Vaping adverts

[TheArtfulDogger]

I think he's more of a politician Seabag as he has ignored or failed to answer the question....

[Seabag]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> I think he's more of a politician Seabag as he has

> ignored or failed to answer the question....

He's got the ring of an ex-smoker about him

I may be wrong doh

[Lowlander]

No, I'm neither a vapour or a politician 😀

I do smoke about 10 cigars a year though (no inhaling). So I get a regular nicotine fix without the addiction.

[TheArtfulDogger]

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.

[uncleglen]

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/

[Lowlander]

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.

[Seabag]

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

[TheArtfulDogger]

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)

[Guest]

I read an article earlier today saying that it causes some sort of damge to the lungs.

[wrightstuff18]

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

[TheArtfulDogger]

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?

[uncleglen]

I can't believe they showed an ad for them during Countdown. Most teachers I know actively encourage Countdown...

[TheArtfulDogger]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I can't believe they showed an ad for them during

> Countdown. Most teachers I know actively encourage

> Countdown...

Exactly !

[Saffron]

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.

[malumbu]

Its all to do with big business pushing drugs isn't it?

[Jah Lush]

Scientist debunks claims that e-cigarettes are as dangerous as tobacco.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/scientist-debunks-latest-claim-that-e-cigarettes-are-as-dangerous-as-tobacco/

[Blah Blah]

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.

[malumbu]

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.

[LondonMix]

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.

[LondonMix]

Personally, vaping shouldn't be advertised as anything beyond a replacement for cigarettes and an aid for quitting like nicorette and the patch. Trying to sell it independent of its only legitimate use is clearly reckless and should not be allowed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Saffron]

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.

[Jah Lush]

Hey! Don't shoot me. I went with the article's headline.

[Jah Lush]

As an aside I stopped smoking on November 10th. I'm not using e cigs or vaps. I've gone completely cold turkey and it seems to be working though I miss those lovely cancer sticks every single damned day.

[LondonMix]

Well done Jah Lush. I can't imagine the the willpower!