Tell me what you know about e cigarettes

People tend to assume it is ok to vape in public areas where smoking would be disallowed, which I am not too keen on

 

Can you elaborate on why you're not keen on it? Curious to understand. Does their level of discretion make any difference?

 

Also known as Ass-Hats.
Always best to ask the manager of the establishment if they're OK with vaping on their premises in my experience.

 

I made a decision long ago to vape exactly as I smoked - with respect to others. If there is a sign that says no smoking, I always assume that to mean no vaping whatever the legal standpoint might be.

As has been mentioned a fair bit by previous posters, the single biggest difference vaping has made to my daily life is how healthy I feel. That's not to say it isn't silently killing me in a different way, but I am able to perform more tasks more easily than when I was inhaling combusted matter.

 

Granted. I'd guess it is similar to the morons that have loud and personal phone calls or play subject others to their choice of music in public places like crowded trains. It's just rude and inconsiderate.
That said, being forced to listen to the banality of such conversations may actually serve to decrease your IQ, (like I think watching Eastenders, or reading the Daily Mail, probably does).

So is the objection on grounds of rudeness?
or is it based on a concern, like my personally not wanting to listen to intimate life details of morons.

I just want to understand the source of concern so that it can be addressed with confidence rather than assumption (albeit reasonable assumption)

 

For me, a little from column A and a smidge from column B.

I'll never vape around youngsters, although I'm convinced of the properties of second hand vapour being extremely low risk it's based on the current state of understanding and studies conducted so far, we are still very early into understanding every thing about them and for now I'll happily throw the dice on my own health but play safe with others.

And yes it's rude, the general public don't understand them, rather than cause them discomfort or worry I'll go outside, or if I have permission to vape inside I'll talk / explain to anyone who does raise a concern.

If we want vaping to be generally accepted by non vapers, especially in bars or inside etc. it's best not to go at it with the view that you have a god given right to vape wherever you want just because it hasn't been legislated against (yet).
Common courtesy isn't so common nowadays but I still cover my mouth when I cough and try not to fart too much when in company.

 

Thanks.
I think you're right, the lack of a prohibition does not constitute a license to be flamboyant or flaunt the activity in front of a bemused and unsuspecting populace.
If vapers are to avoid disenfranchising and pushing public opinion against them (regardless of safety), some discretion and consideration is necessary.

I think this is good and is airing opinions and perceptions, as well as (for me at least) offing validation that I'm not alone in my own views about the distinction between rights, permissions, and courtesy.

Any more thoughts/questions from people?
Experiences of people having concerns/not understanding?

 

Here's what I know:

• Using them makes you look a weirdo
• Their long-term safety is scientifically unproven
• They will be used as some as a gateway to other drugs
• Their use should (at least) follow the same restrictions as smoking

I'm always a little disappointed when any attempt at building up a faith in humanity is shot down. Racism is still rampant, homophobia is being legalised in more and more places and sexism and ageism are here for the long haul.

And even the steps to eradicate smoking from acceptable western society are being knocked back by e-cigs and weed usage.

 

You forgot mention alcohol which should also be treated in the same way as heroin or any class A drug.

 

Pretty definite perceptions there.

• I won't contest the weirdo item, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I think similarly about people who seem unable to pull their trousers up to their waists, folk who wear baseball caps backwards (or forwards come to think of it), and vegetarians .
  
• The scientific evidence of long term safety is another matter though. Against a baseline of doing nothing, as Cei and I discussed earlier in the thread, there is a need for more research over a longer period. That said, against a baseline of smoking tobacco - which is the real world baseline for users of e-cigarettes - there is plenty evidence that these are vastly less harmful. The British Medical Journal published results showing there were 9-450 times less toxicants in ecigs than in tobacco smoke. BMJ link
  I'll refrain from posting a range of studies here to better use the space for your next point. Happy to oblige in another post if you like though.
  Also I'd turn the question around and point out that there is no substantive evidence for long term harm from ecigs (assuming you don't buy the eliquid off the back of a truck or from market stalls etc.)
  
• I think I can debunk the gateway mayth here though. There have been several studies that show the only significant gateway effect is from traditional smoking towards ecigarettes. Examples below. Results typically show the 'never smoker' use of ecigarettes between 0.1 - 0.2%. I would however be interested in whether this tiny number of people have also tried tobacco smoking or would have in the absence of ecigarettes. I have never seen any results that actually show gateway effects from ecigarettes.
  1. The ASH Wales research linked earlier in the thread
  2. The American Journal of Preventative Medicine
  3. The UK Office for National Satistics
  4. RMIT University in Australia
  5. Public Health England
  6. ASH UK
  7. University College London
  8. Finally, even if the above papers don't get read, I'd encourage you to take a look at this article in The counterfactual. The site covers a lot of topics and is run by a guy named Clive Bates who (whilst being a supporter of ecigarettes as harm reduction measures, not cessation) is also former Director of ASH UK (Action on Smoking & Health - a Public Health charity set up in the 70's by the Royal College of Physicians in case you are unfamiliar with them)
• You believe that ecigarettes should follow the same restrictions as smoking, but the regulations being pushed by the European Commission are far more stringent. So to clarify your position - is it your wish to protect the tobacco industry with the proposed levels of regulation, OR would you agree that the regulation proposed for ecigarettes is overzealous.
  
• ecigs have made a huge contribution to eradicate smoking from western society and in terms of success rates, they outperform traditional cessation or reduction methods over both short and long term (insofar as long term can be measured with as new a product as ecigarettes

To quote a friend: Is the fact that the unregulated ecig market to date has already taken over 700,000 UK smokers out of smoking more important than the risk that unnecessary and disproportional regulations will actually curb or stop this uptake, by making ecigs less attractive to all smokers?
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Sorry this is a longish post but that's Brandolini's law for you

Also for the record: Racism, homophobia, sexism and ageism are not relevant to this subject or on the table here. Let's keep on topic please.

 

I've been dipping in and out of this thread, quite intrigued, and finding the information and opinions expressed interesting.

One thing I have noticed is that when others post that the safety of e-cigs/vaping is unproven, you (GMC) have responded by saying they are healthier than normal smoking/cigarettes.

That may well be the case, but it doesn't actually answer the concerns. Yes, they may be better for you than cigarettes (but then so is not smoking/vaping at all) but that doesn't necessarily make them harmless. People used to think the smoking was good for you; opinions/perceptions/knowledge change, now look where we are.

For an extreme analogy, instead of ingesting a 11.5g/kg dosage of cyanide you ingest a dosage a 1000th of that. It may be "better" for you, but its still going to kill you. [lethal dose = 11.5mg/kg]

TBH, regulation of any grouping of "things" is always going to end up with someone saying its too onerous, whilst others will say its too lax.

I'm probably being blind, but I cant see/find a definitive answer on how the regulation differs from that applied to "normal" cigarettes?
As the new directive only covers vaping that includes nicotine, there should (to my mind) be no difference. In essence; same substance, same rules.
I do feel that vaping itself should be regulated, not sure to what level, but at the very least limit to 18+. Not sure I can give a reason, but that's how I feel.

Apologies for the ramblings...

 

Has anyone expressed the opinion that they are harmless?

Then you need to read the tobacco products directive; http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/dir_201440_en.pdf

Crazy talk, Nicotine isn't the problem (mostly) in smoking , nicotine is a wonderful substance which has been found to potentially have many medical benefits

Agree, 100%

 

Not explicitly, but its kind of been implied.

Thank you. Sorry if its already been linked here. (wow that's long)

No, it might not be the problem (i.e. the cause of (most) of the bad effects), but its why people smoke (other than addiction/habit).
What benefits does Nicotine have? Obviously keep in mind what has been said earlier about proof...

We can't say, definitively, that vaping is NOT bad for you, so therefore it should be regulated, as it mimics if not replicates an activity/substance(s) that already is/are. and regulated at the same level.

 

I know you asked for negative opinions and assumptions, but I feel my thought has a place here despite being a positive.

I'm somebody who's never smoked/vaped and never has any intentions to. Whilst nobody in my direct family smoked either, I had relations who did whom we saw very frequently (at least every weekend when I was a kid). I absolutely hate the smell of normal cigarette smoke, I find it really hard to stomach. If there's been one advantage to vaping that directly affects me it's that it doesn't have that aroma. Some work colleagues of mine recently switch to vaping, it's just so much more social from a non-smoker's perspective. Many non-smokers can tolerate cigarettes fine, I am not one of them. As such, when smoker friends would go out for a light, I would have real trouble going with them to chat. I would, but they could see I was uncomfortable, which in turn made them not feel great about it. E-cigarettes have largely solved this problem for me. My friends/colleagues will still go outside as they would before, but now I can comfortably join them and continue the fun without there being any awkwardness.

This is actually the same issue I have with legalised marijuana use. I don't really care what others do in their domains, but I do care when I'm put into a scenario where it does affect me. This happened just yesterday in fact on the tube. Typical rush out crush, mid journey some guy got on and he smelled so bad. I mean it was strong enough that lots of people were turning their heads. Weed does have a strong smell that likes to linger. Maybe that's a side effect of a particular variety they're using, but the fact is it's there and to me it's much more invasive at a passive level than normal tobacco. If a normal smoke gets on the train after recently having a smoke, I'd be fairly hard pressed to notice unless they're right in my face. This guy was a few feet away and it was rather bad indeed. It's not an easy thing to fix either. Whilst they might not use it outside of a legal area, the smell can quite easily follow them around for quite a while. I have a friend who's really into it, and he's polite about it too. He's careful where he preps anything, he doesn't use blunts etc. but in a confined space he just smells really strongly of weed as it's seemingly seeped into his clothing.

Sorry about the last paragraph not being about the subject matter at hand, many of the points are fairly applicable to normal cigarette usage too though (although maybe more at an extreme usage scenario), which leads to my appreciation of e-cigarettes as an option.

 

Madginga,

Sorry for delay in response. Work commitments...

You asked why I state less harmful than smoking instead of harmless?
I cannot prove the latter statement - proving zero is near impossible which is why I keep encouraging people to consider that nobody can state exactly what harm is remaining. So why the fear-mongering from the EU commission and demands for Govt legislation on a product unproven to have greater harm than breathing on the tube or streets of London.

I can show evidence demonstrating significantly less harmful and as these products are only marketed to and targeted at smokers, that is the relevant comparator group. What is better for non-smokers if someone can't or won't quit completely? To be around someone who can't or won't quit completely while they smoke tobacco or vape?

You're analogy is sound except the lower dose killing you - that last bit doesn't match up
However, I am not, and the industry is not, marketing or promoting ecigarettes as a cessation aid. They are an alternative means to absorb nicotine with behaviours that are similar to those of smoking - this is why there is a low addiction barrier to shifting. AMD or intel, Mac or Windows, AMD or Nvidia, etc.

All evidence so far that I have seen has shown me ZERO secondary harm from ecigarette use. For this reason I respond to questions of harm from the perspective of the user for whom the 'nothing' scenario is not a realistic one. If it is realistic there are other products in place for that (effectiveness commentary withheld)


The TPD is horribly long and I think having to read it probably contravenes the Geneva convention in some way...
You might find this link a shorter read. It focusses on the article pertaining to e cigarettes though you would need to read the rest of the TDP to see how it differs.
For me there are key differences, for example:

• This is more than pedantry: There is no tobacco in ecigarettes. This is a fundamentally wrong way to deal with legislation. Create a dedicated policy/bill/whatever if you need to but stuffing regulation in a poor fit place is inappropriate and means a poor fit resulting in poor regulation and impossible demands
• For clarity I'll also restate I am not sick, and am not trying to alleviate symptoms or 'get better'. I am therefore not taking a medicine.
• There is no impossible demand for a consistent dose from cigarettes
• It ignores that we already have measures covering the sale of pure nicotine that are perfectly adequate at controlling the substance
• harsh testing regulations drive cost up more than would be required for reasonable batch testing, prohibiting competition, development of new products, and market diversity.
• the upper limit for nicotine concentrations is absurdly low and would not be sufficient to satisfy the cravings of a moderate to heavy smoker and the effective and total volumes are both drastically below the levels found in nicotine gum and patches (source link for Cei ) summary for the rest
• Limiting fluid tank/container size is absurd and inconvenient for users. Like telling the brewing industry they max a 5%vol and they can only sell it in thimbles. Just creates the 'pint pack'of thimbles...
• the requirement for "leak free filling"is absurd and would destroy the most effective end of the market. For this forum I would liken it to making PC cases so that you aren't allowed to access the internals and change a component or introduce better cooling for an overclock. - but with the result that many people die unnecessary as they stick with outdated systems which give them lung cancer, heart disease, etc....

There are a lot more but those are examples. The rest of the regulation is far from fine but I want to try and keep some semblance of brevity.

The regulation of alcohol would be a far more suitable model. That said, alcohol is indisputably harmful whilst ecigarettes are suspected. Surely the severity of proposed regulation is the wrong way round...

Potential benefits of nicotine: include current scientific research into treatments for diabetes, anxiety, depression, Alzheimer's, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and schizophrenia

If I missed something, let me know but I've tried to respond fully.

@Maki role Thanks! - You are a key demographic in the equation and there is no doubt in my mind that ecigarettes are a huge benefit to you and others in your position. Really nice to see it stated by you.
I'll forego comment on weed though. I see that as a different behaviour.

 

Nice response GMC.

I would quote, but I think it might get a bit silly.

What I was trying to get at with the less harmful/harmless statement was that just because vaping is less harmful than smoking, it doesn't mean it isn't harmful in its own right.

I perfectly acknowledge, that as an alternative to those who smoke but don't like the negative health effects, or smoke but are unable to give up using "traditional" methods, vaping is great.

No, my analogy might not match, as we have no proof on long term effects, we cant say that vaping wont kill you just as effectively as smoking (yes the preliminary evidence suggests otherwise, but that's why they keep studying these things!).

I agree, that in principal, alcohol-type regulation would be appropriate. I would dispute that alcohol is "indisputably harmful", as I'm pretty sure there are studies showing that it is good for you.

(Some of those proposed regulation items are daft, why not regulate printer ink refill methods?!)

For the record neither I, nor my immediate family smoke or vape.

 

Sorry - couldn't resist and look - you were right.

Seriously though, alcohol not indisputably harmful? It's the 3rd biggest lifestyle risk for disease and death in the UK https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/help-and-advice/statistics-on-alcohol/

Really appreciate the open-mindedness on the level of regulation. Its an important and rare capability.

There is not even any indicative evidence of ecigarettes coming close to that kind of impact or cost.

At the moment I have risk in drinking tapwater, walking down a busy street breathing in pollution, driving a car, even cleaning my toilet with chemicals that are far more toxic and dangerous than an ecigarette but where regulations is satisfied with a childproof cap and a good thick plastic bottle carrying a tiny warning symbol. There is always risk in life but there should be proportional regulation and proportional personal responsibility - regulation can always be tightened if there is risk of harm to others, outside of their control. I think that's kinda what I'm getting at.

 

No vaper will ever say it's harmless, only those wishing to muddy the waters will
That's a baby directive that is, skip to section 20 for the ecig stuff
Lots of trials ongoing at present, its potential benefits were discovered thanks to NRT development, I'm not going to cite sources as I don't have full access to the trial papers as not many are published yet.

I'm find it quite saddening that you think because it mimics a thing that is bad it should be regulated, but not entirely surprised in the nanny state we live in now a days. I don't disagree it needs some regulation but no where near what is being forced on to it.

It smacks of K.Vaz and his mission against video games because they cause violence.

 

So, what do we do to address the concerns that there is presently no evidence of the long term effects gaping might have?

Obviously there can't be any thing yet, it's relatively new, so where to go?
If I'm allowed to vape, science can have my body when I snuff it and run as many tests as they like, in the mean time we'll have to rely on risk assessments based on our current understanding of medicine, the human body and the ingredients in e-liquid.

 

What's this gaping