divide the mcg value by 1000.

2-Butanone (MEK) = 0.002 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 590 mg/m3)
Acetic acid = 0.014 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 25 mg/m3)
Formaldehyde = 0.016 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 0.661 mg/m3)

When all the scientific data are considered, we must conclude that bystanders are in no danger whatsoever from exhaled vapor, as the highest concentration measured represents a mere 2.4% of the OSHA PEL, and the remaining 5 compounds represent a fraction of 1% of the OSHA PEL.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/334813-glantzing-blow-science.html

[B2G]

81. Wait...is that...science?

LMAO at Creekdog.

[Demit]

84. LOL I know, right?

[CreekDog]

87. you're saying the journal article referred to is not science?

you're saying University of California at San Francisco did not post a link to science? and the link to the study was the second word of the blog post, so you can't even say it was hard to find.

and you're saying you did?

LOL yourself.

this is the journal article/study that the blog post referred to. both the blog post and the referenced article are more science than you posted here. so let's not be hypocritical about it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00792.x/pdf

[KittyWampus]

99. thank you for this.

[L0oniX]

20. FUCK THEM!

E-cigs helped my wife quit smoking. She doesn't use the E-cigs anymore either. Fucking stupid ass WHO!

[cbayer]

23. They aren't recommending that they be banned, just

that they be banned from indoor use.

Smokers are pretty used to that rule, so why should it be different for e-cigs?

It's not about 2nd hand smoke, either. As a recent ex-smoker, I am sensitive to nicotine. It sets off cravings for me and makes me anxious and uncomfortable. Why should I be exposed to nicotine in an otherwise smoke-free environment.

Congratulations to your wife, by the way. It's a wonderful thing she has done.

[L0oniX]

24. I'm all for whatever makes it easier for people to guit ...even allowing them to smoke anywhere.

The cost on society will be reduced sooner IMO if E-cig use is allowed everywhere. E-cig smoke blocking my view is another matter.

[cbayer]

25. I'm not sure how allowing people to use e-cigs anywhere

would really make it easier for them to quit. There is no evidence I am aware of that supports this.

I'm not against them, though I think discontinuation of nicotine entirely is the key, but I don't think making them easier to get and use than cigarettes accomplishes anything.

And the concerns about kids are legitimate, imo.

[L0oniX]

29. Agree about the kids. Unfortunately the same idea is being used to block legalization of pot.

Kids will drink parents booze too.

[cbayer]

32. I'm a proponent of legalization, but I still think there has to be some rules for the

sale and use of cannabis.

Same with nicotine, no matter what the delivery system. Unlike cannabis, it's addictive and the health consequences are great. Anything to stop kids from getting addicted in the first place is a good idea, imo.

[Demit]

35. Vaping nicotine accomplishes not putting tar & 400 chemicals into your lungs.

It's not the nicotine that destroys your lungs, it's the combusted materials in the smoke.

[cbayer]

37. There is no doubt that e-cigs are a much healthier alternative. I am

not at all opposed to them, but it's the nicotine that is the addictive substance. No matter how you put it in your system, it is the thing that keeps you addicted. However, if getting off the nicotine is not the goal, then e-cigs are far and away the better alternative.

[Demit]

39. So is caffeine an addictive substance. Somehow it doesn't carry the same stigma.

Caffeine and nicotine are both alkaloids. Yes, they're both addictive, because people find them both enjoyable. Why, in your view, is one of them acceptable and one of them reacted to as if using it is a character flaw?

[cbayer]

42. Caffeine is an addictive substance but it does not generally kill you.

Therefore, it doesn't carry the same weight.

You can defend nicotine all day long. I understand it very, very well and I am overjoyed to no longer be addicted. It's not a character flaw at all, it's an addiction, one that will kill you.

It came very close to killing me and this book isn't over yet.

[Demit]

59. It's the smoking that can kill you. Not the nicotine.

I'm happy for you that you are free from smoking. I too am almost smoke-free. My breathing is better, my teeth are whiter, my house/car/clothes smell better. But, regardless of how well you understand nicotine, you are wrong in thinking it is what came close to killing you. It was the act of inhaling smoke—smoke containing particulates & combusted chemicals—into your lungs.

You can say nicotine is a poison. But that's only in highly concentrated form. Caffeine in highly concentrated form can kill you too. Chlorine and fluoride are poisons, but we put them in our drinking water. Warfarin is rat poison, but that’s what Coumadin is. Tylenol is a great fever reducer, but take too much and it kills you. It all depends on the dose. That's why the saying is 'it's the dose that makes the poison'.

[cbayer]

61. It's the addiction that most people gratify by smoking.

If you want to stay addicted and not do the smoking part, go for it. I am glad you are almost smoke-free. I hope that you will someday be completely smoke free.

I have come to believe that we were used by the tobacco industry and made into slaves. My addiction to nicotine started early. I have tried all kinds of delivery systems, but I always went back to smoking.

It is my firm belief that for me the only answer is to stop the addiction.

If you want to defend nicotine by comparing it to other things, that's ok by me. I don't want to be addicted and I support anything that prevents others from becoming addicted. For those that already are, I support whatever method is available that makes the addiction less hazardous.

BTW, I think acetaminophen should have been banned years ago. The pharmaceutical companies were/are highly invested in keeping it on the market. Just like those that peddle nicotine.

[Demit]

72. My purpose is not to defend nicotine but to dispel wrong ideas about it.

That's all.

I don't know whether I'll stay addicted to nicotine. (I do know that vaping has broken me of the *habit* part of smoking.) If I do, though, I'll know that it won't give me lung cancer or emphysema or COPD, the way that smoking could have. I'll probably stay addicted to caffeine. I'll probably stay addicted to chocolate, and salt 'n vinegar potato chips. And the reality show Survivor, for as long as they keep it going. The word addiction doesn't bother me, in respect to any of these things, because they don't run me. They just give me pleasure in life.

[cbayer]

76. Sorry, there are no wrong ideas about nicotine.

It's a highly addictive substance that is mainly delivered by burning tobacco. We grew up during a time when tremendous resources went into getting us addicted. It has killed way too many people

I doubt that you are really addicted to those things the way you are addicted to nicotine. The word doesn't bother me but the state does. I was addicted. It ruled my life. There is nothing else on earth that does that. There was no pleasure and I was totally run.

Your experience may be different., but addiction is all about being controlled and no longer having any pleasure.

I know where you are coming from, though. It wasn't until I was smacked in the face that I was able to see where I really was.

[Demit]

77. Nicotine cannot kill you. That's the wrong idea i want to dispel.

It seems we're back where we started. My point is that vaping delivers nicotine without the potentially deadly effects of smoking. Your point is that you were addicted to nicotine and could only get it by smoking. From what you've been telling me, you did what was right for you. I'll leave things there.

[cbayer]

78. What does nicotine do for you that is beneficial?

Vaping gives you a way to satisfy your withdrawal every 45 minutes or so. There is no other benefit to it whatsoever.

I could have continued my addiction with another delivery system, but I still would have been enslaved.

I know that I am now an obnoxious ex-addict. So I will leave things here. But I am really glad to be an ex-addict.

[Demit]

83. You're kidding, right? Start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1859921

I'm only answering your question, cbayer, not interested in reviving our back and forth. But if you thought nicotine has no beneficial effects, just google "nicotine beneficial."

[LanternWaste]

79. Creative way to rationalize addictions that make decisions for us...

"because they don't run me. They just give me pleasure in life..."

Creative way to rationalize addictions that make decisions for us...

[Demit]

80. Yes, I am compelled to turn on the tv wed nights at 8pm.

And have potato chips when I want something salty. Forgive me, Cotton Mather! I know I should spurn all pleasures as they are but temptations from the devil!

[CreekDog]

65. because i don't breathe acetone when you drink your morning coffee

i do breathe it if you use an ecig around me.

jeez, is this so complicated?

you know what would be great? if the people freaking out, and that's what's happening here, would put that energy and read a couple scientific journal articles or publications on e cigarettes.

instead of just pouting and yelling here and telling everyone that science is BS or the equivalent.

[B2G]

26. How are you going to ban something

that can't be smelled or detected in any way?

How are you sensitive to nicotine? Just seeing someone vaping triggers cravings in you? How is that my problem?

[cbayer]

28. I can tell when it's in my vicinity.

I can tell when someone is smoking in a place even if I can't smell it.

It's not your problem, but I still see no justification for making it easier to use an e-cig than it is to use a regular cig. Are you a smoker, ex-smoker, never smoker? It's helpful to know from what perspective someone is seeing this debate.

[B2G]

31. I am a smoker

I use e-Cigs when I can't smoke for long periods of time (air travel for instance). My goal next year is to completely quit and use e-cigs exclusively.

"I can tell when someone is smoking in a place even if I can't smell it."

How?

[cbayer]

33. I told you how I can tell. As a recent ex-smoker (20 - 30/day for 45 years),

I am highly sensitive to nicotine. Vaporizers put nicotine into the air. You don't have to believe me, but I can tell. I can also tell when I am in a place where nicotine is embedded in furniture, curtains, etc. I start to have cravings, and most of the time I'm not having them anymore.

Again, I realize that is not your problem, but I appreciate a nicotine free environment now that I am nicotine free.

I wish you the best in quitting. I used a great book and did what I truly believed would be impossible. I don't want to become a cranky ex-smoker, but if I can avoid nicotine I will.

[B2G]

34. I am asking HOW you can sense nicotine in the air

What sensations do you feel? Nicotine has no odor.

You're saying you can just 'sense' the presence of nicotine? I've never heard of such a thing.

[cbayer]

36. It sets off nicotine cravings.

This doesn't happen when I see someone on TV or in a movie smoking. This doesn't happen when I see people through a window smoking.

This happens when I am exposed to nicotine. This is why I can never, ever have even a single puff off a cigarette again if I desire to stay a non-smoker.

You may have never heard of such a thing, but talk to some ex-smokers. One thing that people often report is that they get a craving attack when they put their hands on the steering wheel of their own car. They absorb the nicotine and it triggers the addiction.

It's really not that complicated.

[CreekDog]

48. what's wrong with using them outside?

and why the hell are you saying "fuck them" to a health recommendation?

[CreekDog]

58. FUCK SCIENCE

i want what i want . screw anything that says anything bad about something that helps me, even if it only says i should consume it outside.

fuck science, fuck everything.



grow up.

[Throd]

27. Roger Daltrey can fuck off, e-cigs are a great way of ending cigarette addiction.

[cbayer]

30. What in the world does Roger Daltrey have to do with this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. A bad pun - "The Who" (nt)

[cbayer]

43. Lol. I even googled it and couldn't figure it out.

Thanks!

[CreekDog]

50. so you're saying if they are great it doesn't matter what chemicals they emit?

why can't you fathom that two simultaneous things can be true about e cigs, a bad thing and a good thing?

are you that linear that everything is 100% bad or good? that's nonsense.

and are there any good things that you should use outdoors and not indoors? when they tell you your bbq needs to be used outside, do you say "fuck off, bbq is a great way to cook!"?

[Throd]

62. I believe the "dangers" of e-cigs are overblown

I also believe those people who enjoy to look down on smokers are pissed off that they might not be able to do the same to users of e-cigs.

I don't smoke cigarettes or use e-cigs.

[CreekDog]

63. you believe the dangers are overblown? is this your religion?

should the average reader trust the studies or some DUer who tells them not to believe all that crap?

[Throd]

71. I think a lot of the studies are crap by people with an agenda.

[CreekDog]

74. yeah why listen to science when you can just assure yourself that it's all crap

i mean, i can rely on studies and journal articles or i can just listen to Throd who says all that science is just "crap".

hmmm, do i believe numerous examples of science or one angry guy saying it's "crap".

decisions, decisions.

oh wait, this isn't hard at all!!!

[Amonester]

73. Interesting link also there on that site (BBC)

The e-cigarettes phenomenon

The use of e-cigarettes has surged since smoking bans came into place.

In the UK, there are an estimated 1.3m users, compared with 9m smokers.

More: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26852649


I stopped smoking (the damn) cigarettes since July 26 (1 month now), thanks to my Kanger Tech EVOD V V kit!

I don't smoke while indoor in public places, only at home.

[valerief]

85. Does WHO say to ban tobacco cigarettes, which are definitely toxic? nt

[LloydS of New London]

95. Sez who?

Sorry, I could not resist!

[the_sly_pig]

96. Cherry pick information much?

Nicotine addiction is serious. I went from 18mg to 12mg to 6mg to 3mg. The plan is to go to 1mg then 0mg. You want to ban harmful chemicals? Shut down Monsanto and Dow.

[OregonBlue]

102. The truth is that WHO really doesn't know if inhaling second-hand vapor is harmful in any way. It's

not really a "health" thing so much as it is a "morals" thing. If ecigs help people quit smoking tobacco, they are a good thing. It's not the nicotine that kills smokers, it's the tars and other pollutants. WHO should not be making any recommendations until they have real concrete science to back up those recommendations.

As far as children go, of course we want to keep them out of the hands of children but then again, we also want to keep cigarettes, alcohol, pot, guns, etc. out of the hands of children. So far we aren't very successful at that.

I think if WHO really wanted to change our lives for the better they would come out against high-fructose corn syrup. It's killing people right and left across the globe.

[Prophet 451]

103. So they wqant to take sweet flavours away just for spite

and they're concerned that ecigs might encourage teens to smoke despite the evidence saying that's not happening

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. The sweet flavours seem aimed at people who haven't smoked cigarettes

a way of covering up the taste of nicotine. Like alcopops.

[Prophet 451]

106. Except for the actuaql evidence

The evidence says that the people taking up vaping who have never smoked barely exists.

[Hosnon]

104. I understand the need to study the issue before claiming that they help people quit, but

(SPOILER ALERT)

They do (at least for myself and the half dozen other people I know who used them to help quit smoking).