back to article Sorry Nanny, e-cigs have 'no serious side-effects' – researchers

More research into electronic cigarettes has reported positively on the devices, finding evidence of their use as smoking cessation aids and finding that they do not appear to cause any serious side-effects. An update to the Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes has restated the findings of the initial research, which was …

Page:

  1. IGnatius T Foobar
    Childcatcher

    Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

    All this hullabaloo about e-cigs should make the obvious clear: governments are looking for an excuse to regulate e-cigs because they want to tax them like tobacco. That's the beginning and end of it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

      All this hullabaloo about e-cigs should make the obvious clear: governments are looking for an excuse to regulate e-cigs because they want to tax them like tobacco. That's the beginning and end of it.

      Yes, because smoking = income. That it creates a delayed burden on health costs isn't their problem: they don't expect to be in government that long, having directed law towards a cushy post-government consulting or non-exec director role.

      That, by the way, is also the fallacy they're trying to sell with being more economical on fuel and power: the moment this proves to be a real success they will have to raise taxes. Beware

      All of that said, getting e-cigs regulated was a clear (and long expected) ploy by the tobacco industry to get a grip on that market as only they are equipped with enough lobbyists and lawyers to navigate such a maze, nicely squeezing out the small shops. I'm glad that failed, but don't expect them to give up.

      Unless they die of lung cancer first, of course.

      1. Darryl

        Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

        I remember maybe five years ago, Canadian governments were issuing press releases stating that smokers cost the health care system something like $4.5 billion annually. People were up in arms.

        What was not reported anywhere near as prominently was that tobacco taxes were generating about $7 billion a year...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

          Smokers on average cost governments and health care systems less and reduce demand.

          Yes, that sounds odd, and is against what they tell us, however the demands of a smoker are earlier in life, with relatively cheaper ailments to treat and they tend to die younger.

          This means, no pension payouts going on for decades as the creep into their nineties or beyond, no expensive hip replacements with vast amounts of post-treatment care.

          Few bouts of pneumonia and the odd cancer against those costs is a bargain, especially all the additional tax they're paying, which means those of us whom don't smoke, aren't paying as much (as I'm sure when it dips, another more widespread tax will go up, just the same as petrol tax when e-cars replace 'em, which is why we should get hydrogen cars rather than straight electric, as they can charge the hydrogen with the same tax and keep the same income, rather than trying to divide what watt's went in my car vs what went in my tv, or just having to pay more for electric fullstop)

          So, I would never recommend anyone does smoke, it's a terrible affliction on your life, shortening the length and lowering the quality, but, if you do want to smoke, then pack 'em in like a chimney, because you're saving me hundreds of pounds whilst simultaneously increasing my pension share and reducing the crowd in the shitty home I'll probably end up in because I neglected to fulfil my biological design and spawn an offspring to look after me in my old age (well, neglected, actively aborted, same thing) - though, combination of poor diet and strenuous fitness regime (or "exercise and eggs'r'sides for bacon" as I like to call it) should mean I'll Jim Fix'it before ever having to draw dollar one on my crappy state pension and side step that whole pa larva.

          1. Dave 15

            Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

            Add to the above that the medical profession is full of very lazy doctors and the smokers die even younger. For example in my own family someone who gave up smoking several years back received lectures on the cancer and other health affecting problems of smoking and a cheap inhaler, rather than the doctor actually checking the real reason for the shortness of breath which was.... cancer, yup, he lectured about it and never checked it. Despite the fact that the person concerned had already had a previous cancer issue (so there was a very high risk of a repeat). Following this the person concerned is unlikely to be a burden on the tax payer for more than 6 months, they are receiving no treatment as the situation is too far gone, so having paid in for pensions and treatment will get none, and none of the money taken from the ciggy tax will be used either.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

        Yes, because smoking = income. That it creates a delayed burden on health costs isn't their problem:

        To be brutally logical:

        I'd argue that the health costs are probably more than offset by the fact that many smokers die relatively quickly and relatively young. The care costs for those dying promptly (like my grandfather) needs to be offset against the possibility of thirty years of slow decline and weekly GP and frequent hospital visits by the non-smokers (like my grandmother). And a smoker stands less chance of collecting their (often unfunded) pension and top up benefits, so there's more economic upside.

        From the cash point of view, anything that both raises money and causes more people to die fairly quickly in middle age is great for the economy. So we had Logan's Run in a packet of twenty B&H.

        Maybe we should be adding a slow cumulative poison to vapeing liquids?

    2. streaky
      Pirate

      Re: Looking for an excuse to regulate (tax) them

      If that was true they'd already be doing it. There's three different government types in this: there's the South American tobacco grower type who will lose GDP if people actually give up smoking, then there's the EU type where they'll do whatever the pharmaceutical companies say because they want to keep their revenues and the EU thinking that's completely normal and fair and last there's the UK type who are running policy off the (self-contradictory) ASH play book.

      None of it is any use though luckily in the UK we have PHE doing what they can in the face of insanity being argued from a position of ignorance.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NRT

    "pharmaceutical industries, the latter of which has benefited from billions in public health spending on NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products which are, at least anecdotally, far less effective."

    Use of the word "anecdotally" rather reduces the validity of any claim to relative effectiveness vis-à-vis vaping.

    Meanwhile, here's a 2012 review of NRT effectiveness in general http://www.cochrane.org/CD000146/TOBACCO_can-nicotine-replacement-therapy-nrt-help-people-quit-smoking

    1. ElectricFox
      Boffin

      Re: NRT

      That reminds me of a line from Tom Lehrer:

      He soon became a specialist, specializing in diseases of the rich. He was therefore able to retire at an early age.

    2. Korev Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: NRT

      Upvote for linking to Cochrane

    3. Kiwi

      Re: NRT

      Use of the word "anecdotally" rather reduces the validity of any claim to relative effectiveness vis-à-vis vaping.

      I was a smoker for some 20 years (not counting the kiddy stuff when I was yet to reach double digits in age). Tried it all, various types of NRT from the patches/gum to the "One month of this can fund a years smoking, and you need to complete the 10 month course or it'll never work" (hint - you can drop out the "you need to complete...or" and just leave in the "it'll never work"), e-cigs (early models, but they did help some, and were cheaper than normal smokes), and all sorts of other things.

      The one thing that help was the Allan Car books, "Easy way to stop smoking" and, after my nephew did something to bring it back, "only way to stop smoking permanently". Been some 5 yeasr since the latter, I've had all the triggers that got me smoking again previously, and still clear.

      Oh, the absolute worst thing, the thing that made it hardest to quit? Our version of ASH (drop out "smoking" and you have their real name - "Anti-Health"), Quitline (hopefully helps some) and the ad campaigns they run just to re-inforce how "hard" it is to quit. Alan Car says that's a form of brain-washing and I have to agree, we're bombarded with how hard it is to stop, how we get withdrawal and so on and so forth. It really isn't true, I quit easily with no withdrawal and few annoying side effects - them being things like the coughing fits as the lungs start to realise they can clear the gunk out and the itchy throat as the hair on the trachea restores (at least I think it's fine hair fibres on the trachea re-growing that causes that itch).

      So here's some anecdote for ya :)

  3. Chez

    Now if only the FDA over here in the states would pull its head out of its ass and repeal the ban that takes effect in a few years.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Depends who the tobacco growing states are funding in the 2020 race.

      1. Rich 11

        Libertarians, usually. They can be relied upon to muzzle the FDA out of pure ideology, preferring instead to have the invisible hand of the free market magically resolve all safety issues (to the benefit of funeral directors everywhere).

    2. Anonymous Cow Herder

      iCig

      US needs Apple to develop an e-cig with rounded corners. That will bring the FDA around.

  4. W Donelson

    No serious side effects?

    Addiction,duh?

    1. Red Bren

      They're already addicted.

      1. RonWheeler

        Who cares if it isn't harmful?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

          don't have an issue with vaping.

          I have an issue when, same as walking the street, I have someone in front of me belching out smoke / vapours / exhaust fumes AND I don't have the choice due to wind direction of suffering it too.

          Why our office is Vape Free, they can go outside with the Nicotine crowd and do it

          1. flearider

            Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

            so when you walk down the street . do you have a choice of inhaling the toxic fumes of petrol cars or the carcinogenic particles of the diesel cars ? errr no

            so be safe in the knowledge that the vaper is doing you no harm ..

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

              "do you have a choice of inhaling the toxic fumes of petrol cars or the carcinogenic particles of the diesel cars ? errr no"

              Which is why the exhaust output of petrol and diesel engines has been subject to increasingly tight restrictions over the last 50 years.

              I can tell there's a smoker in the car in front of me by the smell. Why isn't what comes off the end of a cigarette regulated?

              1. Steven Roper

                Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

                "I can tell there's a smoker in the car in front of me by the smell."

                This is something I always found fascinating about anti-smokers - they can walk unfazed through an intermodal with locomotives and semi-trailers belching diesel fumes every which way, yet somehow possess the olfactory senses of emperor moths when it comes to tobacco smoke - able to detect a single particle from 10 miles upwind. With said single particle subsequently causing a raft of allergic reations when inhaled.

                Although I myself am an ex-smoker of many years, unlike many of my ex-smoking compatriots I never let it get to me when someone wants to have a durry, mainly because I knew how it felt to be subjected to such psychosomatic overreactions when I did smoke. The only time I can't handle cigarette smoke is if it's in a closed room or vehicle with little ventilation. If there's a bit of breeze a whiff of tobacco smoke now and again doesn't bother me!

                Incidentally my own experience is that the best way to stop smoking is to come down with a two-week bout of the 'flu. It makes it impossible to take even one puff and by the time the 'flu passes enough for you to light up again, the physiological nicotine addiction is long broken and all that remains is to drop the habit.

              2. SlySysAdmin

                Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

                Yes, now we're all facing increased risk of alzheimer's instead as we inhale heavy metals emitted by degrading catalytic converters.

          2. Cynic_999

            Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

            Everyone who is walking in front of you is belching out carbon dioxide and water vapour. You can even see the latter on a cold day. The fact that you can see vaping fumes does not mean that they are going to cause you any harm, and the smell is less than you get from the breath of a coffee drinker, and a LOT less (and more pleasant) than you get from a person who has had a curry or garlic meal.

          3. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

            I have an issue when, same as walking the street, I have someone in front of me belching out smoke / vapours / exhaust fumes AND I don't have the choice due to wind direction of suffering it too.

            I have an issue when I have someone nearby in the city wearing certain perfumes. And similarly, there's a shop called Lush that the disgusting odours from make my eyes water and my nose drip; from a whole city block away! I just fucking well have to live with it. Why can't you?

          4. Dave 15

            Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

            Does that also mean people in your office arent allowed perfume or aftershave... both stink, or deodorant? And of course I guess they arent allowed to not wear deodorant either because that also stinks. Or eat garlic.... frankly stupid stupid comment

            1. Kiwi

              Re: Who cares if it isn't harmful? some pople do

              Does that also mean people in your office arent allowed perfume or aftershave... both stink, or deodorant?

              ISTR in Canada or somewhere else such things were banned in government buildings, and with good reason. Many restaurants around the world have been known to kick out patrons who over-do the perfumes and other stenches.

              Me? You could kill me with a squirt of many perfumes, scented soaps, cleaning solutions. Like a number of people I do have a reaction to a lot of scents (or rather, one or two compounds commonly used in such things). Unlike most though, my reactions can be quite severe. I have to be careful with what I use.

              It wasn't always like this, but came about after exposure to some toxins while I was in my teens. Well, I can't state for certain the cause but I can say that within a few weeks of the exposure I was starting to have issues.

              Minor doses cause a burning sensation on the throat. Heavier doses cause coughing fits and a hell of a lot of flem coming out with them. Severe doses, well I'm sure you can imagine. Most common levels of perfume or deodorant are enough to cause significant discomfort. Certain brands of dishwashing liquid or laundry powder will have me needing to leave the area during winter (summer is OK if doors/windows are open).

              So banning such things from other people is good. Just because some of these things smell nice to some doesn't mean that they're safe to inhale in concentrated forms, or that you have any right to impose your stench on me. What you like the smell of I might hate (and I can speak to this - I'm someone who loves the smell of silage!)

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Addiction

        SMOKERS switching to vaping are already addicted.

        The bright colourful advertising and various flavours aren't aimed at them.

        There's a reason flavoured cigarettes were banned 40+ years ago (marketing aimed at bringing in new smokers and children) and it's the same reason it needs to be banned now.

        I have no problem with smokers switching to vaping but I have plenty of problems when finding that there is a substantial vaping population who've never smoked - they were pulled in because of the "cool" factor.

        1. Cynic_999

          Re: Addiction

          Why should there be any more problem with kids becoming addicted to vaping than there is with kids becoming addicted to coffee or tea? Unlike becoming addicted to video games, it is completely harmless. Not that I have seen many kids being interested in vaping unless they want to emulate an older sibling who vapes.

          1. janimal
            FAIL

            Re: Addiction

            @Cynic_999

            Like so many people out there you are confusing the very controversial idea of psychological addiction with the very real pharmacological addiction.

            Video games are not addictive.

            The incredibly mild and short-lived physical response of caffeine withdrawal barely qualifies.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Addiction

              Psychological addiction isn't controversial at all .It's quite well established that it both occurs and affects different people in different ways and to different degrees. The difficulty -because it's subjective- is putting numbers on it.

              You appear to be coming from the "Well I don't feel it, so they must be whining pansies" school of thought. Video games are addictive; and are deliberately designed to be so...and it's not purely psychological either...you get regular endorphin and other feel-good jolts supplied by your own body at regular intervals. And why stop at writing off video games and caffeine withdrawal? PSTD, depression, and grief are all only in people's heads, so why don't they just sack up and stop moaning about it, huh?

              It isn't only about physical dependence...people get addicted to the rituals around their habit...psychologists call it reinforcing. Faffing around with filters and suchlike and the act of drinking it for coffee; (in my case) rolling the cigarette, raising it to your mouth, the inhale etc. These behaviours are repeated many times per day and can become as difficult to get rid of -if not more so for some people- as the physical dependence itself.

              That's why vaping works for very, very many more people than nicotine patches. Basically there's enough stuff to fiddle with to re-route all these ritual behaviours into something considerably less harmful; with nearly no stress at all.

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: Addiction

                That's why vaping works for very, very many more people than nicotine patches. Basically there's enough stuff to fiddle with to re-route all these ritual behaviours into something considerably less harmful; with nearly no stress at all.

                There's an additional reason. With smoking and vaping you get a hit of nicotine in a rush with vaping taking about half a minute versus 10-15 seconds (IIRC) for smoking. Patches are constant release. Incidentally patches gave me palpitations and a rash where the patch had been.

                1. Kiwi

                  Re: Addiction

                  Incidentally patches gave me palpitations and a rash where the patch had been.

                  Tried them once. Put one on my arm and took the (thankfully short) drive to work. Started work on the factory floor.

                  About 30 minutes after I had put the patch on I awoke to the first aid officer checking me over while another co-worker was on the phone calling an ambulance.

                  Had my drive been longer, or had I been working in one of the more interesting parts of the plant (with some really fun chemicals that go bang in interesting ways when combined improperly ;) )...

              2. janimal

                Re: Addiction

                @moiety

                "Psychological addiction isn't controversial at all .It's quite well established that it both occurs and affects different people in different ways and to different degrees. The difficulty -because it's subjective- is putting numbers on it."

                It is controversial in psychology, not because psychological dependence doesn't exist or isn't a serious problem but because co-opting the term which always applied previously to a physical dependence upon a chemical substance to apply to mental dependence you;

                1) confuse the general public & give the tabloids more ammunition to spread disinformation and outrage.

                2) You muddy the waters for treatment of both.

                This is why it is controversial because it is constantly being debated in psychology research. Ultimately at the lowest level you could probably argue that a psychological addiction ends up having a chemical basis due to our internal reward mechanism, but I am firmly on the side that using the term addiction for both conditions does no-one any favours especially when most people prefer simple but wrong over complex but true.

                I am all for vaping, I switched to vaping two years ago and quite vaping last year.

                But when people start thinking that quitting nicotine is just the same as quitting chocolate or coffee it helps no one.

                The way modern language is going, we seem to be heading backwards. Words are becoming more general and less specific. I think we'll all be just grunting again pretty soon

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Addiction

                  @janimal

                  Well, I probably was a little crabbier than was necessary with my reply, but saying that video games aren't addictive is just plain silly...people have died because they couldn't put the controller down. If that isn't a physical effect then I don't know what is.

                  I see what you're saying; that "addiction" should be a technical term; but don't we use "physical and psychological dependence" for that, to separate the two components and make the whole thing more easy to take to bits and try and find solutions? Anyway, according to the Etymology Dictionary the word originally had a much more casual meaning: "inclination, penchant", so really we ought to be annoyed at psychologists for co-opting the term and not coming up with their own damned word.

                2. Kiwi
                  Joke

                  Re: Addiction

                  But when people start thinking that quitting nicotine is just the same as quitting chocolate or coffee it helps no one.

                  A doctor once suggest I cut back on the choccy and quit the coffee, otherwise I could die quite young. Strangely, it was him who died young, and violently! (joke alert! I've never tortured one of my doctors to death!)

                  That said, I easily quit nicotine, I can go for days without chocolate. But coffee, or rather caffeine? That's something I don't think I've gone for more than a week without since I was 11! (if tea truly has high caffeine, then you can take that back to 5). Smoking was the easy one (after several painful tries over many many years before I found the easy way!)

                  The way modern language is going, we seem to be heading backwards. Words are becoming more general and less specific. I think we'll all be just grunting again pretty soon

                  That deserves an upvote on it's own. I get quite pissed off at the over use (or over-hype) of things especially with emotive words.. Things like "amazing" and "incredible" with vacuum-cleaner adverts (the only incredible thing is that you get away with it!), or "terrible tragedy when some nutjob politician loses a few % points. When the words to describe an extreme event are turned into words that describe something minor, what do we then use? When words get confused, how can we understand what the other is saying?

        2. Curtis

          Re: Addiction

          Quite franky, you're overstating this. I smoked for almost 10 years. A large part of it was taste for me. Without those flavors, I'd be back to smoking.

        3. Tom 38

          Re: Addiction

          I have no problem with smokers switching to vaping but I have plenty of problems when finding that there is a substantial vaping population who've never smoked - they were pulled in because of the "cool" factor.

          How precisely are you finding this out, when numerous studies have shown that it simply isn't happening?

    2. adnim

      Addiction: yup

      Bad move for non-smokers to take up vaping.

      Good move for those already addicted to nicotine.

      The marketing of vaping as being a trendy thing to do should be banned. The focus of e-cig marketing should be on their use as an aid to giving up tobacco.

      Smoking as in rolling up, or having a cigarette is habit forming. Nicotine itself is addictive. The advertising for e-cigs should carry a warning that the the wonderful flavours being tasted contain a highly addictive chemical.

      1. Tom 38

        Re: Addiction: yup

        The advertising for e-cigs should carry a warning that the the wonderful flavours being tasted contain a highly addictive chemical.

        So your premise is that someone who does not smoke would purchase e-cigs with nicotine in them rather than the identical flavour with 0% nicotine? Seems rather ludicrous to me.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Addiction: yup

          So your premise is that someone who does not smoke would purchase e-cigs with nicotine in them rather than the identical flavour with 0% nicotine? Seems rather ludicrous to me.

          Wait.. as opposed to the premise that someone who doesn't smoke real cigs with carcinogens in them would buy those instead of e-cigs?

          Or the premise that someone who's never smoked health-damaging cigarettes would buy those instead of some Polos?

          1. Tom 38

            Re: Addiction: yup

            No, his premise was that "e-cigs are bad because non smokers will start using them because of the cool flavours and become addicted to nicotine". It's wrong on two counts:

            1) People who don't smoke, particularly kids, aren't interested in vaping, as proved by many studies.

            2) The existence of 0% nicotine liquids means that even if they did want to vape tasty flavours, a non smoker would do so by purchasing the ones with no nicotine in them.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Addiction: yup

              1) People who don't smoke, particularly kids, aren't interested in vaping, as proved by many studies.

              Yet non-smoking teenagers seem quite interested in vaping.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Addiction: yup

              "want to vape tasty flavours,"

              I wonder if they make bacon buttie flavour vapes?

              1. TheTor

                Re: Addiction: yup

                http://www.ecblendflavors.com/bacon-eliquid-flavor/

      2. g0ld3n3y3

        Re: Addiction: yup

        You can get liquids with 0% nicotine in them.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Addiction: yup

          You can get liquids with 0% nicotine in them.

          I can't resist: No shit?

      3. tfewster
        Holmes

        Re: Addiction: yup

        There are plenty of those wonderful flavours available with 0mg nicotine. Go ahead wanna-be-cool-kids, your peers won't know.

        And nicotine addiction is fairly easy to break - It's the routine of smoking that's hard to break.

        Even smart people have trouble ----------------------------->

        (Seriously though, breathing in any sort of vapour is probably not good for you, even if it's orders of magnitude less risky than smoking).

        1. Cynic_999

          Re: Addiction: yup

          "

          (Seriously though, breathing in any sort of vapour is probably not good for you, even if it's orders of magnitude less risky than smoking).

          "

          There is no reason to make that supposition. There are plenty of harmless vapours that people are subjected to, and some vapours are beneficial. Don't take away an asthmatic's inhaler because you believe that breathing in any sort of vapour is harmful ...

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Addiction: yup

          (Seriously though, breathing in any sort of vapour is probably not good for you, even if it's orders of magnitude less risky than smoking).

          So why do doctors prescribe inhalants for asthma sufferers? The amount of water vapour in the air when I visit Darwin, or Brisbane is pretty terrifying (for you I guess, not me) not to mention when I take a bath. Hell, when I take a walk through the forest on a warm to hot day, the odour of eucalyptus vapour is almost overwhelming. What a pitifully limited life some people subject themselves to.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like