Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

KekDemaga wrote: post #106

EpicEng wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't follow. We know for an absolute fact that cold turkey doesn't work for most people. We also know that many people want to smoke even when knowing the dangers. A safer alternative is working better than anything before it ever has.

>We know for an absolute fact that cold turkey doesn't work for most people. No, you know that most people who attempt to quit "cold turkey" decide that quitting smoking permanently isn't as important as relieving their current symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Its a minor point but an important distinction.

So, in other words... it doesn't work. Yours is in fact a completely unimportant distinction unless you're using it to support ecigs because...

...guess what they get with ecigs? A far safer alternative which allows them to continue their nicotine habit and enjoy the pleasures of smoking. So you're in support of ecigs now?

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

#112

Post by grasshopperpurp » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

whipoodle wrote: post #51

alexanderstears wrote: post #36

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…

Yes, there is so much public material implying that e-cigs are basically just as bad. It seems so irresponsible to me. I think in part it's driven by how low-status smoking is these days, to the point that some people even hate the optics of it. It looks like smoking so it must be just as bad, or close.

>Yes, there is so much public material implying that e-cigs are basically just as bad. It seems so irresponsible to me.

Which material are you referring to? This is an outrageous claim.

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

#113

Post by hwillis » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #42

melq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is vaping unhealthy because nicotine is inherently unhealthy or are there other harms associated with vaping itself? Need to quit smoking cigarettes myself.

With cigarettes, it's the burning that creates the issue, as the excessive amounts of heat create the carcinogens and the smoke.

It's not just the burning, many toxic chemicals are already present and the processing[1] makes it worse. The processing converts things like nicotine, and happens at relatively low temperatures- lower than those in vaporizers. Plus, keep in mind that nicotine is in tobacco as a poison for insects. Tobacco doesn't want to be consumed by humans either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines

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

#114

Post by whipoodle » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:58 PM UTC

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #112

whipoodle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is so much public material implying that e-cigs are basically just as bad. It seems so irresponsible to me. I think in part it's driven by how low-status smoking is these days, to the point that some people even hate the optics of it. It looks like smoking so it must be just as bad, or close.

>Yes, there is so much public material implying that e-cigs are basically just as bad. It seems so irresponsible to me. Which material are you referring to? This is an outrageous claim.

Public service billboards, ads on buses, things like that. They don't claim it directly- they imply it by saying that smoking is bad, but so is vaping, so don't let your kids vape. Things like that.

Look at this: http://stillblowingsmoke.org/ I mean right off the bat they're calling it smoke. That is so obviously an attempt to link e-cigs to tobacco. Hell, they even use the word tobacco on the page.

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

#115

Post by KekDemaga » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #111

KekDemaga wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We know for an absolute fact that cold turkey doesn't work for most people. No, you know that most people who attempt to quit "cold turkey" decide that quitting smoking permanently isn't as important as relieving their current symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Its a minor point but an important distinction.

So, in other words... it doesn't work. Yours is in fact a completely unimportant distinction unless you're using it to support ecigs because... ...guess what they get with ecigs? A far safer alternative which allows them to continue their nicotine habit and enjoy the pleasures of smoking. So you're in support of ecigs now?

People should be able to consume what they want, but what you argue is like saying a chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer because patients give up on it after it makes them feel ill.

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

#116

Post by grasshopperpurp » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #26

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #2

"Cold turkey is best way to quit smoking, study says" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/health/quit-smoking-cold-t... Not convinced switching people to a just as addicting, just as nasty way of killing themselves slowly is any better.

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?

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

#117

Post by tlb » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

j0rd wrote: post #77

tlb wrote: 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…

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 industry bifurcated, with one segment trying to maximize safety while still being fun, and the other focused on looking bad-ass with little regard for stability. That's a possible outcome for e-cigs, with some medical-grade and some vape-nation-grade.

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

#118

Post by hfourm » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #80

hfourm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#119

Post by hfourm » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 7:07 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #47

hfourm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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.

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

#120

Post by hfourm » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #58

hfourm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lung cancer is known to be caused by carcinogens in smoke, vapor is not smoke, you cannot simply transfer the ills of smoking to vaping just because. Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking. All apparent evidence is that vaping appears vastly healthier than smoking and there's no reason yet to believe vapor is harmful to the lungs; you breath water vapo…

There is a lot of wrong in this comment. While I agree with most of your sentiment about vaping being a safer alternative, it is wrong to assume that the chemicals introduced via vaping are not carcinogenic because there is no smoke.