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

Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

pubs.rsna.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 233 posts

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#21

Post by ceejayoz »

dennisnedry wrote: post #12
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see them made available via a prescription for smoking cessation.

I don't understand why making them available via a prescription would solve anything. I do not smoke or vape, but I have a friend who stopped smoking because vaping was accessible without going to a doctor. He just tried it because he wanted to see if it would work, and it did. He no longer vapes or smokes.

The stated concern is e-cigs becoming unavailable to smokers looking to quit. Making it available via a prescription permits that use, while limiting access for recreational uptake by kids.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#22

Post by EpicEng »

ceejayoz wrote: post #20
EpicEng wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. While you're at it, please ban red meat. I eat far too much of it and need to be protected.

If someone starts selling nicotine-laced steaks, I'll be the first to advocate for an FDA crackdown on it.

Nicotine is in the same drug class as caffiene. Want to ban coffee as well?

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#24

Post by throwaway5752 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #9
tinus_hn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be clear that not using electronic cigarettes is better than using them.

The industry is going to fight that conclusion tooth and nail, though, so solid evidence of it is valuable.

Younger users might not have context like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berkshire or the acrimony leading up to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre....

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#25

Post by [deleted] »

dennisnedry wrote: post #12
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see them made available via a prescription for smoking cessation.

I don't understand why making them available via a prescription would solve anything. I do not smoke or vape, but I have a friend who stopped smoking because vaping was accessible without going to a doctor. He just tried it because he wanted to see if it would work, and it did. He no longer vapes or smokes.

[deleted]

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#26

Post by mruts »

program_whiz wrote: post #11

Many people seem to believe that vaping is harmless, this is good to make the point clearly that vaping, while not as harmful as smoking cigarettes, isn't a "cost free" activity. I personally didn't realize that it could have these effects either.

I’m not sure there exists a cost free activity as far as people are concerned.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#27

Post by dumbfoundded »

If you believe E-Cigs are harmless, there's an easy experiment you can do for yourself. Go on a run, time yourself. The next day, vape for 30 min and then go on the same run.

This is what got me to personally switch away from E-Cigs. Vaping would add an additional 30-sec to 1-min per mile on my runs. I try to only use patches or gum now. Still not great but it's a lot better if you're trying to stay in shape.

That being said, if you're only two choices are cigarettes and vaping. Obviously, choose vaping.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#28

Post by wpietri »

aketchum wrote: post #17
oarabbus_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anyone argue they are harmless, just that they are less harmful than actual cigarettes. The problem is that places are banning e-cigs, which presumably drives people back to smoking. Which is worse for everyone.

Anecdotally, I hear many friends say they are harmless. Surprisingly a nurse friend of mine vapes Juuls and isn't worried about the health impacts. I think plenty of people actually take it that since they are not cigarettes and are "just nicotine" they don't worry about their safety.

I too have heard many people say they were harmless.

Regarding your nurse friend, it's not that surprising to me that addicted medical professionals engage in motivated reasoning related to their addictions. It seems like just another version of the classic "I'm fine; I can quit any time" routine.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#29

Post by ceejayoz »

EpicEng wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone starts selling nicotine-laced steaks, I'll be the first to advocate for an FDA crackdown on it.

Nicotine is in the same drug class as caffiene. Want to ban coffee as well?

Plenty of drugs are in the same class with substantially differing impacts - take heroin vs. morphine vs. fentanyl vs. oxycodone as an example, or ask someone taking antipsychotic psych meds if they're all the same.

Or try taking some strychnine because it's an alkaloid like nicotine and caffeine and see how well that works out.

Since you picked coffee as an example, most of the studies I've seen indicate probably health benefits from it. Nicotine it's not.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#30

Post by jforman »

ceejayoz wrote: post #3
bobwaycott wrote: post #2

> ... on healthy non-smokers ... That’s unlikely to be surprising. Would really love to know what the impact is in smokers versus an actual cigarette. Isn’t nicotine already known to have this effect?

It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market. Both are valuable bits of info, but "e-cigs do confirmed damage" is extremely important info from a public health perspective.

It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking.

How can this be clear without long-term usage data?

Post reply on HN