Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

in.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

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

#131

Post by andy_ppp »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #116
andy_ppp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has recently quit cold turkey I totally agree with you. Learning the skill of changing difficult habits is part of the process of giving up. A lot of addiction is learning to control what you want to believe, building startups is too, being happy also, papering over the cracks by adding a new addiction I would say is harmful on many levels. I say deal with the smoking addiction finally once and for all…

Should we take the same approach with heroin addicts?

Yes, we tried methadone and it makes them worse and more compulsive than giving them heroin.

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

#132

Post by refurb »

hfourm wrote: post #118
refurb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages. We do that all the time. Ever worked in a newly constructed building? Wondering what that smell is? Plasticizers, monomers, adhesive solvents, etc. Same with a new car. Or cooking over the stove, bbq'ing. Or walking down a busy street with cars on it. Just because you are inhaling "foreign chemicals" doesn't mean there are signif…

It doesn't mean they are safe either. The difference between these situations and vaping are, vaping you are doing intentionally and habitually.

I agree, but people who vape are (generally) moving from something that has a lot of known risk. Moving from smoking tobacco to vaping is likely orders of magnitude lower risk, just from the fact combustion isn't happening.

I agree that we should get more information about the risk of vaping, but the wholesale banning of vaping is likely to be more harmful than just leaving things as is.[1]

[1]Not saying you are arguing for banning vaping, but FDA did take that position originally until they got smacked down

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

#133

Post by mistercow »

aphextron wrote: post #57
mistercow wrote: post #43

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…

"Could be even more dangerous in the long run" is about on the same level of plausibility as vaping actually being healthier than not smoking or vaping. Sure, it's possible, but there's no good reason to think it's true.

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

#134

Post by Frondo »

gnaritas wrote: post #124
amyjess wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. It substantially increases the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis, especially when combined with another chemical that produces clotting enzymes, such as estrogen. Speaking of estrogen, nicotine also antagonizes the estrogen receptor, which is pretty bad if you're a woman. Ever notice h…

And too much water will kill you; too much of anything is bad, the question is in what amount. However, I was unaware of the estrogen thing, very interesting, you do see that in women. As for it being a vasoconstrictor, so is caffeine and any number of other stimulants, that itself in not inherently bad, it's simply an effect.

Haha, I just have to comment that this is the funniest whataboutism I've ever seen:

"Nicotine is bad for you."

"What about water??"

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

#135

Post by tinus_hn »

hfourm wrote: post #25
gnaritas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaping definitely isn't healthy That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages. How is that a bold statement? People run around vaping like there are zero consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if research eventually emerges saying certain lower quality fillers/vape mixtures will result in mechanical damage and cancer of the lungs and esophagus. Something similar was apparent with flavoring agents being u…

Uh oh, you’ve triggered the vaping police!

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

#136

Post by j0rd »

snuxoll wrote: post #94
j0rd wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it stops innovation. Ni200 which is a pure nickel wire was invented for temperature control. Required a specific device and chip to use as it has almost 0 resistance. Some stupid uneducated people or vendors sold it and and used it in non temperature controlled devices and poisoined themselves (not fatally), or blew up their batteries on non-regulated devices. I just started vaping last month, and while I bou…

316L stainless steel is a much safer option than Ni200 or titanium wire, shame it's not more commonly used (Kangertech sells 316L coils, but they're awfully hard to find compared to the Ni200 ones).

Personally use SS316L now. Hard to find though.

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

#137

Post by j0rd »

hfourm wrote: post #119
gozur88 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I wouldn't be surprised..." isn't really a strong enough sentiment to support the statement "vaping definitely isn't healthy". At the moment, the harms of vaping are speculative.

Actually, as I already mentioned, there are cases with flavoring additives and other chemicals in the vape causing lung disease and other problems. I don't have it offhand but google should help you. My sentiment is more about where I think the research will go.

Popcorn Lung is the only thing I've seen in my research

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flavorings/

I'd be interested to hear of more.

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

#138

Post by dsfyu404ed »

tlb wrote: post #117
j0rd wrote: 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…

The tobacco industry has completely failed to improve safety, because [long historical discussion elided]. There are lots of dubious additives in cigarettes that might enhance the flavor somewhat, but don't seem worth the health risks. I worry that the e-cig industry will go the same way, if we take the view "there's something inherently unsafe about it, so users forfeit all their rights to safety". The motorcycle in…

>there's something inherently unsafe about it, so users forfeit all their rights to safety

I absolutely hate when this happens via regulation.

Consumers should be presented the information required to choose for themselves. If people aren't making the choice other people want them to make then incentives and presenting information that pushes people toward the "right" choice is still better than legislating what a product must do.

Let people choose but incentivize the right choice.

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

#139

Post by Ascetik »

josefresco wrote: post #40
Ascetik wrote: post #19

I use nasal snuff, the least damaging and least intrusive form of tobacco use. I vaped pretty hardcore for 3 or 4 years, it definitely has an effect on your lungs, especially if you're into dual-coil sub-ohm builds and all that jazz. Nasal snuff has been a God-send and is much more enjoyable, at least to me. I still smoke a nice briar pipe with a few different pipe tobacco blends on occasion, but nasal snuff has defi…

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

Not really.

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

#140

Post by Ascetik »

wu_tang_chris wrote: post #76
Ascetik wrote: post #19

I use nasal snuff, the least damaging and least intrusive form of tobacco use. I vaped pretty hardcore for 3 or 4 years, it definitely has an effect on your lungs, especially if you're into dual-coil sub-ohm builds and all that jazz. Nasal snuff has been a God-send and is much more enjoyable, at least to me. I still smoke a nice briar pipe with a few different pipe tobacco blends on occasion, but nasal snuff has defi…

What is a brand of nasal snuff you'd recommend?

Anything by Poschl, Wilsons of Sharrow, or Ozona. There are many good brands though. Some of the recipes date back to the 1700's. In the states it is harder to get snuff though unless you want an American Scotch, which is smokey flavored, they are ok, but the Euro snuffs are much more enjoyable. https://www.mrsnuff.com is the site I use for getting European snuffs in the states.
Post reply on HN