We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → E-Cigarettes
| 36 | 5107 |
"Tobacco is a dirty weed. I like it.
It satisfies no normal need. I like it.
It makes you thin, it makes you lean,
It takes the hair right off your bean
It's the worst darn stuff I've ever seen.
I like it. "
~Graham Lee Hemminger, Tobacco
E-cigarettes - tricky little buggers that are the latest fad. Battery powered, vaporizing a mixture of nicotine and flavourings or a vapour without the nicotine. Proclaimed as the invention that will save smokers from a choking, painful, shortened life.
Well, they sound very tantalising, but should they be cracked down upon harder than what is currently the norm? It would make a very good alternative for smokers, and definitely go a long way in helping them quit overall. But it glamorises smoking to a new degree, much like the Malboro Man. They're relatively cheaper, have a much less stained reputation, and are well....sexier? They're manufactured in newer, savvier flavours, Cherry, Pina Colada, Peach Schnapps just to name a few, and undoubtedly it draws in the curious, especially the young. And whilst undeniably they're much healthier than a pack of Camels, lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke for years will still have health repercussions. And studies are still in short supply since they've only recently came into the limelight.
So, your thoughts?
- 36 Replies
you think it is water? your wrong.
nobody would pay 6,45 a week if you can refill it at home.
sorry your wrong.. very wrong.
The liquid is propylene glycol, but it emits water vapor.
The liquid is propylene glycol, but it emits water vapor.
that is propylene Oxide dissolved in water.
propylene Oxide is used in the production of plastics and can cause cancer.
call me crazy, but i dont believe that just water and heat breaks down everything bad in it.
How do you keep missing the point? Nicotine is a toxin. a single gram of pure nicotine can kill an adult, even one with high tolerance. The liquid contents stored in the "electronic cigarette" consist of a small quantity of nicotine dissolved in a solution along with any other agents, such as the flavouring. This solution is generally known to the layman as water.
1 i dont care what nicotine is. (i think everyone knows already)
2 you just acknowledged that there is more in it then just water. how are you so sure that all these other ingredients also turn in just steam when they get heated?
3 i read what you write as a whole part, but i like to cut it down and reply on the most relative sentences, to keep it clear on what i reply. and so i dont have to do these number thingy's. i hate them as much as you do.
what they're getting at is that smoke has all sorts of flame by products that heated liquids do not. The ash and soot are a major player in what makes smoking cigarettes bad for the body. Those PARTICULAR (gettit? particles...) aspects of smoking are not found in ecigs... but that doesn't mean that all of chemicals are gone from the mixture.
indeed, "they" focus on comparing it with normal smoking.
i'm not comparing it since i know it's better. i focus on the possible bad sides of the ecigs. (hey, why didn't i think of that name myself sooner. xD thx.)
2 you just acknowledged that there is more in it then just water. how are you so sure that all these other ingredients also turn in just steam when they get heated?
I aknowledged this from the start, so any confusion must have been on your end.
3 i read what you write as a whole part, but i like to cut it down and reply on the most relative sentences, to keep it clear on what i reply. and so i dont have to do these number thingy's. i hate them as much as you do.
1 I have no grievance with numbered lists.
2 You broke it down in a way that took some parts out of context.
i'm not comparing it since i know it's better. i focus on the possible bad sides of the ecigs.
Then you're preaching to the choir.
@FishPreferred
Oops, yes you're right, there isn't smoke present, the soot and the ash burning form a normal cigarette. Learnt something new today!
As for people quitting smoking normal cigarettes due to e-cigarettes over time, I read this in Bloomberg, not sure if wholly true: A study found that an e-cigarette rigged to deliver ''minimal'' nicotine could reduce cravings in a substantial minority of nicotine. V2Cigs', one of the company's that sells e-cigarettes, estimates that whole half of their customers use their products to replace cigarettes, about one quarter start at the higher concentration and work their way down towards the no-nicotine version, at which point some stop entirely, whilst others keep buying the nicotine free ones.
Rather vague, but that's what I have so far. Waiting to see in a couple of years' time.
Can't say I've followed all the ensuing arguments.
[quote=FishPreferred]Smoke is not an issue. It's just a heated vapour that looks like smoke.[/quote]
If I recall well, one of the issues under consideration over here is in fact that there are still issues with the inhalation of fumes resulting from a burning process.
[quote=partydevil]every parent that allowes their child to use it, simply does not feel any responsibility as a parent... [/quote]
When I took up smoking tobacco at age thirteen or so, my parents neither knew nor then consented to it.
Nor do I imagine their prohibiting it if they had would have made much of a difference. And so indeed they didn't, once it came to light, some years later.
When I took up smoking tobacco at age thirteen or so, my parents neither knew nor then consented to it.
oh they knew... the smell gets into anything. if your mom was doing your wash at the time, then i'm 100% sure she knew it.
Nor do I imagine their prohibiting it if they had would have made much of a difference.
yea that are the teenage years =P but for a 13 year old i imagion that a ecig wouldn't be a fancy thingy to show off. but more something dull and stupid.. (arn't you cool enough to smoke for real??? that kinda stuff.)
with kids i mend younger then 11 or so i think. i started smoking 1st time when i was 8. and my mom prohibiting it surely worked (untill i was 15). at that age people still listen to their parents. =)
If I recall well, one of the issues under consideration over here is in fact that there are still issues with the inhalation of fumes resulting from a burning process.
This is exactly why smoke is not an issue for an inhalant which does not rely upon a burning process.
but more something dull and stupid.. (arn't you cool enough to smoke for real??? that kinda stuff.)
Do people really say things like that? Why is being enslaved by one branch of the industry more dull, stupid, and uncool than being enslaved by another?
Nor do I imagine their prohibiting it if they had would have made much of a difference. And so indeed they didn't, once it came to light, some years later.
Nice unintentional pun there mate.
Do people really say things like that?
yes, and maybe not exactly those worss but you and everyone here knows what i mean.. no need to be nid picking only cause you think your "winning" i simply dont care so much anymore to really get in discussion on this site. that time is over. now i just give my opinion and you guys seek what your gonna do with it.
yes, and maybe not exactly those worss but you and everyone here knows what i mean
You shouldn't assume that. I don't associate with people while they're smoking, so I wouldn't know exactly. Plus, it's a truly ridiculous suggestion; that you need to be stinking of smoke and chronically short of breath to be cool.
no need to be nid picking only cause you think your "winning"
Winning is for a debate team. I'm here to argue, not debate. Being right just means having some piece of information the other party doesn't...and then giving it to them.
On a related note, The topic of second hand exposure needs to be addressed. If any of you heard the American statistic claiming that secondhand smoke kills 50,000 people every year, it is important to note that this statistic was based from an EPA statistic that claimed it was responsible for the death of 3,000 people every year. When this original report was published, the EPA's statistic was scrutinized, and then was later found to be falsified.
Meaning that at least in this case, secondhand smoke is either not as harmful as we were raised to believe, or further study needs to be done to confirm these earlier statistics.
It was mentioned earlier that secondhand vapor exposure may be harmful, but on what grounds does that have to stand on if it is water vapor, and regular secondhand smoke has no proven detrimental effects?
-Blade
Meaning that at least in this case, secondhand smoke is either not as harmful as we were raised to believe, or further study needs to be done to confirm these earlier statistics.
It could be both, but the latter is almost a certainty. The amount of second-hand smoke that an average non-smoker inhales is very hard to calculate, and the cancers associated with the smoke can result from at least a few other things.
It was mentioned earlier that secondhand vapor exposure may be harmful, but on what grounds does that have to stand on if it is water vapor, and regular secondhand smoke has no proven detrimental effects?
Second-hand smoke has many detrimental effects. I am loth to use the word "roven" in any empirical context, but the evidence is quite sound. Only the epidemiology is uncertain due to the reasons stated above.
It stands to reason that getting billions of tiny particles of toxin-laced ash trapped in your alveoli will be more a detriment to your health than water vapour with some of the same toxins at about the same concentration.
On another note, I learned that propylene glycol is a common cigarette additive as well.
[quote=FishPreferred]This is exactly why smoke is not an issue for an inhalant which does not rely upon a burning process.[/quote]
Have you studied the chemistry involved? What I've been trying to say is that, apparently and from hearsay and off the top of my head, some serious doubts have arisen as to the nature of this -- supposedly harmless -- "vapor." I guess to a dumb layman like me, as one might imagine that vapor doesn't arise quite out of nowhere.
[quote=nichodemus]Nice unintentional pun there mate.[/quote]
Yeh, thanks. I had caught it as I was typing, but then figured oh well
ps My point about blaming the parents of course was that it seems to me like just another pointless blame-game. Little tired in general of this (modern? Or maybe it was always there, I don't quite recall. Y'r honor ) tendency to instead of arriving at any real understanding, immediately seeking a scapegoat to any given question, what say. They! It's always they, sir! Ma'am!
You shouldn't assume that. I don't associate with people while they're smoking, so I wouldn't know exactly. Plus, it's a truly ridiculous suggestion; that you need to be stinking of smoke and chronically short of breath to be cool.
did you live under a stone during your teenage years?? cmon man, where have you been? for someone that makes it looks like he is some smoking expert i would have guessed that you atleast knew this... or comes all your info from just 1 side? the anti-smokers side...
Winning is for a debate team. I'm here to argue, not debate. Being right just means having some piece of information the other party doesn't...and then giving it to them
to bad you cant see that your posts are irrelevant to my point. everyone can be right when they miss the point. but after pointing it out a few times i simply dont care to inform you about it. you don't want to be informed and rather be stuck in the thought that the product is not more then e-oke...
Have you studied the chemistry involved? What I've been trying to say is that, apparently and from hearsay and off the top of my head, some serious doubts have arisen as to the nature of this -- supposedly harmless -- "vapor."
there we go.. why didn't i write that? thats what i was thinking all this time. xD
My point about blaming the parents of course was that it seems to me like just another pointless blame-game.
well our law tells that people are not allowed to sell things to people younger then 14 year without a oke from their parents. this is done to protect children from being the target of advertising (i know it doesn't work like this at all on a daily basis, but it is a vital law in some court cases and for people to get their full money back from clerks) so until the age of 14 the parents are already responsible if their child buys any product.
beside the reason that the law is already set up like this. is it not alright to think that children are able to fully understand what things are (mend for) and what is good or bad to do. for the kids its something fancy, the teachers and home wont smell it. and the kids can be the fancy pants of their class for a week or 2. and maybe keeps using it for the taste after. or dragging more classmates in buying 1 to be cool with him..
(yes FishPreferred, this is how the world works for kids... they dont think ahead of what am i actually doing and what future responses will it have for me... those things are not what they think about, they just brag for attention.)
You must be logged in to post a reply!