Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace • Hacker News Board

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#261

Post by nemacol » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #142

nemacol wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my experience as well. 10 years of smoking analogs lead me to ecigs. Used ecig for 3 years. Went from 18mg to 0 in the last 6 months of me using. Continued using 0 nic for 2 months. Now I am 8 months clean of all nicotine products and 6 months clean of ecigs in general. It was easy because of how gradual it was and that I was still able to satisfy the oral habit of smoking while kicking the chemical dependenc…

Can you recommend any resources for this? I'd love to encourage some family members in this direction.

My setup was...

Sigelei 50W Watt Box Mod Kanger-subtank with OCC Vertical coil. 0.5 ohm

liquids: Ultimate Kringle (every day juice) Castle Long (every now and then)

As others have replied and as might know, the world of ecigs is rather large, poorly detailed (mostly), and can be expensive to start. That equipment worked really well for me at the time. But the "go to" gear may be different by now - I would stress that you research before you buy.

I have learned everything i know about ecigs from friends, ecigforums, youtube rewviews, and buying a lot of crappy equipment.

best of luck.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#262

Post by nemacol » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

rfrank wrote: post #156

eof wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the ecigaratte subreddits are extremely helpful... they seem to have changed since i was using it (similar story to others.. smoked analogs for a decade, after about 2 years on ecigs I am not vaping or taking any nicotine).. this seems to be the best place: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vaping/ you can get a good setup for ~$50 then the heaviest users will spend like $30/month on juice (most users will spend a fraction of…

/r/electronic_cigarette is the primary ecig subreddit. /r/diy_ejuice is a good resource for people interested in making their own eliquid. can't access the spreadsheet i made at the moment to check, but i pay somewhere in the order of a dollar worth of ingredients for 30ml of juice.

I tried my hand at mixing myself but was not successful. Could not make anything that I considered good. With the goal of simplicity I chose to buy pre-made coils and buy pre-made juice.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#263

Post by nemacol » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

acedinlowball wrote: post #251

SpliffnCola wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend Vapejoose, they have 120ml bottles for $23.99, sometimes $20, and they offer free shipping over $50. Three 120ml bottles last me close to an entire month. Local stores around here are also a rip-off (near Austin, Texas).

360ml a month?? That's more than 10ml a day! I know you're going to disagree and try to convince me otherwise, but that is an INSANE amount of liquid.

Different tanks consume different amounts. If you subohm on a 2+ coil rig you will use a TON of product than 20w mod ever could. Maybe his equipment plays a significant factor into his volume consumed.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#264

Post by EdHominem » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

acedinlowball wrote: post #252

neotek wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor does it mean we should arbitrarily ban or restrict them to satisfy the whims of people who haven't looked at the evidence.

Nor should we assume that people who disagree with us "haven't looked at the evidence"

We should, when they don't present their reasoning. Or when we know they're being financially influenced by "Big Tobacco". Tobacco laws are being driven by religious puritans who hate the idea that someone is enjoying a drug. To them, that's cheating at life by being happy before judgement day. They'll grasp at any straw to advance their agenda of control, even if it means cooperating with "scientists" from tobacco companies.

We should immediately reject all governmental proposals that aren't backed up by rigorous science. Not only would this stop a ton of abuse, but we'd save a fortune in tax money that could then be spent on initiatives that actually save lives.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#265

Post by EdHominem » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 9:54 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #239

neotek wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which toxic drug are you suggesting is present in eliquid? You can't be talking about nicotine, since that's no more toxic than caffeine and is not carcinogenic.

frakr was implying that the ecigs are a gateway drug to cigarettes. Hardcore coffee addicts don't usually end up smoking coffee with 4000 other random addictive chemicals mixed in. And wrt your question, who knows what other chemicals are in ecig juice, as the ingredients seem to be completely unregulated.

Chuckle. Nobody will go from vaping something that tastes like candy to sucking on something that tastes like an ashtray.

Even if they were having a nic fit they'd still vape - you can get stronger fluid and vape more than you can get via smoking without feeling sick.

> I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed...

There's no probably about it. Smoking kills, and we don't see Vaping doing that.

> Just because it may be (and who knows until there are long term studies), doesn't mean as a society we should be encouraging, or even allowing vaping.

So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future?

You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#266

Post by EdHominem » Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #248

zamalek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus the tobacco companies are happy to lobby against e-cigarettes I saw this on Reddit a while back, someone pointed out that "we get it, you vape" was probably introduced by tobacco companies to create a stigma around the practice. I'm a quitting smoker, on vape (RBA) and it bloody works. If only there were such great tools for quitting other addictions.

In my experience the stereotype exists for a reason. Let's take Grover Norquist as an example. The man is a dedicated crusader who hasn't stopped pounding the tax-reform drum for 20 years. Know what he thinks will decide the next election? Know what he was tweeting about during the debates? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grover-norquist-2016-vap... https://twitter.com/grovernorquist/status/780604428751630336 htt…

> In my experience the stereotype exists for a reason.

Oh noes - someone who cares more about something than I do. Time to belittle them to justify my apathy. /s

> No, seriously: we get it, you vape.

These are people who've essentially beat cancer.

But we get it, you'd rather mock sick people.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#267

Post by ythl » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

neotek wrote: post #134

ythl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have any statistics on percentage of vape users quitting analog smoking vs. recreational/teen experimental usage? If there are strong recreational vape trends in youth I can see why anti-vape ads might be a thing.

Teens already experiment with smoking actual cigarettes, all vaping does is provide them with an alternative to experiment with that is far safer and less addicting than tobacco.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-teens-va...

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#268

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

EdHominem wrote: post #265

brokenmachine wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

frakr was implying that the ecigs are a gateway drug to cigarettes. Hardcore coffee addicts don't usually end up smoking coffee with 4000 other random addictive chemicals mixed in. And wrt your question, who knows what other chemicals are in ecig juice, as the ingredients seem to be completely unregulated.

Chuckle. Nobody will go from vaping something that tastes like candy to sucking on something that tastes like an ashtray. Even if they were having a nic fit they'd still vape - you can get stronger fluid and vape more than you can get via smoking without feeling sick. > I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed... There's no probably about it. Smoking kills, and w…

> So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future?

Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.

If you asked me to make a recommendation, it would be to make smoking illegal immediately. It's ridiculous that it's allowed at all, when it kills so many people for no good reason other than "it's not illegal, so get over it". It's so dangerous that it kills thousands of people that don't even do it!

I just don't want to see the horse bolt like it did with smoking. If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet so don't insinuate that has been proven.

Like I said, if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then that's a very low bar indeed.

> You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.

It's a problem with democracy that I want a new drug delivery system to be proven safe before being allowed/recommended?

I find you rude.

Re: Safer to Puff, E-Cigarettes Can’t Shake Their Reputation as a Menace

#269

Post by EdHominem » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #268

EdHominem wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chuckle. Nobody will go from vaping something that tastes like candy to sucking on something that tastes like an ashtray. Even if they were having a nic fit they'd still vape - you can get stronger fluid and vape more than you can get via smoking without feeling sick. > I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed... There's no probably about it. Smoking kills, and w…

> So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future? Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes. If you asked me to make a recommendation, it would be to make smoking illegal immediately . It's ridiculous that it's allowed at all, when it kills so many people for no good reason…

> It's a problem with democracy that I want a new drug delivery system to be proven safe before being allowed/recommended?

100%.

> if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then [...]

That's not the threshold for playground equipment, or shampoo, but for a smoking replacement.

> If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet

Oh yes, we do. I don't have to say rock climbing is safe to know that shark-taunting is unsafe. We have a really good idea how many people die from smoking and we aren't seeing vape users have that issues, or at least not 1/50th as much.

The open questions isn't "is vaping unsafe" but "which fluids are unsafe to breathe the vapors from?" Even if we discovered that propylene glycol is unsafe that doesn't mean the idea of atomizing nicotine is a bad one.

> Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.

Actually, it is exactly that. This isn't a thought problem of "Which drug would you want your citizens to be hooked on," the question is "given that they are already hooked on cigarettes, ...".

> I find you rude.

Another typical liberal thug. Willing to use the might of the government to kill people in the guise of helping, and whose greatest insults are "You hurt my feelings."

I'm sure you do find me rude, but I'd rather hurt the feelings of a few uninvolved busybodies than let the millions of innocent people who got hooked on cigarettes die from cancer.