"Ford, best known for playing CSO Jack Stanfield in the 2006 cyber-thriller Firewall,"
Yeah, I laughed at the context-sensitive nature of that.
2128 posts • joined 26 Jun 2007
"Ford, best known for playing CSO Jack Stanfield in the 2006 cyber-thriller Firewall,"
Yeah, I laughed at the context-sensitive nature of that.
sadly rather a lot appear to have been poorly, and amateurishly, prepped by the BMA and ASH - the arguments against e-cigs in the house were very much of the 'oh we just don't know' and 'think of the children' line that are typical for those organisations.
The fact that most of them didn't seem to even understand what they were saying was quite telling. Tripping over words, reading every single word off the page rather than freewheeling, etc.
I'm very much of the opinion that those of us on the side of harm reduction and common sense have scared the living shit out of the antis - they're worried. Hence the poor lobbying efforts.
Curiously, you can get CBD liquid (that is, cannibinoid, not THC liquids - so strictly speaking, not illegal as it's not psychotropic/doesn't make you high etc) which are good for anti-inflammatory use and can have (what appears to be) a psychosomatic calming effect.
I threw my back out at the weekend, and much as thought I'm sure walking it off will sort it by midweek (feels like it's just a muscle strain) the concept of having a bottle of the vapable anti-imflammatory kicking about is quite a nice one.
I've not looked at it in much detail though. I think I might investigate.
No-one with an IQ greater than 36 uses e-cigs for getting high - trying to get the THC in there from the oil just kills the wicks..er, I mean, it doesn't work ;-)
There are far better pieces of equipment for that, namely dry cannabis 'heat not burn' devices, that are, unsurprisingly, less harmful to use than smoking a big fat camberwell carrot, because there's no combustion going on.
It's an interesting market, for sure.
Cynic is correct. It's more likely that he used to smoke, or that in the experimentation phase, he'll mess with vaping, get bored of it, and never move on to smoking.
Population levels studies - all of them - show that this appears to be the case. As vaping goes up among youth, smoking goes down. Full stop.
But only if you get lots of tattoos and a backwards baseball cap, right?
Steven "owns more than a few >200w devices" R
"Is that e-liquids with nicotine, or without?
I ask because if nicotine is there to help you quit nicotine, and not just the leaf burning business, then people are getting into "medical claim" territory."
Quite emphatically, no.
Just containing nicotine is not enough to be a medical claim. You have to specifically claim that your product will help you get off smoking.
No reputable vendor or device maker makes that claim specifically because they do not want to go through the medicinalisation route because it's expensive, restricts the products usefulness and won't sell.
No-one - and I mean no-one - is interested in a medical e-cig. We're all quite happy with our consumer goods that - as a handy byproduct - allow us to significantly reduce our cig intake, even down to zero.
You know, unless you want to claim that we should force all gyms to go through MHRA registration as phsyio outlets because they 'medically' make people lose weight....
"This is nonsense. They certainly are not life saving devices. At best they are devices with no impact on health but with the strong potential for causing harm."
As they are used almost exclusively by smokers and ex smokers, they are actually removing harm that was being caused.
That is literally the exact opposite of what you propose.
Yeah, things are a bit different now with immediate publication and publicity, and informed members of the public and academia who can tear into shit research and show it for what it is.
Pubmed Commons, for example, allows comments. This is an excellent move. Now every time a hack links to this study, or has linked to it in the past, Clive Bates excellent critique of this paper is on show for all to see, for example.
Academia is not 'open' as yet, but it's a damned site more open than it's ever been. It's much, much harder to hide bad research now.
Steady on now...!
Ralph, almost every vape shop you see will supply liquids manufactured either in the US or UK, with batching numbers, that trace back to specific manufacturing runs, that have very clear lists of ingredients, all of them USP grade for the bases, and all of the flavourings should be food grade (and any that are found within the community to be a bit 'dodgy' are immediately pilloried) to guarantee at least a bare standard of safety, as most food grade flavourings are tested to ensure they dont break down to something unpleasant when heated up to around 250 deg, which when you throw in airflow over the atomiser, is similar to what you see in an e-cig.
These are mostly made in clean rooms certified to various ISO standards, and the big white label manufacturers are seriously stepping up their game these days and going for higher and higher standards - because with these devices, safety sells.
Obviously, a home mixer (significantly cheaper than pre-bought if you have a knack for it, and still significantly safer than smoking) will have their own standards; as long as they aren't selling them to uninformed participants, then it's no worse than someone growing their own vegetables, tobacco or weed, because that's their problem; and it's extremely unlikely they'll be using shoddy flavourings. I know half a dozen home mixers personally, and they are incredibly careful about what they use for exactly the reasons you state - they don't want to be inhaling obviously nasty shite, either!
As for the second hand component, there is nothing that suggests that the exhaled part is likely to affect a bystander. If you're taking a dander down town, you are at significantly more risk from diesel fumes (and even ventilation/extraction from a kebab shop grill) than you are from e-cig vapour.
We've seen this before with the diacetyl 'scare' a few years ago (and a solid year before the press found out about it) - when manufacturers were shown to still be using diacetyl (even though diacetyl in and of itself has never been shown to be harmful in vapourised form - just powdered - but that's something I covered in another post) were literally put out of business because no-one would buy from them.
Any good vape shop will be very, very careful about it's supply chain. It's not a solved problem (you'll still see market stalls selling imported goods etc) but without any kind of regulation, the market has managed to keep on top of this surprisingly well, without intervention.
And remember - lit tobacco is regulated.
I'm all for some sensible regs, frankly (feel free to check my previous posts - most of my recent interjections have been on this subject), but just because something is regulated doesn't automatically make it safe, and the counter is also true. Evidence always trumps 'concerns' and we have plenty of it at this stage to make some pretty confident assertions that second hand vapour isn't anything to be remotely concerned about other than on a social etiquette level.
Because yes, dude-bros in their snap backs and their mech mods blowing big clouds at the bus stop annoy me too....
PS: If I'm missing a specific point you are arguing, just tell me or ask it directly in a reply - I've recently got a job 70 miles away that starts this Monday coming, so I'm running around like a loon trying to arrange things for that, after six months of being out of work and currently being utterly skint; hence I might miss some bits as I have 'bigger problems' to deal with - apologies :-0
AC, existing laws cover this already WRT to driving without due care and attention etc.
Easy solution for the users though: Turn fan to '1', crack a window open a quarter inch, exhale towards it and positive pressure forces it out the window.
Paul, bear in mind that in a cell culture, bleach will kill cancer. But you won't see that being touted as a way to deal with cancer itself.
There's plenty of studies on the effects of e-cig vapour on the human body, and almost all of it comes back with 'we can't find any real problem here, and certainly not when compared to cigarette smoke'. The Royal College of Physicians report "Nicotine Without Smoke" is one of the largest, and most authoratitive reports of it's kind on the subject of e-cigs, and they promote vaping as a smoking substitute with almost no reservations. The research has been done, and it's still ongoing as we speak.
Flavouring is one of the few potential issues (from a risk to human health perspective, almost everything else in an e-cig is well known about), but even that is accounted for in the figures touted by RCP an PHE as 95% safer as one of their 'unknown unknowns' - but due to the fact that almost without exception, all vapers are ex-smokers, even if there were issues, compared to lit tobacco, it's barely worth worrying about.
The real figure is likely closer to 99%, as discussed by Carl V Philips here:
Ralph, I've posted below about this, have a deek here (or CTRL+F "raith").
Current research says that even finding actual, verifiable human health level risks in the users directly is tricky to prove when good quality devices are used properly with decent quality liquids, and in second hand exposure, it's basically just not there at all. Seriously, people have been trying to find 'the smoking gun' in e-cigs for years now, and they just can't do it.
Formaldehyde? Broken methodology (too much power, not enough airflow, a user would never do it, it tastes awful)
Popcorn lung? Correlation, not causation (that is, it was caused by inhalation of powdered diacetyl, not inhalation of vapourised diacetyl containing flavouring - and cigarettes contain 100 times that in e-cigs anyway, and no smoker has ever got popcorn lung from smoking alone - classic conflation for headlines).
The best one was almost certainly Sarah Knaptons piece on cell damage caused by e-cig vapour. She clearly, despite being the Telegraphs science editor, only read the abstract (which was itself misleading) as it showed, IIRC
Airway cells exposed to airextract : No sign of notable damage after eight weeks
Airway cells exposed to e-cig vapour extract: Infrequent signs of mild damage to some cells after eight weeks.
Which would make you think, ooh, maybe danger!
Airway cells exposed to cig smoke extract - in the report, not mentioned in the abstract: All airway cells dead, all within 24hours. Every. Single. Time.
There's a lot of atrocious science in the public health world, and lots of even worse reporting of the science in the press.
But all of the methodologically sound research shows minimal harm to users, and basically fuck all harm to those around them other than perhaps mild annoyance, which is a different thing altogether.
Second hand vaping basically is. The study Dr Farsalinos cites isn't perfect, but it covers a large chunk of the bases that we as concerned individuals are worried about.
Clive Bates, former executive director of ASH, has a pop at the sort of people who quote 'fine particulate matter' as a concern from e-cigs, mostly because none of the research they cite references e-cigs at all, so it doesn't do anything to actually further knowledge on the subject:
Igor Burstyn has a peek at e-cig emissions, basically shrugs his shoulders and goes "Meh, fuck all here to worry about, really"
"Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern."
It's important to note that although it suggests monitoring - which is fine by me - 99% of users are ex smokers, who are/were getting orders of magnitude more harm from lit tobacco. As a second-party participant, basically the evidence we have says that you have nothing to worry about other than finding it a bit annoying. I'll grant you that the annoyance is relevant, but it's not worth legislating on by any standards.
It'd be nice to see more research into this (and there is some more, but I'm too busy at the moment to go hunting for it), but as it stands there seems to be little to be worried about as an end user (especially if they are a smoker - your reducing your risk profile to a stupendous degree), and we can say with great confidence that there's very likely nothing a bystander need be concerned about due to dilution in the air.
Hope that helps :-)
The Horizon program showed that there were particulates in the air (which isn't a shock, as they had a pair of cloud chasers dripping in there; literally the worst case scenario for generating vapour) but they very tellingly stopped short of stating that it was harmful.
Because it's almost guaranteed not to be based on the known materials science, and there is no evidence that it is when it's tested for. That is to say, there is evidence of it's effects, and harm isn't evident in the research.
VG and PG have a long, long history of animal inhalation testing going back over sixty years that shows zero notable negative effects that can be attributed to the vapourised liquids (they were chosen as the bases/bulk for a reason - the only side effect seemed to be the animals putting on some weight as they metabolised the vapour through their lungs), and in any other case, especially outdoors, even if there were a risk (from flavourings etc), it'd be so dilute that it'd be of no biological effect, as direct biological effect at levels that propose a risk to human health in users of the devices has yet to be proven in any meaningful way. The few good studies done on vaping in enclosed spaces (that is, actually using an enclosed space, with a vape device - not just using ecig residue on a petri dish) show much the same; the biological effect (never mind toxicological) just isn't there.
It's also worth remembering that second hand smoke contains physical, solid particles that lodge in the lung, as a product of combustion, as happens with any smoke; the vapour from e-cigs is liquid based, which means it doesn't behave in the same way, and so doesn't have the same risk profiles (much lower, as it liquifies on contact rather than lodging in place and causing damage). Otherwise, you'd not want to spend too long in the shower or the bath, or out in the rain.
There's a lot of very, very bad science out there at the moment surrounding e-cigs (the horizon program was lacking that, which surprised me - there's plenty of headline grabbing shite out there) and without being embedded in it or having a history in epidemiology or biological research, it's difficult to tell what's good and what's bad.
The latest one is a study that shows a potential gateway effect from vaping to smoking. This, however, can be happily ignored as population level studies show that this just isn't happening - yet it still gets reported as a thing that's happening despite the overwhelming evidence that the exact opposite is happening.
IE, it's not impossible that someone who vapes may go on to smoke if they like the sensation. However, actual data in the real world shows us that >98% of users are smokers, and that transferrance of smoking naive vapers to regular vaping is a tiny, tiny minority, and never smokers who vape, and then go on to smoke are like unicorns; rare and probably a bit 'special'.
Just because it has 'research' pinned to it, doesn't mean it's actually good research. If you meta-analyse what colour people report the sky to be, chances are you can make it appear that a 'statistically significant proportion of subjects may believe the sky is red'.
There's a lot of people calling the sky red lately in the public health world...
On the subject of this button, I find it interesting that people are saying the NHS are skint, yet apparently the issue of smokers (or vapers) around hospitals is important enough to blow half a years wages for a nurse on. Because you just know this won't have cost £500 to install. It's the NHS after all...
If you fudge the numbers a little, it looks and smells very much like a semi-custom, process shrunk and binned Jaguar set, and a Polaris class GPU.
RX480 is > 5 TFLOP, and a tweeked and binned set of Jaguar cores (bearing in mind they can customise memory buses, throw EDRAM on there etc; I doubt it's a Zen implementation) could bump that up a touch towards the 6TFLOP range, depending on how you interpret the numbers.
Mix that in with a console OS (so less general purpose overhead) and the idea of it being VR class doesn't seem quite so far fetched. Certainly explains why AMD were so cheery about their semi-custom ops recently.
Or, you know, someone saw the state things were in, and just upped the number of apache processes allowed to run/threw more RAM in/split the DB across more, faster disks/whatever. IE what normally happens when a service shits itself due to load and needs more resources, and needs them at short notice.
Which is rather more likely than a shadowy cabal wanting to throw a referendum.
There have been reports of people with whitelisting and 2FA having issues as well; I think the current working/speculative theory is not that the authentication methods have been cracked etc, but that they are being wholesale bypassed.
If you can bypass the requirement for 2FA/whitelist etc, then having those set up won't help.
Unless anyone else has any brighter ideas?
I've not used TV for a good few years, and never used it at home, so I've got no dog in this fight, as it were, but I'm all ears for theories, arf.
@AC re base liquids, the docoo has been updated to cover this.
As I stated previously, nicotine base liquid sold to consumers is covered by the 20mg/ml, 10ml limit and will only be available to manufacturers.
You can argue that maybe a manufacturer might do 'back door sales' but the fines for non-compliance are pretty high so don't expect it to be commonplace.
Nicotine Base Liquid
The TPD requirements on nicotine concentration (20mg/ml maximum) and size of presentation (10ml maximum for refill container and 2ml maximum for e-cigarettes) apply to products sold to end consumers (irrespective of whether the end consumer intends to modify the product).
The requirements do not apply to ‘trade sales’ i.e. where you are not selling direct to a consumer. But for all sales (trade and to consumers) the tank capacity of a refillable e-cigarette must not exceed 2ml.
The application of all TPD requirements are subject to transitional provisions.
As I said, that wording (nicotine containing liquid) was very specific so as not to mistake 'e-liquid' with 'nic base'.
That said, the NZ Gov has changed their position quite a lot recently (thank you, NNA NZ - they've been poling their noses in) and they appear to be quietly looking to the UK for guidance on this matter.
I'm hoping that, with A Billion Lives being premièred there, and getting some more focus on the subject (rather than it being a niche of a niche of a niche when it comes to public health policy) that they're attitude will end up more closely aligned with ours.
That is not the opinion of the NNA and VIP, who have taken advise from MHRA, DoH and regulatory specialists, though.
High strength liquids are for liquid manufacturers, registered with MHRA, only, as I understand it - retail sales are NOT an option without medicinal licensing.
It's really quite wonderful if you don't like Big Tobacco.
In the UK the stats (that I've posted three times on these comments....) show that kids who never smoked basically just aren't interested in vaping. That's fine.
In the US, the stats show that only 20% of (similarly small percentage of) youth using e-cigs use nicotine - although it doesn't drill deep enough to show whether these are smoke-naive, or previous smokers; on the flipside, I don't think the ASH data records nicotine use, so six of one, half a dozen of the other...
Regardless, as nicotine outside of smoking shows next to zero addictive qualities (this is true in lab rats and also in clinical experiments with nicotine, or NRT, in never smokers - it's why NRT doesn't have an addiction warning) this means that any potential gateway to smoking (or even regular vaping) is limited at best outside of existing smoking youth - to which e-cigs appear to be a gateway out of smoking.
Then have a look at the conversion rates from 'experimentation' to 'regular use' for cigarettes - that's a different story. One that anyone who smokes will likely remember being very powerful, and it's backed up by the stats, even if you remove the hyperbole.
So as you say, if the kids must experiment - and I was one once, and I did - then better to piss about with an e-cig than a lit smoke on every front.
Yeah, you say that, but MHRA and DoH were dead set on making e-cigs medicinal only (IE a defacto ban) only a few years ago until vapers actually stepped in and told them what a fuckwitted idea that was - IIRC that was what basically created the New Nicotine Alliance to ensure that there was a somewhat central point for outreach to media and politicians (they currently have input on the APPG on e-cigs, and contacts in DoH and MHRA) as they weren't a thing back then.
The UK is, in short, perfectly capable of making it's own stupid decisions without EU assistance!
I won't argue that the TPD - and particularly Article 20, although the rest of it isn't exactly a subtle, nuanced piece of delicate, evidence based legislation that will shine a bright light throughout the world - isn't a slapshod piece of shit written up to, one presumes, satisfy the WHO with the WAR ON TOBACCO (that going by the main players in BT, they're losing badly - they're all making far more money than ever) because the TPD is blatantly a massive stinking pile of shit across the board.
Conflation with an EU exit vote, however, means that those trying to counter us can claim it's just 'brexit rambling' and rabblerousing, and dismiss it as such, as being a 'niche anti-EU argument' and then it gets drowned out by all the other Brexit stuff.
Which is why those of us who are putting in the hard work to contact MPs and Lords right now aren't making that connection between the two - it's plain dangerous and undermines the main message, which is 'it's shite, get shot'.
Re timings for a leave if it were to be voted for, I have it on pretty good authority (IE Vapers in Power, New Nicotine Alliance) that yes, if we did leave the EU on the 23rd, we would still be beholden to the TPD and all other treaties till we sort out the formal exit. That's why they aren't making this a Brexit thing, because it's functionally irrelevant to us in the near term, and takes focus away from what matters - which is fighting the TPD.
From the Beeb (but backed up by any other source you care to look for)
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
This was a question asked by many people. The minimum period after a vote to leave would be two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.
It took Greenland three years to get out, for reference - and that was back in the 80s before the red tape truly took hold; I'd expect a UK exit to take at least that long.
If we can get the TPD fucked off, then we can talk about the EU overall, yeah? ;-)
I will say though, seeing the shenanigans involved with TPD, I've gone from 'firmly remain' to 'on the fence'. It's seriously knocked my previous belief in the EU system, right to it's core.
I expect that most people who are for exit have had the EU do something similar to them at some point in the past, and that's why I don't dismiss those who want to leave. I can see why, these days.
PS: Small note, I don't represent VIP or NNA, in case I give that impression!
"First off, nicotine is a lethal poison in high percentage form. We've had a handful of deaths from high purity e-juice in the US already."
Now look at the number of deaths caused by laundry pods and detergents. Hint - it's a little bit bigger.
There is very little danger to health from the concentrations found in e-cigs, and the LD50 of nicotine is pretty highly contested. It appears that it should be far higher than that which is currently accepted (That is, it's not as toxic as people think)
"Second, what are the health effects of breathing the oils and glycols used in e-juice? We don't want to replace a carcinogen with something that might cause cancer or lipid pneumonia."
There are no oils in e-liquid. Glycols used are OK'd by the CDC and EPA for inhalation. The RCP report and PHE reports covered this in detail.
It'd not be surprising to find out that e-cigs increase the risks of some airway issues over a never-smoker or never vaper, but absolutely nowhere near the levels that lit tobacco does, and that is the only comparator that is required as that kills over 600,000 people a year in the UK and US alone.
"Finally, howinhell do I know just what is in that e-juice? It could actually be what is advertised, it might also be anything from ricin to plutonium.
OK, maybe not that extreme, but let's face it, a lot's made in China, which is a proper warning label."
Like the laptop you're using. Better chuck that out!
90% of the liquids on vape shop shelves are made in the US or UK using ISO certified clean room facilities, with batches, tracking, etc. They use USP grade bases and food grade flavourings. Flavourings are the only real concern, but most of them are OK'd to be heated up to the same range as foods as they cook and not be terribly dangerous, and again, still nowhere near as dangerous as lit tobacco. There are risks, but they are minutia compared to lit tobacco.
"But then, I remember my own nation's history, when it was a good idea to drink water with either radium or thorium in it - right until some rich family lost a family member to jaw cancer, then we began regulating things touted as health bringing, medicines, etc."
Don't disagree; it's a case of whether the regulations being applied are accurate, backed by science, and applicable to the risk involved that matter. The TPD and FDA Deeming Regs are, patently, not.
That's a problem. A big one, given that the products they are regulating have a staggering potential to reduce the existing harm that is happening right now from lit tobacco.
"I'll give full disclosure, I am a cigarette smoker, smoking worse yet, unfiltered cigarettes. I've yet to meet an e-juice that is strong enough to begin tapering down, they've all, save one lethal percentage I didn't dare toy about with, been too weak and I'm not about to touch that 80% nicotine crap without a proper chemical lab to ensure it's 80%, protect myself from that toxic strength (nicotine is trivially absorbed by the skin) and ensure I can survive even a dose at a properly diluted dosage."
None of the doses available (typically up to 54mg/ml) are even remotely lethal, and would barely be described as harmful to human health. I'll make some suggestions for you at the end regarding this as from the rest of your comment you may well be a good candidate for these things, but obviously, I am not a doctor, etc. If abrupt changes are dodgy, then consult a good doctor, preferably two, who are familiar with these devices and how they operate first.
"And not inhale a brew that clogs my lungs with something even worse than my Luckies already are providing."
There is no way for an e-cigarette of any kind to be able to deliver the same level of toxins as lit tobacco does, because there is no combustion involved, and it's the combustion that delivers - almost without exception - every piece of harm from smoking.
The Royal College of Physicians report on e-cigarettes. I'd strongly suggest downloading the full report from the link, and reading at least the chapter summaries, then going back and checking anything you think is a bit woofly, chasing citations etc.
It is specifically aimed at people like you who have misconceptions about vapour products, misconceptions, ironically, gleefully doled out by the press and some quarters of public health who go for the 'quit or die' method of smoking harm reduction. The RCP are pissed that people are misinterpreting this stuff, which is why, as one of the most august, respected health bodies on the planet, they analysed all the relevant data on e-cigs, and after that, recommended their use to smokers as a lit tobacco substitute.
Bear in mind the RCP are the ones who blew the whistle on lit tobacco harm in the first place - if anyone was going to shit on e-cigs, it'd be them. The RCP are what made the Surgeon Generals warning happen.
Having questions is a good thing. There's lots of data out there. Just be wary of shitty press reports. Read the literature.
A great example is the report that e-cig vapour causes DNA breaks in cells, in pitri dishes after eight weeks exposure. OK, not exactly human applicable, but worth nothing. This was bandied about the press as 'e-cigs are as bad as smoking'. Thing is, something that the press release for the paper didn't mention, and the news outlets repeating the press release didn't check. Because they also exposed the cells to cigarette smoke. Which killed all the cells in 24 hours every time.
Which actually shows that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than lit tobacco in this situation - exactly the opposite of what was reported.
There's a good breakdown of this study here on it's own Pubmed page by Clive Bates - this study was being used by the anti-harm-reduction cabal. Now every time they link to it, there's a nice breakdown showing why they are wrong to link to it.
As for your history with vaping, if you've used a smaller device that utilises the 'mouth to lung' method (suck into mouth, inhale that back afterwards) then as a smoker of unfiltered smokes, you'd want at least 18mg/ml normally, in a liquid that is 50PG/50VG - the PG content and nicotine together give the throat hit you're probably looking for. if you were on greater than that, then you might want to look at direct lung devices, which you simply 'breathe in' without holding it in your mouth beforehand - kinda like carbing/sidestreaming your smoke. So if you found 36mg was getting you there in a mouth to lung device, 18mg would probably give similar satisfaction in a direct lung device.
Typically you use these with liquids that have a higher VG content, so you get less throat hit, but because they develop a *lot* more vapour, more quickly, you can use a lower nicotine level - as more is delivered to your lungs in one hit. It also tends to be smoother on the inhale, too.
But speak to your specialists, and ideally, speak to a specialist who is not anti-ecig. Or give them a copy of the RCP report to consult before your next meeting with them.
I, like you, was skeptical that e-cigs could be 'that good' (IE there must still be some major problem with them, there must be a reason for the medical community to not be behind them, etc) but I didn't smell of fags and my lung capacity came back so I was fairly 'meh' about it. Since that time (four years ago) I've been following the literature and - as you can probably tell from my posts - I'm agog that they haven't been grabbed with both hands and presented to smokers as just a good way to avoid the lit tobacco part, because there is so little evidence of harm, and what evidence there is, compared to lit tobacco, is genuinely very small.
Obviously with your current health....situation, shall we say ;-) then I'd say that being careful would be wise, but as a lot of your conditions can be linked to lit tobacco, I'd strongly suggest not ruling them out of a possible harm reduction/reversal strategy. I will say that they aren't for everyone, but do keep them in the sphere of possibilities.
Also, do watch this - it's a cheeky rip of a UK documentary that was shown last night, showing a bit more abut e-cigs, and their effects. They checked the volunteers health before and after. I think that's more likely to change your viewpoint than any dry public health report ;-)
Best of luck, regardless.
I hate to be that guy - but leaving the EU on June 23rd won't make a jot of difference for at least three years, as we need to negotiate an exit plan, rework transitional regs, replace existing trade laws etc.
And even then, if any vendor wishes to sell to the EU, they still need to comply with the TPD - but at that point, we won't have a place at the table to negoatiate on. So if the EU goes antiscience and jacks up the prices for compliance, vendors and manufacturers are even more humped then they already are.
So I'm afraid Brexit ain't gonna fix this.
Even ardent "leave" proponents accept this in the e-cig world that's why we're pushing to get TPD annuled, regardless of Brexit.
"Vaping is an unproven technology with unknown health impacts."
"I know of people now who are taking in -far- more nicotine than they did as cigarette smokers (Yes, minus all the evil stuff that went along with it) and nicotine can have severe health impacts."
Nicotines health impact, without lit tobacco, is on par with caffiene - it stresses the cardio system a touch, and has some neuro effects. Little else. That's why nicotine patches are not sold with any particular warnings with regards to overdose or continued use.
"I also, don't want to be in a room with people vaping because again, it's an unknown technology with unknown health effects."
See the above link to the RCP report. No-one has found anything of particular concern in second hand vape, other than, you know, barely detectable levels of anything, and certainly not anything that is a danger to human health.
"So yes, it needs to be regulated. Do you know what's going on in the factory that makes the chemicals you're taking directly into your body? The majority of which are produced in Asia probably under less than ideal conditions?"
Yes, it does need to be regulated, but not like this. And no, most liquids are not made in Asia. 90% of what you'll see on the shelves of UK vape shops is either UK or US made, using USP ingredients. This regulation will likely create a black market for 'out of spec' products like 100ml bottles of liquid containing nicotine, which will increase the risk of harm as they are not made in ISO certified clean facilities, but are instead mixed at home or in the back of shops. Do you see how bad regulation works now?
"I also wonder, really do wonder, at what point people who vape will realise they are -no- different from someone sticking a needle into their vein and injecting heroin. Ignore the stereotype images and look at it objectively.
Drug users. One just happens to be legal, and one doesn't."
That's nothing less than abject fuckwittery and villification of harm reduction at it's finest, and shows how little you know about the matter at hand. I bet you reckoned that needle exchanges were a mistake because the junkies deserved to get HIV, right?
The idiots are out in force today, for sure.
@AC regarding DIY, unfortunately the catch all term 'nicotine containing liquid' and 'for retail sale' was used for a reason.
The only people able to buy USP grade nicotine base will be liquid manufacturers, on a B2B basis. This has been covered many times over within the advocacy world (which I'll grant you, you might not be aware of - which is understandable, there's not many of us and vendors have been atrocious at spreading the word).
There are possibilities of getting it to market on a medicinal basis (someone is bound to try it, at least) which might mean the end user could access it through some chicanery, but to all intents and purposes, any nicotine containing liquid for retail sale can not have a nicotine content greater than 20mg/ml.
Unless I see convincing evidence in the SI that suggest otherwise, that's the way it is I'm afraid.
This is the third time I've given this data in some way or another destroying the 'kids are vaping everywhere' argument.
Try to read it. Your concerns are not "not backed up by a lack of evidence", they are destroyed by authoritative YouGov surveys performed by ASH who, if they saw dangerous numbers, would be screaming from the rooftops about it.
From 2013 onwards YouGov has been commissioned by ASH to conduct an annual online survey of young people aged between 11 and 18, called Smokefree GB Youth Survey. It includes questions on electronic cigarettes. The most recent Smokefree GB Youth Survey was carried out in March 2015 and relevant comparisons with previous years are presented here.
In 2015 only 7% of 11-18 year olds said they had not heard of electronic cigarettes, down from 33% in 2013. 13% of those surveyed had tried e-cigarettes at least once, this is up from 5% in 2013. In 2015 more young people (21%) had tried cigarettes than electronic cigarettes and 64% of those using e-cigarettes had tried tobacco first. Regular use (once a month or more) was rare and largely among children who currently or have previously smoked. 2.4% of respondents said they used electronic cigarettes once a month or more, including 0.5% who used them weekly.
THEEEEE CHEEEELDREEEEEN are not taking up vaping in large numbers, and those that are, are almost exclusively smokers already. Beyond smokers, outside of experimentation, non-smokers aren't touching them. At all.
This is not an argument. Saying it again, and again, and again will not make it true.
Big Tobacco has a tiny slice of the e-cig market, and no-one who makes e-cigs and liquids independantly - that's >80% of the e-cig market - want anything to do with Big Tobacco.
We would be much happier if the current anti-harm-reductionists (Glantz, Chapman, etc) would hold their hands up and admit that maybe these things have a place in harm reduction, and would help us keep Big Tobacco out of the market entirely because they have the experience of dealing with those bastards and keeping them in check as best they can.
But they, like you, keep mewling like imbeciles about THEEEEE CHEEEEEDREEEEEN when there is reams of very solid evidence that there is nothing to worry about, particularly. The kids are alright. Especially the ones vaping, as they are reducing the harm they were getting from lit tobacco.
How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
Right, your first concern is regarding the release of TSNAs (Tobacco-specific nitrosamines) from the heating of nicotine, the exposure to which you suggested means that e-cigs should be banned.
You provided no source other than having worked with the materials in the past, no comparison to other methods of being exposed to TSNAs, no data at all, and advised me to 'put that in my pipe and smoke it'.
I responded to this with data from Public Health Englands study in to e-cigs showing that TSNA production from e-cigs was orders of magnitude lower than that in lit tobacco.and is in fact in line with that a subject recieves from nicotine patches.
Public Health Englands research concludes that on an overall level, e-cigs are at least 95% safer than lit tobacco, incidentally.
Your next statement was that vaping should be banned in public, based upon your personal preferences of the smell. This does not need to be debated or countered as it's a wholly facile point.
Your next un-sourced opinion is that PG could 'degrease the lungs'.
My response to this was a blog post that cites the US FDA and EPA recommending the use of atomised/vapourised PG for inhalation use in a variety of scenarios. This includes in nebulisers (as used by COPD patients to deliver medication directly to the lungs. This has been going on since the 1940s and no-one has had any problems with it in a medical setting. You are, quite simply, wrong on this point, and over seventy years of use in clinical settings proves it.
It was recently re-registered for use by the EPA and, I quote:
"General Toxicity Observations
Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.
A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were tested for mutagenic or genotoxic potential and found to be negative in a battery of studies: a bacterial gene mutation assay using Salmonella typhimurium, and in vitro Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) mutation assay, an in vitro Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) chromosomal aberration assay and an in vitro sister chromatid exchange assay. "
So in short, the concept of PG 'degreasing the lungs' has no basis in fact, whatsoever. It's approved for inhalation use without reservation.
Your last point is that lit tobacco (aka cigarettes) are being made less atrractive to kids, and that what is obviously happening is that they're turning to vapes.
I'm not going to copy and paste the entire part from the RCP report that utterly destroys that hypothesis by showing that use regular, non-experimental of these products in youth is very, very limited, and is almost exlusively limited to existing smokers. This data is backed up by ASH who produce a seperate study on youth use.
The main takeaway from this is, and again, I quote:
"Although children’s awareness of and experimentation with electronic cigarettes is increasing, regular use remains rare and is most common among those who currently smoke or have previously smoked. This indicates that it is unlikely that electronic cigarettes are currently acting as a gateway to smoking"
This is including when ASHs data is compared to other regional data.
These surveys are, I might add, YouGov, population level surveys - not self-selected internet surveys.
You have concerns about the use of these devices - that's understandable. However, the evidence we have does not show that your concerns are occuring, or even likely to occur.
That's the situation as it stands with regards to your specific concerns.
The real thing about e-cigarettes, that you seem to be missing, is the massive potential they have for harm reduction in existing smokers.
They have a wider penetration than any other smoking cessation product thanks to them being a consumer device, not a prescription service, and they have efficacy levels equivalent to or greater than that of existing stop smoking therapies, and this is because they were not regulated to death by people who are deliberately misinterpreting the scientific data to create laws that will almost certainly reduce the effectiveness of these devices in preventing harm in adults who cannot, or will not, stop smoking.
That is what this is all about. I want my brother to stop smoking, but he'll never do it on 18mg liquid, on a device that constantly needs refilling because it's 2ml capacity doesn't last long, having to carry around multiple 10ml bottles because he can't buy a 30ml one -it'd just be easier for him to go and get a packet of smokes than to deal with the inconvenience.
The most aggravating thing about it is that these restrictions that are being implemented are simply not evidence based.
That is why the Lords want to annul this SI - they, the DoH and MHRA know this set of regulations is backwards and won't do anyone any good, and will likely cause more problems than it solves (we haven't even talked about the cross-border sales registation site that crashed on day one, and which most EU countries haven't even implemented, meaning no-one can sell to them legally) and will likely be a detriment, not an improvement, to public health, not to mention costing thousands of jobs and a significant extra cost to users of these devices.
I don't disagree with regulations against lit tobacco, nor regulation on e-cigs, but given that these devices are not so much not in the same ball park as lit tobacco in terms of harm, but not even in the same county, to regulate them in a similar fashion is ludicrous and goes against all measure of common sense. They need to regulated for what they are, which are consumer devices used for delivering nicotine in a really rather, but not entirely (as nothing ever is) safe way.
Tell you what, I'll have a look at each of your concerns, and see what I can come up with in terms of responding to them individually, without all the sarcasm and snark, as I probably am going a bit overboard on those. Remember, I represent no-one but me. I'm not paid to advocate for anyone (I bloody wish), this is just something that I have good knowledge and understanding of, but as I seem to be the main source of info here, I'll see what I can do for you.
I'll see if I can do that tonight, if not, tomorrow it is.
"Go into any shop round here selling the stuff and the kids are in the majority. Same on the street - who do you see vaping? Kids and impressionable young women."
So you reported those shops to trading standards and the press? Right?
And I'm assuming these impressionable young women - aaw, they can't think for themselves with their pretty little heads - are over 18 seeing as you mention them specifically as seperate to 'the kids'.
I have posted the stats for youth use as analysed by the RCP previously that clearly show that 99% of users are ex-smokers, even in the very limited youth use. If you have actual evidence to show that somehow thing are otherwise, then please, present it.
But you don't, do you?
As for whether my posts are booze fuelled or not, it's pretty irrelevant given that the arguments I'm making are mostly backed up by peer reviewed research and analysis, when I'm not presenting opinion. My 'job' here is to correct misconceptions and baseless accusations on a subject of which I am experienced and knowledgable - of which you have made plenty, and provided no evidence to back up your position. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
"All I've seen from you in response to my comments are a series of rambling unstructured monologues which appear alcohol-fueled, irrelevant unsubstantiated hearsay, based on what you would LIKE to be true, as opposed to reality."
Oh the irony - from someone who hasn't cited a single source for the claims in their comments.
Cheers for the further info, and apologies for being a bit harsh - wine, and having to basically correct every misconception on these threads might be getting to me a bit ;-) as such, I retract all of my obviously more twatty statements about big picture and all that (yes, I had the yellow walls growing up too!)
As I state, the shops are strictly over 18s only (most shops won't allow non-over18s even across the threshold without being accompanied by an adult) specifically because they know that it gives a really bad impression. As for the TW shop up the road from the school, without knowing the specifics, it just sounds like they've found a good bit of space that was available at an opportune time; perhaps the space required/desired was limited and that was only place available in a town they wanted to have presence in?
Long story short, it's unlikely they moved there to capture the kiddy market, given that TW are a very well know brand in the market, and one of their shops being done for selling to kids would be....shall we say, bad for them.
Ultimately, the stats show that kids who are using these devices, almost without exception, were smoking anyway; there are no stats that show non-smoking kids touching them, outside of experimentation. So while it might look like more than a coincidence, it's more than likely that it's kids who smoked anyway who are using them, mixed in with kids who think they look cool, who are using non-nicotine based liquids (which is the majority of experimenters)
Problem is, with so much of the debate so polarised, it's difficult to get nuance in there (and to some extent, my wine-fuelled posts don't help, I'll grant you) but the broader picture at the moment is getting rid of bad regulation that will fuel a black market for these devices that are out of spec with the TPD, at which point there won't be shops operating an 18+ policy moderating sales - as they legally won't be able to sell them; it'll be ebay, car boot sales etc with no restrictions on device quality, liquid quality, etc.
Bad regulation is bad, basically.
As I've posted elsewhere, the number of kids using the devices is well under 3%, and mostly under 1%.
You can make baseless assertions all you like, but if the real world usage numbers don't back them up - and they don't - then that's all they are - baseless assertions. There is no evidence to support that kids are taking these devices up who were not already smoking, which is significantly more dangerous
You know, the one right above yours. That you clearly didn't read because yet again, you're ignoring any evidence that doesn't suit your existing narrative. I'd suggest readers click on x 7s name to see his previous baseless assertions, and my comprehensive destruction of them.
Oh, so it's under -25s now that you've realised that your claim about youth use is a load of utter shite?
Pull the other one Alan, it's got bells on. Especially if you believe that two kids who would otherwise have bought a ten pack each, won't just club together to buy a 20-deck and split it.
Jesus fucking christ, I did that when I was a kid when we realised that fag for fag, 20-decks were cheaper!
Except E-cigs are, quite specifically, not tobacco, and are known to be 95% safer than lit tobacco. Nicotine is not, in itself, any more dangerous than caffiene in the real world.
You really are talking a load of bollocks Alan. You know, unless you claim to know more than the Royal Society for Public Health.
"Shirley Cramer CBE, Chief Executive of RSPH “Over 100,000 people die from smoking-related disease every year in the UK. While we have made good progress to reduce smoking rates, 1 in 5 of us still does. Most people smoke through habit and to get their nicotine hit. Clearly we would rather people didn’t smoke, but in line with NICE guidance on reducing the harm from tobacco, using safer forms of nicotine such as NRT and e-cigarettes are effective in helping people quit. Getting people onto nicotine rather than using tobacco would make a big difference to the public’s health – clearly there are issues in terms of having smokers addicted to nicotine, but this would move us on from having a serious and costly public health issue from smoking related disease to instead address the issue of addiction to a substance which in and of itself is not too dissimilar to caffeine addiction.”
You're just making yourself look stupid now. Please stop.
Not in the doses gained from e-cigs - not even the entire bottles of eliquid contain enough nic to make you do more than puke up - the LD50 of nicotine is at best, highly contested seeing as it came from a 19th century pharmacologist testing on himself, and then ignoring other evidence; but because he was famous and well regarded, even though he was talking utter bollocks, it was ignored. Bit like Chapman.
Cite some sources. Silver badge or not, if you can't back up your claims, you're basically just talking bollocks.
Bit like Chapman.
"Fruit-flavoured e-cigs are popular with younger vapers - many of whom have never smoked a cigarette in their life."
Hmm. Adults, shock horror, also like flavours. Not just THEEEE CHEEEEELDREEEEEEN.
Go on, show me the evidence that flavours are getting THEEEEE CHEEEEELDREEEEEN hooked on e-cigs. I'm quite certain you can't as no such evidence exists.
Here's my evidence showing almost a complete lack of youth uptake - probably the most authoritative e-cig usage study in the world, and I quote, from page 116-117:
"Data on the use of non-tobacco nicotine among children are limited to e-cigarette use.
Annual surveys by ASH of young people in the UK since 2013 demonstrate that awareness of e-cigarettes has grown substantially, such that, in 2015, only 7% of young people reported no knowledge of these products, and the proportion of young people who had tried e-cigarettes increased over these three surveys from 5% to 13%.
However, of the 13% of young people who reported in 2015 ever having tried an e-cigarette, most (80%) had done so only once or twice.
Only 2.4% of all participants in the survey had used e-cigarettes once or more a month, and 0.5% once or more a week.
The Scottish SALSUS (Schools Adolescent and Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey) study reported similar findings among 13- and 15-year-olds in 2013, with 7% and 17%, respectively, reporting ever having tried to use or used an e-cigarette, and only 1% in each age group using the product more than ‘once or a few times’.
In 2014, the Welsh Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey of 11- to 16-year-olds in Wales reported that 12.3% of participants had ever used an e-cigarette, and 1.5% were using e-cigarettes at least once a month.
The 2014 Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use survey of children aged 11–15 in England found that 22% of participating children had ever used an e-cigarette, but only 1% reported regular use.
Regular use of e-cigarettes among young people in the UK thus appears to be very rare. As in adults, it appears that it occurs predominantly among those who are using, or have used, tobacco cigarettes. In 2013 in the Scottish study, all of those who reported having used e-cigarettes more than a few times had been, or were still, smokers.
The 2014 Welsh survey reports very similar findings, with young people aged 11–15 who had ever used an e-cigarette being over 20 times more likely than never-users to have ever smoked; those using e-cigarettes more than once a month were more than 100 times more likely to be smoking cigarettes at least once a week. The 2015 ASH survey also reports a strong association between use of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes, with almost all e-cigarette users either being current smokers, or having tried or been regular smokers in the past.
Regular e-cigarette use in the 2014 English Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use survey was exclusive to children who had at least tried smoking"
I have not hyperlinked the sources for the individual data sources, as I feel it'd do you good to read that report, even if it's just the summaries, which are concise and clear.
In short, if fruity flavours are so attractive to THEEEE CHEEEELDREEEEN, explain why regular (As opposed to experimental) use in youth is almost exclusively limited to those who are already smoking, and is in the sub 3% (and closed to 1% in most cases) range across the entire country, data which is not dissimilar in the US, too?
Ah, wait, you can't.
Sources: Learn to cite them.
It'll stop you from being made to look shall we say, a touch shallow.
PS: This post brought to you by cheap wine; if I have been overly harsh, I'll apologise in 't morn.
Yup, here's a summarisation of PGs approval for use in all sorts of inhalation based scenarios by the FDA and EPA, citing the various regulatory bits that cover it. None of these studies have been overturned or deemed as needing updated since they were published. The established science is established, and no-one has felt the need to challenge it as it's very sound and well understood and accepted to be correct.
As for everything else in an e-cig, for bystanders there is naff all to worry about.
Mix that in with the RCP study on e-cigs concluding that they are safe enough, and worth promoting to smokers, one wonders whether all those crying about 'we just don't know' are looking for their information?
I'm just some chump on the internet, and I can find plenty of good peer reviewed research showing minimal harm to users, and negligible interaction (never mind harm) with bystanders, yet the only research I can find that tries to show negative effects from e-cigs all seems to be horribly cherry picked, misrepresented, methodologically broken tat.
Clive Bates, the former Executive Director of ASH, does a wonderful takedown of this issue following the usual anti-harm reduction cabals response to the RCP report. It's really rather devestating.
And that was the best the Doubting Debbies could manage, for goodness sakes.
Sadly, the Doubting Debbies have the ear of Public Health orgs around the world - see Australia recently deciding to treat ecigs as tobacco products. Despite them containing no tobacco. The 'flat earthers' referred to by Clive were involved in the (closed doors, no public consultation) guidance on that decision.
One of the leading lights in their little movement doesn't even seem to realise that nicotine isn't a carcinogen.
He backpedalled by claiming that IARC have nicotine and potential carcinogenicity of it on their 'priorities to review' list, but it's been there for the last two years, no-one else has managed to find a link to it in humans, ever, and just because it's up for review doesn't mean anything's gonna change in that respect because that's not how science works, not matter how Mr Chapman tries to frame it.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, there are chunks of public health that are just utterly, utterly broken at the moment, and the sooner those pieces get chucked out, the better it'll be for everyone.
Not so much losing my rag, as just getting plain bored of hearing the same, tired, debunked rubbish over, and over, and over, and over. Eventually, if they're not going to bother doing the slightest bit of research, why should I break out my Very Best Manners for them?
Anyway, cheers for the nod.
And yeah, North Yorks. If you've been overtaken by a yellow puma bouncing off the redline (not in the last six months mind) it was probably me.
I used to do roving IT stuff, possibly via that?
There is absolutely no evidence that they are a gateway to smoking, period. I mean, literally none. Well, none that hasn't come from torturing the stats to try to show something that isn't there, of course.
The actual data is absolutely clear on this - >98% of vapers are adult smokers and ex-smokers. Youth/underagers who experiment with them do exactly that - they experiment, with the exception of those who were already smoking who appear as a blip in the stats.
This is, and always has been, a complete non-argument - what sort of sensible youth - or even insensible - is going to go from something that has minimal short term side effects, tastes nice and is cheap, costing a couple of quid a day to play with once you get past the initial setup costs, to something that tastes like shit, makes you reek of burning leaves, will immediately cause quite severe shortness of breath and chest pains, nausea, that they know is extremely dangerous to their health, that their parents will smell off them a mile off etc, and costs near £10 for 20 'doses'?
It's just not happening because most never-smokers kids view vaping with just as much disdain as they do smoking.
I used to just pull my jacket up over my head and roll underneath it. Nice and dry.
You clearly weren't good enough at smoking, Triggerfish!
Shop opens next to other shops non-shocker ;-)
In all seriousness, sales to under 18s have been banned for ages (and no shop worth their salt sold to under 18s anyway) so if you think they are selling to under 18s, report 'em.
However, do be sure to report all the local corner shops where the kids get their snacks from, who aren't legally required to cover up their cigarette stands (unlike bigger supermarkets; I think that's still the case), or who have booze just piled up in crates next to the crisps etc, too. Because that's more of a danger just from pure shoplifting terms than a shop that has strict under-18s policy, as all vape shops these days do, by law, and no corner shop does.
Because oddly enough adults respond to bright colours and cool, fun marketing things too. And having seen TWs marketing, I'm struggling to think of where they're advertising to kids. Please, do show me. I have little time for TW (I have moved on from their products to bigger, better devices and liquids - but if you're a newbie, they're totally worth a look) but even I won't throw that accusation at them. I've been ID'd in their shops, and I'm 33 for gods sake.
These aren't really arguments against vaping per se - they are assumptions that kids are imbeciles. Oddly enough, most data shows that kids view vaping with the same disdain they show for smoking. You say they're targetting kids; I'll give you a hint - speak to trading standards and prove it. Otherwise, you've got no argument to make.
The 'think of the children' card simply doesn't hold up to the fact that >98% of vapers are adult ex-smokers, and that stat hasn't changed since they started taking it, and isn't changing now either. This is YouGov data from ASH, by the way, who hate smokers and aren't exactly supportive of vaping either.
And frankly, even if a small percentage of youth (I note you use the term teenagers, not 'underage'...) take it up, that's nothing compared to the damage reversed to adult smokers who take it up over smoking - and there's a pretty decent argument that if kids are smoking, they perhaps should have access to vaping tech too - maybe one of those Big Tobacco medically licensed products on prescriton (much as they can with NRT; if NRT doesn't work, prescription vape might help). Yes, you can get NRT on prescription down to, I believe 12 years old.
There's a big picture here, and you're missing it. It's called harm reduction. You might be concerned about underage vaping, but compared to adult smoking, it's a drop in the ocean.
"Having never been a smoker, I cannot attest to the validity of the claim that it helps you stop smoking. I can only say that nicotine is used as an insecticide. That is why tobacco is so easy to grow, no insects Will eat it. Essentially E-cigarette users are breathing in bug spray."
Yeah, that just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. The rest of your hilariously ignorant comment is barely worth critiquing, but I can assure you it's equally moronic.
Start from "The dose makes the poison" and move on from there. I suggest you have a look at my comments on Andrews last article on this subject to realise how blithely ignorant you are, and why the phrase "better to be thought of as an idiot, than to open ones mouth and prove it" comes from.
Oh, and water is a solvent, so presumably in it's vapourised form - you know, steam - it'll also melt yer lungs.
Quick, stop showering!
Or in your case, just don't start.
Tell you what, link the actual study and I'll have a look.
Because it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, and I can't find it on pubmed. Anyone can publish a clickbait study, doesn't mean it's valid, representative, etc. This is especially common in the US at the moment.
That, and you know, the admittedly anecdotal fact that most vapers tend not to suffer colds and flu as severely as smokers rather makes the 'research' look a bit silly. That, and the emerging evidence of reversal of harm in smoking ashtmatics and COPD sufferers which rather blows the doors off of your link.
Next time you leave something here, at least leave a plastic bag so I can put in the bin without getting my hands all brown and sticky, eh?
Dude, look at how they are approaching sugar these days.
Don't be surprised to see plain packaging for fast food and chocolate soon.
And yeah, "Oh, it'll never happen" - yeah, they said that about booze too, now they're mooting smoking style images on the bottles...
Aaaw, does little Jessie find flavoured e-cigs a touch annoying?
I find people who take curries or fish and chips into the office for lunch to be Just The Worst, but I'm fairly sure I can't suggest legislating against that for fear of being labelled a complete fucking tosser as it's doing absolutely no harm to my health, just like flavoured e-cigs do no harm to yours.
Guess what I'm inferring. Go on.
On a more (genuinely) serious note, if someone is vaping with an obnoxious flavour in your office, try letting them know and ask if they'd mind taking that particular vape to the kitchen area/lobby/etc - amazingly, chances are they'll listen. If not, then standard grievance procedures can be followed for general misconduct.
If someone is being a prick in the office, report them for it, being vaping something abhorrant, or farting in your face, or running around without their top on, etc. There are rules in place for this arleady. Use them.
Steven "Only *near* infinite patience" R
Half a pack a day?
Hmm, I'd guess from that you smoke mouth to lung, rather than carbing/sidestreaming/lunghitting, in which case, a good mouth to lung device like the Innoken Endura T18/T22 (same device, just different battery/tank capacity, T22 being bigger) would suffice, with 12mg (max - 18mg will likely be overkill) juice of a flavour you like would suffice. Do try *lots* of flavours, though, they really are the kicker. For throat hit, something fruity with a touch of menthol is good, the menthol throat hit will nix some need for nicotine as it replicates the effect a tad.
No need to worry about big lung-hitting stuff (if you do carb/sidestream the fags, you can do that with the T18/22 as well), really. Just get one of those kits for around the cost of five packets of 20 and chances are it'll pay for itself within a week.
Of course, I couldn't possibly recommend such a thing, as that would be promotion, and against the TPD regs.
See how stupid the regs are now, commentards? Someone wants to stop smoking, and I can't even recommend a device publicly on the internet without falling foul of the law. And the device that I'm suggesting, as it has more than 2ml capacity meaning you're not filling it up all the time, will be banned come next May.
*slow handclap at the EU*
PS: I'm Raithtech_uk on twitter - follow me at your peril, I do all the advocacy retweets!
You know, it's odd - I've helped a few mates off the fags (And some friends tried it, and didn't take to it, which is fair enough) but I'm really pleased for you, and glad to have helped.
As I've always said (or at least, inferred), it's not a panacea, but if it's made your life better, then top banana to you, good AC.
My next suggestion would be give it a couple of months till you're basically not thinking about the smokes, period - then look at dropping your nic level. £5 says you barely notice, if at all.
Then if you want to stop the vaping, you know that you can. If you enjoy the physical sensation of it, then I hope I've given you a realistic appraisal of the facts as they stand - and do keep on top of the science. The New Nicotine Alliance and people like Dave Dorn of VapourTrails TV are not just pro-vaping, blinkered numpties and know there are some risks, and I'm sure they'll keep us appraised of the situation.
As for insurance - well, you don't smoke, do you? If your insurance company disagrees, refer them to the RCP, to be blunt.
You'll find that whole 'not smoking' thing - because you aren't - handy for moving into rented accommodation (assuming you rent, natch) as vaping doesn't do any damage to property providing you have an occasional dusting session. Landlords, take note....
I have corners of my flat that I never touch (behind the TV etc) that are a little slick with VG fallout, but two seconds with some kitchen towel sorts it; which is rather better than having to redo an entire flat because of tar damage, etc....
Anyway, rant over - glad to have helped, good AC. Keep on top of the science and well done on dropping the smokes. Now, let me talk to you about drippers, rebuildable tanks and 100% VG liquids.... ;-)
1) There's no evidence to support such harsh legislation, you want legislation against something you find personally annoying. That makes you something of a fascist. Well done!
2) The risk of long term damage from PG/VG is calculated by people who know the science properly to be massively smaller than the known effects of lit tobacco in any case.
If PG is so bad, why is it approved for use in hospital air systems for it's antibacterial values? Or why do they propose it's use it as a carrier for anti-rejection drugs for lung transplants?
Sounds like you're just making things up again, you know, unless you claim to know more than both Public Health England, and the Royal College of Physicians on this subject, which given your previous attempt at sciencing seems unlikely.