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

    • In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River. When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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