Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have seen a number of Vaping Adverts on television , on buses and other places and it has made me curious over why a product that contains nicotine, an addictive product, does not conform to the same advertising rules that tobacco companies have to follow.


Admittedly its marginally safer than tobacco based smoking, however it's long term effects and risks haven't been established scientifically yet.


Is it right that we should expose young people to the temptation via advertising rather than trying to steer them away from seeing smoking (in any format) as cool ?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/87289-vaping-adverts/
Share on other sites

Nicotine is still a highly addictive substance though, plus they have all sorts of other additives and are completely unregulated. Let's face it, they're unlikely to be good for you. I'm amazed at how they're being marketed as 'cool'. There are vape cafes springing up now and they're being marketed quite independently of being just a cigarette replacement. The almost inevitable future 'scandal' isn't hard to see coming IMO.

Nicotine on its own is not necessarily addictive or even harmful.


Cigarettes deliver nicotine to the body in a very effective way (via the lining of the lungs) which makes them addictive - they're the crack cocaine of the tobacco world.


It's the inhaling of smoke which is harmful, and tobacco is just a vegetable. You'd get the same risks if you inhaled smouldering pear-tree leaves.


That aside, the studies I've seen show that over 99% of vapers are ex-cigarette smokers (i.e. less than 1% start because of advertising).


That 1% outweighs the potential benefits of getting smokers to switch to vaping (although vaping is not risk-free, but that's nothing to do with the nicotine but with the additional chemicals...)

Hi lowlander, interestingly if you read the discussion by rahrahrah in the post above yours this is evidence that non smokers are taking up Vaping at a rate higher than your post suggests. Maybe you should post a link to the studies you have seen so people can see both sides of the argument?


The issue is should the adverts be allowed especially as they make out it is cool or an advance in technology (although how they can compare Vaping to artificial hands is beyond me....) rather than is it better than smoking a cigarette

I just looked at that link. ASH claim that use of e-cigs amongst 'never smokers' is 'negligible'. They citation on this simply says "Calculations are by ASH. This was done by applying the proportions of e-cigarette use by smoking status in the 2014 YouGov survey to the most recent available ONS mid-year GB population estimates (2012)". This seems rather vague and I certainly don't see how you get your 1% figure from this.


I imagine however, that the overall numbers are relatively small. That said, I would not be surprised given the way these things are being marketed, if we saw the number of people taking up 'vaping' who have never smoked previously, increasing as time goes on. Which is kind of the point re the inappropriateness of the marketing.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.


Not at all - read this.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/


There are many people who use nicotine (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.

So a quick Google, threw up this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review


Seems to back up the view that 'vaping' is relatively benign, so perhaps I'm wrong on this.


Can't help feeling however, that there is a future scandal waiting to break here. Whilst vaping may be better for you than smoking cigarettes (and that's not really a high bar), I still think that such an addictive product should be more cautiously marketed.

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.

>

> Not at all - read this.

>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

> ine-all-bad/

>

> There are many people who use nicotine

> (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.


I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine clearly is an extremely addictive substance and there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason to be wary about this new industry.


Here's what the NHS says on it: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=53

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > > addictive? I think you're mistaken about

> this.

> >

> > Not at all - read this.

> >

> >

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

>

> > ine-all-bad/

> >

> > There are many people who use nicotine

> > (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.

>

> I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine

> clearly is an extremely addictive substance and

> there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact

> that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been

> pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason

> to be wary about this new industry.

>

> Here's what the NHS says on it:

> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=5


I don't disagree. The way cigarettes deliver nicotine is extremely addictive.


But there are many people (well, ~2% of the population) who take snuff or smoke cigars (without inhaling) who don't show signs of addiction.


It's like comparing crack cocaine and tea made from cocoa leaves.


I'll concede, nicotine can be addictive, especially when delivered by cigarettes.


But the article I liked to shows that we need a more educated debate rather than singling out nicotine as the bogeyman.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> This link explains the effect of nicotine itself.

>

> http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksJBlood.html


No, that link shows the effect of smoking on the body. The effect of nicotine itself is far less clear-cut.

Nicotine is pharmacologically considered a drug with high addiction potential. Its effect is receptor-mediated, and the mechanism is well characterised.


The fact that not everyone who smokes becomes addicted is not the definition of addiction. Addiction is relevant not only to dose but to length of exposure (and route of exposure). Also not everyone who smokes crack becomes addicted, but some people are clearly addicted to tea as noted by the physiological withdrawal syndrome.


I agree we need to move away from 'demonising' addiction, as suggested in the SA piece. However, that is a shift in cultural values, and not a statement of the biochemical potential for addiction. The mechanisms for nicotine addiction at the cellular level demonstrate addiction quite clearly both in vitro and in vivo.


I object to the high profile campaigns glamorising the use of e cigarettes. Their advertising should be regulated in the same way as cigarettes. They are now clearly being advertised to non smokers and underage groups. What does a 12 year old girl think when she sees a glamorous woman in an add with an e cig? E cigs make you glamorous? Addiction is beautiful? :-(

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.

>

> Not at all - read this.

>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

> ine-all-bad/

>

> There are many people who use nicotine

> (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.



Are you an ex smoker and now a vaper Lowlander ?

Lowlander- did you not read this bit...First, each time new nicotine arrives in our brain it causes the body to activate its fight or flight stress defenses. This in turn causes the immediate release of stored fats into the bloodstream, fats intended to be used to provide the instant energy needed to either fight or flee the saber tooth tiger. But there is no tiger


The extra food we consumed during our big meals each day was converted to fat and stored. It was then pumped back into our bloodstream with each new puff of nicotine. It's how we were able to skip meals and what causes many of us to experience wild blood sugar swings when trying to quit. In fact, many of the symptoms of withdrawal - like an inability to concentrate - are due to nicotine no longer feeding us while we continue to skip meals.

Try this one then....http://www.livestrong.com/article/192268-the-effects-of-nicotine-on-the-cardiovascular-system/

It might explain why a relative had to have his legs amputated due to smoking, and another relative who brought the wrath of a gynaecologist down on her when her baby was born small for dates because a quarter of her uterus blood supply was severely compromised.

It was shown many years ago that nicotine is as addictive as heroin

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all

I personally have great sympathy with people trying to give up. E-cigs are less harmful as they contain about 90% less carcinogens that have been found in ordinary fags but should not be advertised at all for the reasons that the OP said.

Smoking related diseases cost the NHS billions and in the 70s 80s and 90s there was a massive drive in junior and secondary schools to deter smoking. However, judging by the smoking habits of the Poles and spaniards that I know, this education did not extend much beyond these shores, and our efforts may be wiped out in the NHS.

What we don't have, and I agree with Artful for this reason, is the long-term effect of vaping. Smoking as a habit has a psychological component as well as pharmacological. Does it introduce a behaviour, particularly in the young, that can morph into cigarette smoking later in life?

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> OK, can I make it clear - tobacco, burned and

> inhaled, is lethal (i.e. cigarettes and rolling

> tobacco).

>

> Nicotine on its own is not lethal. And if it is

> ingested in ways other than inhaled is far less

> addictive.


So, are you a vape user ?

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

    • Gone to the better hunting grounds during this local ongoing dry spell.
    • The Dreamliner has an impeccable service history, you are more likely to get mugged on the way to the airport than having any issue with your flight, that's how safe it is!  Have a great trip.
    • Maybe. Does that kill grass? If so, possibly the same dog that has left its poo outside my house - pretty sure it's not fox poo.
    • Here you are, intexasatthemoment (you seem to have been in Texas for a very long time!) We went to three of the recommended places yesterday,  as they were all in the same road (just near Wallington)  and I needed to give the car a run to avoid another slap on the wrist from my garage (and another new battery). Here's my findings. BARNES Parking We thought we would go here first as it was the earliest to close on a Sunday (3pm). There was no apparent entrance or anywhere to park. One notice said do not park on grass verge, and another one said staff cars only! Flittons was opposite but I'd already passed the entrance, so I had to drive down the road, turn round at the next available place (covered in signs saying do not park here) and park in Flittons car park! Plants Barnes  specialise in hardy perennials, so that was basically what they had, but an excellent selection, and many more unusual plants (or at least, plants you probably wouldn't find in a garden centre), eg Corydalis,  lots of different varieties of Epimediums, Trollius, some lovely Phygelius, lots of different ferns). The plants were divided into sections according to whether they needed sun or shade or could cope with both. They had a particularly good selection of  shade loving plants. There was really useful information above  each group of plants, which meant you didn't have to look at individual labels. All the plants looked in good health and  very well cared for. They don't produce a printed catalogue, but they  said their plant list was online (I haven't looked yet). I assume most of  the plants they have at any one time are when it's their flowering season (if they flower). I wasn't intending to buy anything, though was very tempted, but I'd definitely go here again once I've sorted out my overgrown garden. Other Stuff Don't think they sell pots, compost, etc. No cafe/tea room and I didn't see a loo, but Flittons is just over the road. FLITTONS  Parking Easy to park Plants Sorry, but mostly terrible. There was one section with vegetables and the rest was flowering plants. There was a general feeling of delapidation. Some of what was on display was actually dead (surely it would only take a minute to remove dead plants) and a lot of the rest was very poorly maintained, eg gone to seed, weedy, apparently unwatered, or with a lot of dead leaves. There was a notice asking for volunteers to work there, so I can only assume they can't afford to pay staff. Other stuff There was a notice to a play barn (?) saying invited people only, so I think they must host kids' parties or something. They redeemed themselves with a cosy little cafe with savoury stuff, nice cakes, iced chai and oat milk, and a loo. Also a selection of books and CDs on sale for charity. If you want an Andrews Sisters CD, you can find one here. There is a small shop with gift shop type stuff and a display of the history of Flittons, which apparently is family owned since the sixties (I think it was). I suspect that the arrival of Dobbies down the road must have greatly affected Flittons' fortunes, which is sad. DOBBIES  Parking Easy in theory once you had navigated a rather narrow entrance, but it was very busy so it took a while to find a space. Plants  Lots of plants, well maintained but I imagine their turnover is high. Lots of nice bedding plants for hanging baskets, window boxes etc  to cater for all tastes (ie some of it wasn't mine, but fine if you like those horrid little begonias (my opinion only) but they did have some nice (in my opinion) stuff as well. I was tempted but decided to buy from North Cross Road market. Fair selection of climbers, various different Clematis etc. I'd be happy to buy plants from here. The prices seemed reasonable and they were in good condition. Other stuff  It's a big garden centre with all that entails these days, so a large area selling garden furniture and storage, tools, animal collars, pots, all the usual stuff you would expect. Very helpful staff. There's a cafe which we didn't check out, charging points for electric cars, a Waitrose (no idea how big, we didn't look). Only on our way out did we see that there was a drive through "express section" for compost etc, which was annoying as I wanted compost and hadn't seen any anywhere,  but I was getting tired by that time. Just Down the Road A ten minute drive away is Wilderness Island, a nature reserve in Carshalton, which is well worth a visit. We heard eleven different kinds of bird (according to Merlin) and saw a Kingfisher flying down the tiny river!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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