Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ho Lowlander


Thank you for the answer, the fact that you do or don't smoke isn't relevant but it's useful to know where you are coming from in this discussion concerning the question on should Vaping adverts be regulated in the same way smoking adverts are.

Jim the chin is right about the behaviourial aspects- the Smoky Joe's at my school was where all the 'cool' kids hung out- it's where I had my first fag and there was a certain camaraderie around handing out fags, giving a light....not helped by '50s films and subsequent advertising. I saw my first vaping ad yesterday and was taken aback...

who could resist http://vaping360.com/uk-shows-first-vaping-adverts-tv/

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Ho Lowlander

>

> Thank you for the answer, the fact that you do or

> don't smoke isn't relevant but it's useful to know

> where you are coming from in this discussion

> concerning the question on should Vaping adverts

> be regulated in the same way smoking adverts are.


I think they should be banned. Same with alcohol advertising.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Jim the chin is right about the behaviourial

> aspects- the Smoky Joe's at my school was where

> all the 'cool' kids hung out- it's where I had my

> first fag and there was a certain camaraderie

> around handing out fags, giving a light....not

> helped by '50s films and subsequent advertising. I

> saw my first vaping ad yesterday and was taken

> aback...

> who could resist

> http://vaping360.com/uk-shows-first-vaping-adverts

> -tv/


I'm highly likely to 'get mine out' after this ad


Blimey

Lord above


Mine exploded in my trousers whilst I watched it...


I got sticky tarry nicotine everywhere now...


They need to be banned as it makes me want to vape with her.... And I don't smoke (well not since I escaped from the science lab that is)

I see you have come up with all this information yourself!


Fact is the NHS have made it a prescription medication so i would chck your facts Mr. E Cigarettes are not marginally better - they are 97% better thank conventional cigarettes.


Stick that in your pipe and vape it!


Yours Truly

Fact Finder

wrightstuff18 Wrote:

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

> I see you have come up with all this information

> yourself!

>

> Fact is the NHS have made it a prescription

> medication so i would chck your facts Mr. E

> Cigarettes are not marginally better - they are

> 97% better thank conventional cigarettes.

>

> Stick that in your pipe and vape it!

>

> Yours Truly

> Fact Finder


Great spelling from someone who appears to be an angry young man, no one is denying that compared to smoking a normal cigerrete they are better for you, but compared to not smoking at all they have to be bad for you (even if according to your stats it is only 3% worse !)


Again, back to the topic in question, should the adverts be allowed or regulated in the same way as normal tobacco adverts as they currently appear to make it look cool and sexy which will attract younger non smokers to try Vaping?

The lungs are highly reactive tissue, which is slow to heal, since secretory cells have to differentiate into gas-exchanging cells to replace damaged cells. So it follows that anything reaching the lungs, which is not highly biocompatible, will lead to reactionary cellular responses (ie inflammation/immune activation).


Ecigs are full of multiple chemicals. No surprise they're being associated with lung damage. They should absolutely be subject to the same advertising control as cigarettes.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.2015.188001019/abstract;jsessionid=059BD583404B1578989D89FB575D780D.f04t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=


http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/02February/Pages/E-cigarettes-may-make-lungs-vulnerable-to-infection.aspx


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116732


It's irresponsible to advertise ecigs, where underage and vulnerable populations can easily be given the message that these are 'safe' or 'cool'.


I think all drugs should be legalised. I don't think they should be advertised.

E-cigarettes are still facilitating the main addictive element of smoking - i.e nocotine. So the question should be whether or not it's ok to advertise/ glamourise an addictive substance. It's a grey area because there's no doubt that the smoke inhaled from tobacco is carcinogenic and e-cigarettes are a better altenative. But at the same time, the same industry that sexed up tobacco to turn everyone into smokers, is now producing e-cigarettes. Those are companies whom have never cared about the health of their customers. The question therefore is whether people who would never have taken up smoking, will take up e-cigarettes. That's impossible to know right now, but that for me is where the danger in glamourous advertising lies. Personally I'd keep those ads off the telly and treat e-cigs under the same legislation as tobacco advertising.

Years ago there was discussion about glamerising smoking with the industry and many others saying that it did not attract kids and new smokers (it was just getting people to switch brands).


And then that putting death on packets didn't make a difference (with reference to an e-mail from an Aussie civil servant) and that banning smoking from indoor public areas was a an infringement of civil liberties etc etc.


But what wonders some hard interventions have done, even many hardened smokers now go outside rather than inflict non smokers and particularly kids with their poison. Aren't pubs and restaurants (and the top deck of pubs and tubes) so much nicer now.


I recall decades ago stuff on the tobacco industry having then to prey on developing countries to make up for lost revenue.


And now, yippee, they can make up for it with a new legal high.


Lets just be honnest please. Wouldn't it be great if big retailers including airports (duty free shops) made a stand.

Are you serious. Nicotine at high doses is lethal and nicotine poisoning can happen at relatively low concentrations in small children.



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.

Saw this today : http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/30/e-cigarettes-may-be-no-better-than-regular-cigarettes

Certainly not definitive, but further reason to be cautious. As I said earlier, I would not surprised to see more evidence of negative health effects emerging at time goes on.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Scientist debunks claims that e-cigarettes are as

> dangerous as tobacco.

>

> http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/scientist-debunk

> s-latest-claim-that-e-cigarettes-are-as-dangerous-

> as-tobacco/


Your statement is misrepresenting that article somewhat. The article is about scientific criticism of one small but highly publicised study. The interpretation of the study is up for academic debate, but nothing is either confirmed or debunked, beyond the authors' own scopes in the study or its criticism.


Personally, I'm beginning to think we don't know enough about the long term effects of ecigs to draw any firm conclusions of safety because ecigs have changed massively since their inception, now including many different chemicals beyond nicotine alone. It should be worrying to anyone concerned about public health that ANY toxic effects are noted. Are ecigs a 'safe' alternative to smoking? They are, if anything, a marginally less toxic way of supporting nicotine addiction.

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

    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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