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

    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
    • Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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