E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

[Herbert]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Electronics Cigarettes are no different that regular cigarettes.

Actually, that's factually untrue on pretty much every level. See our resident sea witch for further guidance.

[Bartmanhomer]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Actually, that's factually untrue on pretty much every level. See our resident sea witch for further guidance.

Explain yourself please.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Explain yourself please.

Translation: see what Thalassa wrote a few entries ago.

[Briton]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Thank you, thal, for going to such effort that I wish I had the energy for, myself.

To say e-cigarettes are no different from normal cigarettes is just madness. What radioactive pesticides go into e-cigs? Quite.

[EndlessCravings]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Electronics Cigarettes are no different that regular cigarettes.

Lol, at least with E-Cigs you're not inhaling all that tar. So it's better in more way than one, I'm sure.

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

As far as ingesting any chemical,there is no actual safe amount,BUT there are degrees that differ between Cigs,and E-cigs. Even if E-cigs ONLY(not actually proven) have nicotine,that is still considered a poison. My experience with E-cigs tended to be my way of cutting down,AND eventually quiting completely. For myself nothing worked as to my quitting before,but E-cigs did the trick. Think lesser of two evils..

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Lemme stab you with this butter knife. About an hour later you have a stab wound.
Lemme stab you with this sharp knife. In about a minute you have a stab wound.

You have a stab wound. The end.

[Spiny Norman]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Think lesser of two evils..

Absolutely.

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I always think about life as this Gauntlet,that you must pass through to obtain old age. Along the way you may have many close calls,and drinking and smoking and perhaps a few internal dangers your parents passed on to you. I have seen young people die from stupid,and just from plain dumb luck. Others push the limits to the edge and survive,and I become aware that life is a crap shoot. It will be humorous if I reach 80,and then die from someone dropping a penny from a tall building and it hits me square on my head..Cause life is kinda like that...

[Bartmanhomer]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I just don't see how e-cigarettes be more healthy than regular cigarettes. You still get cancer anyway. So I'm going to oppose it.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Thanks thalassa for that. I'm not gonna quote your whole response since it was so long. I will say you have changed my mind that electric cigarettes are completely safe, as I didn't know squat about toxicology. But I will say this, you said propylene glycol will eventually kill you. I'm not sure if you meant from long term use, as you stated it CAN not WILL cause target organ damage, or if you meant that it will kill you if you consumed a lethal quantity. Yet later you state "the overall health effects are mild or negligible for most people. But not for everyone." Which i agree with. But then you state we should treat it(socialy) like smoking when we know the health effects of smoking are not negligible for most people. This is the "it looks like smoking treat it like smoking" mentality I was talking about. There are literally thousands and thousands of new chemicals used in commecial products each year. I say we invest in studying them all to determine how bad they are before they are used, we don't, but we should. But things we have studied and that you yourself think has negligible health risk just shouldn't be put in the same category as smoking.

I still think if someone told me it bothered their asthma I wouldn't do it around them. However, there are places that allow vaping and places that don't. If the same person repeatedly came up to me on many different occasions in a place that allowed vaping asking me to stop I eventually would ignore them since they know full well there are coming to a place that allows it. I mean to some people perfume is a trigger for asthma. Would they continue going to a restaurant with a waitress wearing strong perfume once they know about it or would they just go to a different place.


Also I'm not sure of the studies that scientific american was quoting from about carcinogens in e-cig vapor, or their dates. But I do know that some studies were done, years ago, when e-cigs were first becoming popular, and some NOT ALL of the vaporizers they they tested released carcinogens. Since that time manufactures have taken steps to correct this. At least thats what I read. The e-cig companies, many of them anyway, are committed to a safe product and I'm sure they don't want lawsuits. But it seems to me this is a good place for government regulation and testing of different e-cig vaporizers to determine if they do infact contain carcinogens and label them carcinogen, tin nanopartical, or whatever free.

Ultimitly its my choice if I want to vape and take the risk, and it's other peoples choice to go places that allow it or not to.

[Bartmanhomer]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

All I know that both regular cigarettes and electronics cigarettes can cause cancer and people can die from it. I never smoke and I'm not going to.

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

All I know that both regular cigarettes and electronics cigarettes can cause cancer and people can die from it. I never smoke and I'm not going to.

How do you know e cigs cause cancer?

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

How do you know e cigs cause cancer?

I know that on the site I buy my e-liquid from, that also sells e-cigs, they have a FAQ. In that FAQ one of the questions is: do electric cigarettes cause cancer?

The answer:
Though testing by the FDA and other labs have discovered trace amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are known to cause cancer with high exposure, the amounts found were extremely low and unlikely to cause cancer. To put it in perspective, an e-cigarette contains nearly the exact same trace levels of nitrosamines as the FDA-approved nicotine patch and about 1,300 times less nitrosamines than a Marlboro cigarette.

Doing the math on that, for me, as a one time pack a day smoker, I can vape for 65 days and get as much nitrosamines carcinogens as a single cigarette. In other words according to the FDA 10 years of a pack/day worth of vaping equals the nitrosamines of 56 cigarettes and cigarettes contain more carcinogens than just nitrosamines. Think about that 10 years of vaping equals the same amount of nitrosamines as less than 3 days of smoking. And that doesn't count all the other carcinogens in cigarettes, of which there are 68, including lead, formaldehyde, benzine and arsenic, that e-cigs don't have.

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Whatever you need to tell yourself is fine with me.