Live data from Hacker News

Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

in.reuters.com

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#81

e-cigs are not the answer: See FDA [1]. An intervention that has proved effective for saving lives from tobacco use is MPOWER from the World Health Organization. Raise the cost of tobacco through taxes, ban smoking in public places, hard-hitting, scary, anti-smoking ads, doctors talking to their patients about quitting, nicotine replacement therapy, telephone counseling support. In NYC the age for purchase is 21 as i…

nicotine replacement therapy

That's what e-cigs are.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker. It's clearly vastly safer than smoking. Any smoker who switched can tell you how they're starting to be able to breath well again, the smokers cough is going away, the lungs feel better and not full of shit. Yes, eciggs may still be more dangerous than nothing, but smokers aren't approaching it…

>"There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker." I was responding the the OP's statement that saying e-cigarrets were unhealthy was a bold claim. There are always things that might be considered less harmful but that does not mean they are considered healthy.

Might and may are one thing, the OP said definitely, and that's a bold claim as we don't yet know if it's definitely anything. Had he even said probably that'd be ok, but definitely, no, that's not supportable.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#83
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL ... about Nasal Snuff. Didn't even know this was a thing - do you get weird looks in public?

Called Snus. Banned in EU, but supposedly one of the healthiest nicotine injestion methods. Most people would puke if they tried it :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

Non-mobile link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source on that claim? I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the cardiovascular effects of smoking , and attributing all of those effects to nicotine, which is incorrect. Everything I've read on the subject indicates that nicotine's role in cardiovascular disease is quite minor.

http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/6/9/e006579 "Acute exposure to electronic cigarettes with nicotine increases cardiac sympathetic nerve activity in a pattern of heart rate variability that recapitulates the same heart rate variability pattern associated with increased cardiac risk in multiple populations with and without known cardiac disease." I'm not arguing that e-cigs may not be healthier than smoking tobacco…

Like the other responder: you took a medical article and tried to make a conclusion about human health that is not really warranted.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#85
Yeah. I hate cigarette smoke with a passion but don't care if e-cigs puff all they want because it has almost no odor and little/no noxious particles. Therefore, it makes sense to tax the heck out of cigarettes and place them in anti-marketing packaging, and perhaps subsidize (no sales tax/VAT) e-cigs. Cigarettes are engineered to be as addictive as heroin, but Prohibition is never a good solution, so the best compromise is something like e-cigs which solves both harm-, litter and nuisance-reduction.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#86
post #64

Our society's tendency to moralize or rationalize issues has made it tough to talk about harm reduction. Moralizers focus on the corrosive elements of addiction and rationalizers say that e-cigs are still harmful but they miss the point that many people who smoke e-cigs are better off than they would be if they used cigs to get their nicotine. E-cigs offer a better path to cessation through better control of the nico…

I didn't think the regulations were heavy-handed. Such devices should be tested and certified to make sure they aren't, for example, leaching heavy metals into the liquid and vaporizing it. Devices sold with cadmium-plated heating coils or lead solder joints could easily poison millions of people, so I think it's reasonable to require safety testing.

[deleted]

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#87
post #77
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't think the regulations were heavy-handed. Such devices should be tested and certified to make sure they aren't, for example, leaching heavy metals into the liquid and vaporizing it. Devices sold with cadmium-plated heating coils or lead solder joints could easily poison millions of people, so I think it's reasonable to require safety testing.

I personally think ecigs are an interesting experiment in free markets. A bunch of like minded people who had a habbit which was the leading cause of preventable death coming together to figure out a way to kill themselves less. Have there been things in the industry which were poisonous and could kill you over the course of it's history. Yes. Lots. Have those been slowly fased out as concerned consumers voice opinio…

So your argument is that because e-cig users are coming from one harmful product, that we should do nothing to prevent the new product from causing undue harm, and that eventually (decades?) e-cigs will become safer because someone (who?) will eventually phase out the harmful ones?

Why not stop wasting time and lives, and prevent the harmful ones from being produced/released?

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. Even vaping 0mg nicotine is bad for you, but not nearly as bad as smoking.

What are the health risks of vaping with non-nicotine-containing fluid? I thought that it was just atomized vegetable glycerin with a bit of flavoring, but I've not done much research into the matter.

Personal anecdote: I was never a cigarette smoker, but I started vaping because I tried a friend's vape once and liked it.

I am a pretty serious athlete. Vaping - whether it was 3mg or 0mg e-juice - fucked with my lungs pretty badly, and caused a noticeable drop in athletic performance. Also made me feel way less motivated to lift weights and train, which I chalked up to the instant gratification of nicotine. When I did lift weights and train, I always felt like I wasn't able to give 100%.

I quit, but goddamn it was a pain in the ass to quit. It's not even the nicotine I miss, really, so much as it is the whole experience. The heat, the vapor, the flavor, the habit.

Friends of mine that have switched from smoking cigarettes to vaping e-juice have reported an increase in cardiovascular capacity; but as a non-smoker that started vaping, I definitely noticed decreased performance.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. Even vaping 0mg nicotine is bad for you, but not nearly as bad as smoking.

What are the health risks of vaping with non-nicotine-containing fluid? I thought that it was just atomized vegetable glycerin with a bit of flavoring, but I've not done much research into the matter.

The current concern is metal nanoparticles coming off of the heating coils.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#90
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think ecigs are an interesting experiment in free markets. A bunch of like minded people who had a habbit which was the leading cause of preventable death coming together to figure out a way to kill themselves less. Have there been things in the industry which were poisonous and could kill you over the course of it's history. Yes. Lots. Have those been slowly fased out as concerned consumers voice opinio…

So your argument is that because e-cig users are coming from one harmful product, that we should do nothing to prevent the new product from causing undue harm, and that eventually (decades?) e-cigs will become safer because someone (who?) will eventually phase out the harmful ones? Why not stop wasting time and lives, and prevent the harmful ones from being produced/released?

I think regulations are certainly warranted, but the ones the FDA has implemented are heavy handed. I don't think anyone in the industry is opposed to common sense regulations.
Post reply on HN