Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nicotine in any form can raise blood pressure, cause anxiety, addiction, withdrawal, and mood swings. It can interact with other drugs and medications. Your body still has to metabolise and excrete it, so it increases metabolic work load.


And plenty of other people don't want to breathe secondhand 'vape' any more than secondhand smoke, leading many restaurants, galleries, and institutions to ban their indoor use the same as smokes.

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> And plenty of other people don't want to breathe

> secondhand 'vape' any more than secondhand smoke,

> leading many restaurants, galleries, and

> institutions to ban their indoor use the same as

> smokes.


If you try to ban it and e-fag users turn on you, will you be subjected to an attack of the vapers?

She's oinly successfully given up twice, one per child, but ultimately went back on to them a year or so later.

Willpower is a non starter with her, patches and gum also failed.


Of course I'm not really thinking about taking it up I was just after the negatives of this approach as I bought her the e-cigs.


I'd be very interested as to why GP friend thinks they're carcinogenic as as far as im aware nicotine isn't and nor are theatrical smoke machines, but if it's the case then it seems to go against the whole reason for giving up.


Perosnally I find them innoffensive the vape smell doesn't linger, I think they're being banned necause people react emotionally to seeing it nowadays and they're avoiding rows.


I did try it though just to see, it tasted pretty grotty and I actually fouind the nicotene rush really unpleasant, it had been a a while after all!!

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She's oinly successfully given up twice, one per

> child, but ultimately went back on to them a year

> or so later.

> Willpower is a non starter with her, patches and

> gum also failed.

>

> Of course I'm not really thinking about taking it

> up I was just after the negatives of this approach

> as I bought her the e-cigs.

>

> I'd be very interested as to why GP friend thinks

> they're carcinogenic as as far as im aware

> nicotine isn't and nor are theatrical smoke

> machines, but if it's the case then it seems to go

> against the whole reason for giving up.

>


I can't speak for the GP in question of course, but I would hazard a guess that it's due to the other chemicals added to 'pure' nicotine or derived from tobacco itself, for which e-cig companies astoundingly are not bound by full disclosure because their product is neither food nor medicine.


In addition, the long term use of inhaled 'pure' nicotine is a relatively unresearched area of medicine because nicotine delivery systems invariably involve other compounds, eg preservative, surfactants etc.


Whether e-cigs are safer than smoking is a relative comparison, which would have to take into account the exact ingredients of each per person, per usage, and also factor in whether e-cig usage resulted in an overall net increase or decrease of each chemical, and how these chemicals interacted with each other once in the lung.


"There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes or an effective smoking cessation tool," said Russ Sciandra, American Cancer Society New York State Director of Advocacy. "In fact, they may entice young people into trying traditional cigarettes. We also have questions about the safety of these devices. In lab tests, the FDA found some samples contain carcinogens and other toxic chemicals. Using e-cigarettes can be like trading one deadly behavior for another."
http://www.cancer.org/myacs/eastern/areahighlights/cancernynj-news-ny-ecig-health-vote



Personally I've been really shocked and disgusted to see e-cig adverts now popping up in places where cigarette adverts are banned, cue glamorous looking woman with e-cig in her hand sitting on faux oversized champagne glass billboard. Looks just like a cigarette, and gets around most of the smoking legislation... brilliant marking move. And sickening, literally.

It seems to me that regulation, and continued testing then would be the most desirable thing.


From what I've read some of the alarmism comes from spot testing on some brands which found that a more dangerous compund than the usual propylene glycol had been used, but that even those from more reputable manufacturers there were still trace elements of harmful toxins found.


But these were far fewer in number and amount (by several orders of magnitude) than tabacco cigarettes.


I do think it's the aesthetics of it which lead to levels of emotion and polarisation around the debate, you just don't get from gum, though chewing gum, now that's a REALLY dirty habit ;)


Well, I guess my advice would be, lets hope it helps in the short term but use it to wean yourself rather than a long term replacement.


Plus, as we know from the Mail, everything kills you, I'm not about to give up booze just because I know its bad for me.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
    • And I replied: Mandelson and Trump have much in common. They are both shallow, vulgar and vain. They both fetishise wealth and power, irrespective of who holds it or how it was accumulated. They were both close friends and associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein and have moved in the same circles, as Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book allegedly confirms. Recognising another who is utterly transactional and lacking in a moral compass, there’s every chance of “Petie” fitting right in Mar-a-Largo. That Starmer couldn’t anticipate that Mandelson’s past behaviour would be problematic just proves how inept this government is.
    • Can't agree with that because he is a superb communicator - a really smart and  smooth talker. He studied PPE at Oxford and was communications director for Labour for many years.  Setting aside the "minor"  indiscretions during his time in government he has all the smoothness and ability to flatter Trump without appearing obsequious. Plus he can manage and exploit  Trump’s ego. He is highly polished socially, comfortable in elite circles, skilled at making personal connections. He can flatter and disarm, which is a useful tactic with Trump, who responds well to personal respect and praise. As a former EU Trade Commissioner and Cabinet minister, Mandelson understands international relations, trade, and diplomacy. He knows how to frame issues in terms of “wins” that Trump could claim credit for. I honestly hope that he survives.  
    • He is toast  he should never have been appointed  and starmer flannelling about all of this shows exceptionally poor judgement  a disgrace all around 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...