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 …

  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 Silver badge
      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 Silver badge

      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 Silver badge

        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 Silver badge

            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 Silver badge

              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 Silver badge

          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. moiety

              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 Silver badge

                  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. moiety

                  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 Silver badge
                  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 Silver badge

          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 Silver badge

      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 Silver badge

        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 Silver badge

            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 Silver badge
        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 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).

          "

          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.

    3. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Caffeine's addictive

      The moment someone works out how to vape it I'm in*.

      Can't be done unfortunately, because chemistry.

      1. Anonymous Blowhard

        Re: Caffeine's addictive

        What about THC in vaping form? eWeed anyone?

        1. Tom 38 Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          "eWeed"/liquid THC is already available in states in the US where it has been decriminalized. Needs a slightly different tank/coil to regular vapes. Colourless, odourless.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Caffeine's addictive

            "eWeed"/liquid THC is already available in states in the US where it has been decriminalized. Needs a slightly different tank/coil to regular vapes. Colourless, odourless.

            I didn't know that! My vaping machine takes ordinary weed.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          A friend of a friend reports that it's pretty hard to dissolve THC in the usual VG/PG (Vegetable Glycerol / Propylene Gycol) mix that is usually vaped, but that she had success with food-grade PE400. Apparently the batch is good for a week but rapidly loses potency.

        3. Tom 7 Silver badge

          Re: Caffeine's addictive THC vaping

          I, err, err, heard of someone at Uni 40 years ago who had a device to heat cannabis resin to the boiling point of THC and it was quite effective.

          So I heard,

          Anyone got any food?

        4. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          THC vaping has been around for a couple of years at least.

        5. Curtis

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          Already being done. Cannabis oil instead of the usual flavorings, and it takes up part of the volume used by veg glycerin or propolyene glycose.

        6. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          What about THC in vaping form? eWeed anyone?

          Works extraordinarily well, but the device is quite different to an eCig. And I vape weed for the cannabinoid content these days, rather than the cannabinols. The former are a very effective anti-inflammatory drug. No stomach bleeds as often happens with the regular pharmaceuticals. Or heart attacks as happened to my friend who took Vioxx; he had five in rapid succession.

        7. Huw D

          Re: Caffeine's addictive

          CBD based e-liquids are available in the UK. Not THC though.

      2. Duncan Price

        Re: Caffeine's addictive

        Molten caffeine (ca. 240°C) has an appreciable vapour pressure. I inhaled some of this several years ago whilst melting pure caffeine in a little crucible. Can be quite a head rush I can tell you. Off to patent the caffeine e-cig...

    4. g0ld3n3y3

      As pointed out there are already addicted to nicotine

    5. Steven Raith

      Nicotine addiction?

      Addiction?

      Show evidence of notable addiction to nicotine in humans without other tobacco smoke compounds involved (as they aren't involved in vaping). You know, the sort of evidence where there's a measurable behavioural response.

      No, really. There just isn't any - partially due to their being no appetite for researching it, and partially because until recently, getting nicotine recreationally without smoke being involved (bar Snus) was basically just not on the radar.

      Fact remains that the only time you see evidence of anything approaching addiction in relation to nicotine is when tobacco smoke is involved.

      The very fact that the vast majority of users of these devices start off at 24/18/12mg nicotine, and tend to scale down to 3/6mg by choice without any problems should suggest that nicotine, in and of itself, just isn't all that addictive. Otherwise, it'd go the other way - people would start at 12/18 and go up to 24/36. The act of vaping itself may be 'addictive' or habitual (the feeling of vapour filling the lungs etc can be like biting nails or cracking knuckles) but the nicotine component of the habit is, charitably, questionable.

      Addiction is a complex, often pejorative term; and smoking was never considered an addiction until the late 80s, and it was based on some very dubious evidence:

      "If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General" ; Frenk, Dar.

      Fact is, eve if we do say it's addictive - addiction isn't a problem if it doesn't negatively impact the user or their peers. It's just a self-reinforcing habit. And we have little evidence to support even that, when tobacco smoke isn't involved.

      Steven R

      1. Nunyabiznes

        Re: Nicotine addiction?

        I don't have links to studies handy, but I have a ton of anecdotal evidence that suggests that "nicotine only being addictive in tobacco smoke" is hokum.

        I grew up in a culture of smokeless tobacco use. I started young as did one of my brothers and several friends. I know in passing upwards of 1000 people who use smokeless tobacco. Of those of us who have successfully quit, the nicotine was the hardest part to kick in the first 3 months approximately and then it was the sensation of a "chew" or "dip" for the rest of a calendar year or so. Those numbers vary fairly widely dependent on the individual. Most of those who failed did so within the 3 month period (as I did twice before being successful).

        I had periodic nicotine urges, separate from the sensation urge of a dip, up to 5 years after quitting. Others have reported similar but that information is much less reliable and consistent. I wouldn't submit that as evidence of any kind, only my personal experience.

        Several comments have suggested that the nicotine liquids available have been instrumental in helping the commenters quit real smoking (and good for them!) which suggests that nicotine in non-smoke form is a substitute for smoked nicotine.

        I'm not suggesting that the 1988 study is not flawed, because it appears to be and it was a product of some pretty virulent pushback against Big Tobacco's "studies". I am suggesting that there is probably a middle ground where nicotine is addictive but on a scale of alcohol rather than heroin.

        I'm still waiting for a decent long term study of the effects of nicotine separate from smoke tobacco. We probably won't have that for another 20 years and by that time it will be too late for the current generation *if* there are long term negative side effects of nicotine itself.

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: Nicotine addiction?

          The problem isn't whether nicotine is addictive per se - although I agree with you on the 'sliding scale of addiction' that nicotine is likely closer to 'helps maintain a habit' rather than something like heroin or crack which is 'demonic possession' level addiction (as nicotine is often described) and a lot of the more recent evidence and thinking would suggest it's part of the problem, not the whole problem and it's role in the process of habit forming is likely overstated and that in e-cigarettes, any addictive properties are substantially lower than that of lit tobacco and slightly higher than nicotine gum which in and of itself, is not considered to be addiction forming in never smokers when tested.

          The issue I have is the language being used - addiction is always used in a pejorative term; when people in public health talk about addicts, they aren't talking about people as if they are people.

          As for decent data on the safety of nicotine without smoke? We have it, on nicotine patches and gum. Concensus? Really not an issue. To the extent that you can buy it over the counter without prescription. Delivery method is a bit slower, but from a 'harm to health' standpoint that's not massively relevant as far as I know; the delivery method only affects the neurological response, rather than the physiological response - I am not a doctor though, so feel free to not quote me.

          The issue is one of moralistic crusading more than anything else these days - which is pretty fucking pathetic when you think about it.

          There's very good evidence that e-cigs

          A: Just aren't that harmful

          B: Don't hinder smoking cessation and (from RCTs) either slightly improves the chances or (anecdotally - hundreds of them that I know of) seriously enables quitting lit tobacco. Aside, anyone quoting Glantz's metastudies can happily go here to find out why it's bunkum; he's just released another one using the same broken methodology which has been torn to shreds by almost everyone in the TC community, seemingly to counter the Cochrane report that this article cites.

          C: Are a consumer product on the free market with plenty of variance so that consumers can find a device/liquid they like - which further increases chances of getting off the fags

          D: Hasn't cost the public purse a penny.

          Yet the more boorish members of the public health community just aren't happy, even though lit tobacco is a well known killer on a catastrophic scale - not just in terms of cancers, but house fires, social castigation (smoking bans, lack of housing that accepts smokers), financially (to the user....) etc.

          You think they'd be jumping for joy that something just popped up out of nowhere, with, to all evidence, zero detectable harm to non-smokers, harm reversal to smokers (with limited likely harm long term from the materials science known), and they haven't had to do a thing - not lift a finger.

          But no, can't have people enjoying themselves doing something that looks like smoking. That's morally wrong!

          When The Usual Voices in Public Health just admit that their crusade against tobacco harm reduction is nothing more than puritanical, moralistic grandstanding then maybe we'll start to get somewhere.

          But that'll never happen as long as figures like Glantz and Chapman - two figures who did great work back in the day - learn to admit that they're just plain fucking wrong on this one, and stop influencing the likes of the FDA and the Australian government into defacto banning all devices before 2007 (USA) and trying to prevent Australia from allowing lifting of the ban on sales of nicotine (it's a controlled poison, charges for selling it are same as for dealing heroin, in Australia).

          Can you tell I've been involved in the politics of this for a while now and have become really rather bitter and cynical about it ? ;-)

          Steven R

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Nicotine addiction?

            "But no, can't have people enjoying themselves doing something that looks like smoking. That's morally wrong!"

            Nail. Head. You know the drill.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nicotine addiction? @Steven Raith

        Sorry Steven Raith but you are talking bollocks.

        "The very fact that the vast majority of users of these devices start off at 24/18/12mg nicotine, and tend to scale down to 3/6mg by choice without any problems should suggest that nicotine, in and of itself, just isn't all that addictive. Otherwise, it'd go the other way - people would start at 12/18 and go up to 24/36. "

        There is nothing that says an addictive substance automatically causes the addict to increase consumption of that substance. All it requires is that the removal of the substance causes a physical response only alleviated by the re-introduction of the substance. I had a friend who was a heroin addict. Not the kind people immediately think of. He had a well paid respectable, responsible job in the city which he held down whilst being a regular heroin user for the whole 10 years that I knew him. Are you going to try to tell us heroin isn't addictive?

        As someone who smoked for 30+ years and tried several times to give up, finally succeeding with vaping I have personal experience of the addiction.

        When I am (was) deprived of nicotine I get a horrible sensation in my mouth, extremely restless, irritable and find it hard to concentrate. Previously I had tried to give up using patches and an aerosol inhaler (available from the NHS) both of which did reduce the cravings to an extent, but of course do very little to combat the habitual aspects of smoking.

        When deciding to try giving up by using a vapourizer, my plan was to gradually reduce the nicotine content of the liquids I was using and I set myself a limit in which to do it - Basically the moment I had to replace any of the initial vaping kit was the moment I would stop completely.

        I tried starting off on a low nicotine fluid, but found it didn't really reduce my cravings at all even though the process of inhaling / exhaling felt a lot more like smoking and its similarity to smoking made it immediately easy to reach for the vape rather than cigs. However as someone who had chain smoked I found myself vaping almost constantly, i just couldn't seem to get rid of the mouth sensation, restlessnes etc... I ended up changing to an 18mg fluid and suddenly it was transformed. The vapouriser would remove my craving with just 3 or 4 puffs and I wouldn't fell the need to vape for another 30 minutes. It immediately transformed my life.

        So during the next year I tried repeatedly to reduce the nicotine in my fluids, but doing so would immediately result in the return of the cravings. It took a year before my tank broke, although my 3 batteries were also on their last legs. I was still using 18mg fluids by then.

        Nonetheless I kept my promise to myself and went cold turkey once the tank broke. The effect, craving-wise was brutal. I had to constantly eat things just to get rid of the feeling in my mouth that nicotine deprivation causes me (and every friend I have known who has given up smoking or vaping nicotine) I used raw carrots, celery, cashews etc... in an effort to avoid putting on weight.

        The only difference between going cold turkey from cigarettes and doing so from vaping 18mg fluids was that a year vaping had helped break the habits formed through 30 years of chain smoking roll-ups.

        Also of course you spend that year noticing that you don't smell any more, you can go to pubs, cinemas and restaurants again. (Just 1 minute of vaping in the loo would be enough if I was really feeling the need.) After a while exercise becomes easier. Oh and one other effect that no-one mentions but probably should.(and the reason I am posting anonymously)..It became much easier to get erections, really, really, hard erections like I was 20 again.

        I was spending £40 a week smoking, which became more like £10 a week when vaping. Now I spend that all on weed (which I use in a vapouriser) :)

        If you really don't think nicotine is addictive prove it, take up vaping 10mg juice for a year & then see how easy you find it to go without?

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: Nicotine addiction? @Steven Raith

          @AC

          "If you really don't think nicotine is addictive prove it, take up vaping 10mg juice for a year & then see how easy you find it to go without?"

          Er, I vaped 18mg for three years, then accidentally bought six bottles of 6mg (the lowest strength that flavour was available in) - that is considered a big drop in a mouth to lung device.

          I didn't notice until I went to buy more a few weeks later, and the vendor asked me why I wanted 18mg when I had just filled up from the last of my 6mg bottle.

          I'd genuinely not noticed.

          Now, I'll grant you that I found a series of devices that suited me quite well, along with a few flavours that suited me quite well - and that appears to be utterly key - I was more into the flavour than the nicotine by that point.

          I'm not saying it's not addictive - but it gets treated like full on demonic possession, when to be blunt, there just isn't any real evidence that nicotine, without tobacco smoke attached to it, has any serious addictive qualities. Might it reinforce habitual behaviour? Sure. But as I noted, most vapers tend to taper down over the course of a few months (as they tend to view lower nicotine as a good thing - and why not?) which doesn't fit the 'as addictive as heroin' tagline.

          But more recently, I've been out of work and not been able to afford premium liquids as I normally do. Mate of mine supplied me with some of his 70/30 liquid at 0 nic, which I thickened up to more like 90/10 using straight VG - which is dirt cheap. I didn't have any nic about, so I gritted my teeth and waited to see how I got on.

          Honestly, it was fine - I find the physical sensation of thick clouds going in my lungs to be as satisfying as the nicotine, honestly. I know what you mean about the dry mouth and whatnot; I've had that sort of thing when I've gone out with flat batteries, and not been able to have a puff for a few hours - never to a horrible extent, but it was there. I am a firm believer, however, that there is far more to the smoking/vaping habit than just nicotine, which is my wider point.

          I think your experience/problems may have stemmed from using older devices (I've used 'em too - been at this for over four years now) which weren't very good at delivering nicotine, and at the initial stages of switching that's pretty important, but I'm quite confident as you get used to it, it's less relevant. Modern stuff is markedly better; even basic starter kits today perform better than the finest tanks of two years ago.

          However, I do find that nicotine adds a bit of bite to flavours, so I use 6mg in 50/50 in my mouth to lung tank - the ciggy replacement, as it were - and 3mg in the bigger tanks, the fun tanks.

          I've moving house this month so I'll be skint again - I may well see if my mate has any old mixes he's not wanting, thicken 'em up, and go zero nic again for a bit; as I'm working again (unlike my last zero nic experience) I might find it plays out differently, perhaps?

          But certainly, if I had to go zero nic for Reason X (IE 100ml bottles of liquid will be zero nic from May 2017 onwards - will I be arsed to add nicotine to it?) it's not something that fusses me from a personal level. Annoying, yes. Does it give me The Fear, like the idea of spending a whole day without a cigarette used to?

          Never mind not even close, it's not even in the same ballpark. Hell, it's on a different continent.

          All of the above with the usual caveats of anecdote, not everyone is the same etc - but I've seen enough research on nicotine and on addiction in general to be pretty comfortable in my viewpoint.

          Steven R

        2. Kiwi Silver badge

          Re: Nicotine addiction? @Steven Raith

          When I am (was) deprived of nicotine I get a horrible sensation in my mouth, extremely restless, irritable and find it hard to concentrate

          Lots of people have "addictions" that cause those or other issues. A teenage boy who wants 5 mins privacy but can't get it, a person "addicted" to drinking water, someone craving a sugar fix they're not being allowed, someone else wanting a particular brand of chips, someone with a song they can't get out of their head. Many things cause these sensations or have these effects without truly being addictive.

          The nasty thing with nicotine is that we're brainwashed into believe it's addictive and we'll have some nasty reaction to withdrawal. Find someone who has never had nicotine, give them some substance to drink and tell them it contains nicotine. See how they respond when you cut it back or stop it, they will go through "nicotine withdrawal" having never ingested any. Same as recent studies where people were told they were being given alcohol and "got drunk", even though there was no alcohol in what they were given.

          It's OK. I used to believe as you do. I was severely addicted and if I went for more than a couple of hours without a smoke I could become violent, more than a day and I could become suicidal. I still seemed to be able to sleep for 6-10 hours without problem though, and only had "withdrawal symptoms" when I was being denied my fix (whether through not having any tobacco while others did or not being allowed out eg not being able to get time off work).

          Much thanks to the fuckwits in the various "anti-smoking" industries. If it wasn't for you I probably never would've become a smoker and certainly I would've had an easier time quitting. Since you brought me up to believe that as my parents were smokers I also would be, I did what you taught me. Since you taught me that smoking was highly addictive,I did that as well.

          If you really don't think nicotine is addictive prove it, take up vaping 10mg juice for a year & then see how easy you find it to go without?

          Did the same with nicotine, from at least a 50g per week (plus whatever "sweepings" I could buy to supplement my expensive habit) to nothing in a little over a week (reading a chapter of "The Only way to stop smoking permanently" each day). Sat down with a close friend, had my last smoke with him (brought a pack of tailies just for the occasion) and gave him the leftovers. Next day sat in the same place and chatted while he smoked, not even a hint of desiring or withdrawal. Only symptoms I had were things like coughing fits and itchy throat as the body started to heal. No "replacements", no gum, no extra nicotine, no problems.

      3. janimal

        Re: Nicotine addiction?

        @steven Raith

        First: I am pro vapourisers for smoking cessation

        "Show evidence of notable addiction to nicotine in humans without other tobacco smoke compounds involved (as they aren't involved in vaping). You know, the sort of evidence where there's a measurable behavioural response.

        No, really. There just isn't any - partially due to their being no appetite for researching it, and partially because until recently, getting nicotine recreationally without smoke being involved (bar Snus) was basically just not on the radar.

        Fact remains that the only time you see evidence of anything approaching addiction in relation to nicotine is when tobacco smoke is involved."

        There doesn't need to be a behavioural response to show pharmacological addiction - merely a measurable physical response.

        I have indeed been searching since yesterday for research into nicotine addiction as well as reading the Frenk & Dar paper. I could find no studies testing nicotine addiction without tobacco.

        There are however studies where nicotine free tobacco is used by the control group - Cannabinoid receptor 1 (CNR1) gene variant moderates neural index of cognitive disruption during nicotine withdrawal.

        More recent studies than those criticised by Frenk & Dar testing the effects of stress on nicotine self administration using rats provide the nicotine directly through a catheter. Whilst not testing addiction or withdrawal, paragraphs in the results of that study and some of those linked suggest to me that nicotine is addictive (in rats at least);

        "Consistent with previous reports (O'Dell et al. 2007; Valentine et al. 1997), in this study, most nicotine injections were obtained during the dark phase of the light cycle when rats are most active. However, with very prolonged access to nicotine SA (e.g., 40 days), nicotine intake was reported to be less circadian, and the difference in nicotine intake between dark and light phases diminished"

        Due to time constraints I am going to have to assume that any flaws in the 1988 experiments have been addressed in those from1997, 2007 & 2010.

        I could find no studies that show there is zero physical response to the withdrawal of nicotine. Since the measurable physical effects can be used to differentiate control and target groups in studies, for the moment I have to consider that nicotine is addictive. I'm not drawing any conclusions about quantifying how addictive.

        Now anecdotally; I come from a social group in which almost every body smoked, something like 95% we all loved herbs and delivery methods were less diverse even only a few years ago. A large number of those friends of mine have ditched tobacco totally, with just a few using vapes only in situations they are not allowed to light a cigarette. Of the vape users 1 has reduced his nicotine content to almost zero (mixes his own juice), but loves vaping and doesn't intend to give it up. Only 3 of the others have quit vaping as well. The others that continue to vape have tried reducing the nicotine, but find they simply cannot maintain reduced dose or quit.

        I personally found giving up vaping almost as hard as giving up smoking, but yes breaking the habitual rituals of smoking was instrumental and only possible through vaping.

        I agree that the habitual aspects of smoking are a major part of the difficulty in giving up smoking, but you cannot at this stage dismiss nicotine as non addictive pharmacologically.

        PS in the many studies that do study smoking addiction it is worth noting that the physical response to withdrawal varies quite widely (as with many other pharmacologically addictive substances) so simply because you can easily give it up doesn't make it non-addictive.

        PPS as the authors of the report you cited noted. Once you tell someone something is addictive, people use that as an excuse to stop trying to give up. So maybe the truth isn't always the best thing to hear.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Nicotine addiction?

          Whilst not testing addiction or withdrawal, paragraphs in the results of that study and some of those linked suggest to me that nicotine is addictive (in rats at least);

          "Consistent with previous reports (O'Dell et al. 2007; Valentine et al. 1997), in this study, most nicotine injections were obtained during the dark phase of the light cycle when rats are most active. However, with very prolonged access to nicotine SA (e.g., 40 days), nicotine intake was reported to be less circadian, and the difference in nicotine intake between dark and light phases diminished"

          Or, just a stray stupid thought, it could indicate that rats, like people, are more likely to ingest nicotine when awake?

          And that as it is supposedly a stimulant (or can have that effect on some people), over longer periods with unnatural substances in unnatural settings, perhaps their sleep is more erratic, hence the 40 day results?

          Correlation/causation 'n all that..

          1. janimal

            Re: Nicotine addiction?

            @Kiwi

            "Or, just a stray stupid thought, it could indicate that rats, like people, are more likely to ingest nicotine when awake?"

            Of course all animals need to be awake in order to consciously decide to do anything! The point I was making is that whilst they initially only self administer during their normal waking hours as would be expected with something that is just pleasurable to them, that gradually changes over time so that they actually wake during their downtime to S.A. - suggesting that a physical withdrawal response is disturbing their natural circadian rhythm. Did you actually read the report before coming to your conclusion? If not I demand your boffin icon be retracted.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Nicotine addiction?

              The point I was making is that whilst they initially only self administer during their normal waking hours as would be expected with something that is just pleasurable to them, that gradually changes over time so that they actually wake during their downtime to S.A.

              I covered that in my following paragraph.

              I used to often get up during the night to "self-administer" something I seemed to have an addiction to. Water. I would wake and drink a small amount before going to sleep again. I very seldom woke to smoke, in fact I only had a smoke after waking if I was woken for a reason like a late call or message from someone or some other event meant I was going to be awake for a bit. Where it was waking to a minor noise (wind/rain etc) that could be safely ignored I would go back to sleep. But waking for water? Or because I wanted to keep playing a game and went to sleep only from exhaustion (48hr sessions over weekends weren't unheard of), or some other thing that currently had my fancy, sure.

              Anyway, as said, could it be that nicotine acts as a stimulant that caused this, not any addiction? (and so many studies and other evidence shows that nicotine has little if any real physical addiction).

              Did you actually read the report before coming to your conclusion?

              I'm writing comments on El Reg, of course I didn't bother reading the report! Not my fault if you can't quote sufficient of it to get your point across ! :)

              If not I demand your boffin icon be retracted.

              To quote Mr Pilate, "What I have written, I have written" (disclaimer : quote may not be entirely accurate and is subject to my standard research level)

      4. Kiwi Silver badge

        Re: Nicotine addiction?

        Fact is, eve if we do say it's addictive - addiction isn't a problem if it doesn't negatively impact the user or their peers. It's just a self-reinforcing habit. And we have little evidence to support even that, when tobacco smoke isn't involved.

        Bringing facts into such a topic? How dare you! You must be in the employ of big tobacco to be sayign such things, and [warning : bullshit overload...bullshit overload..bullshit overload...]

        Thanks for bringing some reality into such topics. Smoking is a habbit that does border on (maybe even cross the border of) addiction, but the addictive side of it is only psychological.

        One good example - watch a group of people who smoke where none of them have smokes avaialble, all of them can't smoke for whatever reason etc, you'll see they get on with life and hardly think about it.

        Now, give one of them half a smoke and watch the fun and violence ensue as the others realise how much they "need" a smoke and how they're "hanging out" and "going through withdrawal".

        Nicotine isn't addictive. But we have all these helpful ads re-infocing the myth that it's highly addictive and hard to quit. When we x-smokers get into difficulty, we're only doing what we've been told is normal and expected behaviour, often several times each and every day for years.

      5. Keith Langmead

        Re: Nicotine addiction?

        “The very fact that the vast majority of users of these devices start off at 24/18/12mg nicotine, and tend to scale down to 3/6mg by choice without any problems should suggest that nicotine, in and of itself, just isn't all that addictive.”

        Cutting back to cigarettes and reducing the nicotine concentration isn’t the same thing. The former requires a change in habit and routine alongside a reduction in the daily nicotine intake, while the latter only need impact the intake while everything else stays the same which is far easier to deal with.

        IMHO the issue with smoking is twofold, there’s nicotine addiction, but there’s also habit. The benefit of vaping is that it’s far easier to gradually deal with the former on its own, and then later once you’re down to 0% it’s easier to deal with the habit side.

        I’ve been off tobacco for just over a year now, and am slowly reducing the strength of liquid I vape (I’ve got bottles of 1.8% and 0% which I mix) without adjusting the volume.

    6. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Apart from the point already made, if an addiction does not cause any significant harm to the addict or wider society, what's the problem? Lot's of people in the UK are addicted to tea, but nobody insists that they give up.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Lot's of people in the UK are addicted to tea, but nobody insists that they give up.

        Don't you have Mormons in UKLand? You're welcome to some of ours...

    7. Grifter

      You're an idiot.

      EDIT: Guh, I just responded to the original poster without realizing there's like a biblical length of replies after it, oh well. Original poster is still an idiot.

    8. Dave 15

      Addiction... so bad coffee as well

      For heavens sake most humans are addicted to tea and coffee, pepsi or coke, fatty food, internet.... the list is pretty long. These devices replace one very deadly addiction with another which appears at the moment from all available testing, evidence and common sense to be none damaging and certainly not deadly.

      But as others have said big business, civil servant greed and the need to continue to rake in billions of tax to pay for the mistakes of the political classes means they need to find an excuse to tax every new thing that comes along. I am taxed for earning, taxed for driving to work to earn, taxed to live in a house, taxed in case I might be ill, taxed to park to buy food, taxed to buy clothes (fined or locked up for being naked... bizarre eh), taxed to throw away the packaging that I didnt want, taxed for a bag to carry it in (all that charity nonsense is that... the money does NOT go to charity)

    9. streaky Silver badge

      Nobody sensible anywhere is suggesting people who don't smoke take up vaping. Yeah, it's addictive but evidence suggests that the nicotine in ecigs is actually way less addictive (working theory is that it's due to the combination of chemicals when you burn tobacco - which is corollary to ecigs can help you stop smoking).

      Nobody is saying it's a thing but as far as anybody can tell (with very extensive testing having been done) that even if non-smokers and children are taking up ecigs it's probably not going to be the end of the world.

      Think of the children? Sure - but here's the thing: kids who are likely to take up ecigs are likely to take up smoking if we live in a world where ecigs don't exist but regular cigs do so if that's the choice it's logically a better option. We should be carrying on educating kids and that's fine but my thing is if they're gonna do one or the other either way (and these kids definitely are) ...

  5. frank ly Silver badge

    Who do regulations protect?

    I'm now three months into vaping and have been tobacco free for all that time (after a failed attempt four years ago). This time, instead of the 'pen' type system, I bought a tank system and vaped 24mg strength liquid even though the tank instructions say not to use anything more than about 16mg. I found that this was the only way to satisfy the cravings I experienced. After a couple of weeks, I diluted the 24mg with 16mg to give a 20mg liquid and got used to that. I've been working my way down, using simple mixing/dilution and am now vaping 10mg liquid and I find that the cravings are much less. My intention is to get down to 4mg or less and then quit.

    If you want to save money, you can dilute high strength liquid with glycerine but you lose the flavour and you get big clouds of vapour (which some people enjoy).

    I believe that my failure, four years ago, was because I was using a pen system with 24mg liquid and that didn't give me enough of a 'hit' to satisfy the cravings. As I recall, organisations that seem to be against vaping have recommended that the maximum strength of vaping liquid made available to the public should be set at a low level to 'protect them from harm'. It would appear, at least in the case of people like me, that this would have the effect of protecting BB&P from people quitting tobacco.

    I realise that some people will say that 'the public' must be protected from their own foolishness but I can easily buy enough whiskey to kill myself, so what's that about? Oh, government tax income, yes. I hope I can stop before they get regulated/taxed.

    1. 's water music Silver badge

      Re: dopeman please can i have another hit?

      My wife found that using a nicotine patch alongside the currently available vape liquids worked better than vaping alone for her

    2. 73N

      Re: Who do regulations protect?

      FYI then 'pen' type system that you are probably referring too (the ones sold along side tobacco products not the ones commonly found in vaping shops) are made by the big tobacco companies - obviously they want to put people off this technology so flooded the market with cheap devices that deliver a useless nicotine hit.

      For anyone just getting into vaping I think this is quite good advice:

      To work out what strength of juice you should be using its quite easy to work out from what you were smoking, basically on average you absorb one tenth of the nicotine in e-juice so based on that you can do some simple maths:

      20 cigs a day x the amount of nicotine typically absorbed from your brand of cigarette (found on the side of a box of cigarettes), lets say 0.9mg = 18mg

      Now to work out how much juice you need a day to match the nicotine level (although you should try to reduce this gradually over time)...

      Say you start of vaping 18mg juice, after quiting smoking for good based on the figures above you should aim to vape no more than 10ml a day as each ml contains 18mg of nicotine and you will absorb 1.8mg per ml; 10ml is a lot of juice to vape in a day, so in this case I think 24mg juice would be better at that would reduce your levels down to 7.5ml Obviously this is just an indicator, your method of vaping can have a huge affect on this so there are two simple rules to follow:

      1) If you get a headache you are vaping too much - ease off straight away

      2) Once your cravings are satisfied stop - no need to get even more addicted

      The next step after this is to start reducing your nicotine levels, this helps remove your dependence and also improves the flavour of the juice (juice with less concentrate of nicotine will taste better). To do this I find that having two tanks at one time is good as you can switch between different concentrations based on your cravings - if you make the switch and you find your cravings are returning just switch back to the higher concentrate juice or invest in a mod and tank that can deliver a bigger hit.

      Another final tip I have for anyone stating vaping is to replace the habit too, for example I used to smoke in the garden - I found that going outside to vape helped to get me started. It's also going to be rough on your throat at first so drink plenty of water and keep going - after a few days to a week this will stop you will feel much healthier.

      1. Steven Raith

        Re: Who do regulations protect?

        Lots of water definitely helps.

        Other tips:

        If you like a harsh throat hit (IE if you sidestream/carb rollups etc) then look at liquids that have a slight menthol/cooling edge. It gives a bit more 'snatch' at the back of the throat and can help get through the first week.

        With regards to nicotine strength, I have a different guide.

        You can get mouth to lung tanks (tight draw very much like a ciggy) and direct lung tanks (very open draw, like a bong).

        10 a day - 6-12mg

        20 a day - 12-18mg

        >30 a day - 24mg if you can get it (it'll start disappearing soon)

        That's in a mouth to lung tank with a tight draw.

        With a bigger tank for direct lung, just halve those numbers; you'll get the nicotine by volume of vapour.

        As for nicotine content, I've found that at a low level, it can affect flavour, but it depends on the flavour profile itself. It makes custards and creams taste a bit more complex to me, but gets in the way of fruity flavours.

        Just get through the first few weeks on something basic, then experiment if you like it. There's plenty of choice and loads of different devices, none of which are hugely expensive if you get a capable enough power unit; a good tank isn't much more than £30 and coils are under £5 each and last a couple of weeks at a time.

        By the time you start needing more than 50-60w for a tank, you'll probably know what you're looking for anyway ;-)

        Steven....

        Innoken TC100, SteamCrave Aromamizer Supreme, 2x 3.5mm SS316L 24g coils installed vertically

        ...R

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Who do regulations protect?

          What's the point of 0% liquids? Are there that many non-smokers/vapers who really want to start but it's the nicotine that's putting them off?

          Also, this eWeed that's colourless and odourless, can it be sneaked through customs/in the post?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Who do regulations protect?

            I don't know about eweed liquid, but you can get table top vapourisers which work on herbs.

            There are also a number of portable ones, however these do actually combust, but at a very low heat. If you use them correctly they are much more like a vapouriser than a pipe. One huge advantage is they actually look like vapourisers. I have used one just a few feet from police on the street and they didn't smell my oregano.

          2. Steven Raith

            Re: Who do regulations protect?

            0% liquids are common for people who really like cloud chasing - hammering a 0.1ohm dripper with fused claptons for an hour at a time, with pretty much any nicotine content, is a rapid way to get a niccy rush.

            There are also plenty of people out there who have tailed down their nicotine to nought, but still enjoy the sensation of vaping/smoking, and don't want to feel that they're beholden to nicotine.

            It's bloody handy for testing liquids too - go into a good vape shop with a dripper, and just try different flavours - again, you end up tapping away for a while, so you avoid having to deal with/manage nicotine levels.

            As for weed, I hear dry burners are the way forward - again, it's harm reduction (not elimination) so you'll likely still be exposed to some nasties, but far less than from having a pipe/bong/joint.

            I've not bothered with weed for ages though so I'm a bit out of touch. CBD liquids are a thing (and legal), THC less so (doesn't mix in with the PG/VG very well).

            Steven R

        2. alexmcm

          Re: Who do regulations protect?

          Thanks for the advice, I was never able to find a good guide to nicotine strengths when I first started vaping a few years back. Through trial and error I eventually settled on 18mg nicotine (used to be a pack a day smoker), and as you say, for throat hit, a menthol flavour. Now I'm down to just a crisp clean flavour like Green Apple and 6mg.

          I wish there was a good well known trustworthy beginners guide to vaping. That might be seen to be encouraging the kids though,

    3. streaky Silver badge

      Re: Who do regulations protect?

      @OP of this thread - I've said this before elsewhere but if you're getting cravings on ecigs you're doing something wrong somewhere. There's no reason to rush into cutting your nicotene intake. You're already doing better than if you were still smoking.

      I started on 18mg last year and I'm currently vaping 6mg and I see no sensible reason to reduce that not least because (sue me) I like nicotene in the same way as I like caffeine. If you want to fully quit just take it steady with strength reductions, give yourself time to settle in.

      One of the biggest mistakes people make IMHO is they think they can essentially use ecigs as a way to go semi-cold-turkey and there's no reason medically to do that and also it'll have less chance of working. Enjoy your vape, don't try to feel like it's a battle. You're now a non-smoker.

      And yeah those pen ecigs are complete trash (note: this is what the EU is trying to unhelpfully push on people).

      Also the guy suggesting menthol liquids - if there's any risk at all from vaping we already know the biggest risk is most likely to come from menthol flavours and FWIW throat hit (and burn) is always a function of VG/PG ratio. Higher VG = less burn feeling in the throat.

  6. Toltec

    Going off on a tangent

    The concept that something should be taxed because it is a health risk and costs the NHS money is now becoming established, sugar etc.

    So when will they realise that having children adds to NHS, education and climate change costs and start taxing parents more instead of making the rest of us pay for them?

    In case you read the above at face value what I really mean is, why does the government get to pick and chose which lifestyle choices get rewarded or punished? If we want a country that welcomes different cultures and lifestyles how does singling out a group for special attention sit with that?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Going off on a tangent

      In that case, they should really start taxing everything that comes out of a politician's mouth, as every time one speaks my blood boils and I want to scream "you lying bastard!!" at the top of my voice.

      It does my hypertension no good whatsoever.

    2. 's water music Silver badge

      Re: Going off on a tangent

      why does the government get to pick and chose which lifestyle choices get rewarded or punished?

      because the super-abundance thing still hasn't worked out and so life is a series of resource management choices. Personally I think representative democracy is generally not a bad mechanism for this compared to most others

      1. Toltec

        Re: Going off on a tangent

        "because the super-abundance thing still hasn't worked out"

        It probably never will without self-control and in the absence of that then we need external control which we kind of ask others to do so we can then moan at them for doing it?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Going off on a tangent

      Supposedly the money invested in education, healthcare etc pays off because a healthy and educated workforce is a productive one.

    4. streaky Silver badge

      Re: Going off on a tangent

      why does the government get to pick and chose which lifestyle choices get rewarded or punished

      Because the Daily Mail?

      The correct socio-economic answer to this probably revolves around what the middle classes are doing at any given point be my guess. In the UK the middle classes are the largest grouping and relatively the highest payers of tax as a whole and per-capita and relatively to their own net worth and middle classes are the ones having the most babies and probably won't countenance taxation on family expansion. Or at least that's what people advising government most likely believe.

  7. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Thank heavens it's harmless ...

    ... as long as you ignore the MSDS for nicotine:

    "Potential Acute Health Effects:

    Very hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator), of ingestion. Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Severe over-exposure can result in death.

    Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance is toxic to the nervous system,

    cardiovascular system, upper respiratory tract, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

      "Buckinghamshire Coroner Richard Hulett heard Mr Keen would regularly mix his own concentrations of nicotine to use in the cigarette substitute. Recording a verdict of suicide, Mr Hulett said it was the first time he had heard of someone 'dying directly from this' in the county" [September 24 2015]

      https://www.wired.com/2012/05/nicotine-and-the-chemistry-of-murder/ [Belgium 1850]

      "29141 calls during that study period to poison control centers" [between 2012-2015 USA e-cigs]

      Does UK have child-proof liquid nicotine containers yet?

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

        I mix my own, so I don't know about the end product stuff,but the flavours ( which are just nicotine free flavouring and propylene glycol ) started coming in child proof bottles recently.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. 73N

          Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

          Yes, in UK and never had a bottle that isn't childproof! With the TPD coming in this will be mandatory but the industry has already done a good job of self-regulating in this area. I think those brightly coloured laundry tabs that seem to be everywhere now should be a greater concern...

          Also another interesting thing about the TPD is that they are limiting bottle sizes to 10ml because of the danger of ingesting the juice (most here come in 15ml or 30ml bottles), yet you can still go to your local shop and buy a litre bottle of bleach!

          1. janimal

            Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

            "Also another interesting thing about the TPD is that they are limiting bottle sizes to 10ml because of the danger of ingesting the juice (most here come in 15ml or 30ml bottles), yet you can still go to your local shop and buy a litre bottle of bleach!"

            Or a litre cheap vodka - just as effective for suicide, but less painful.

      3. Cynic_999 Silver badge

        Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

        "

        Does UK have child-proof liquid nicotine containers yet?

        "

        Yes, it's called a "parent". The same mechanism that prevents (most) children running out into the road and being killed by cars.

      4. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

        Does UK have child-proof liquid nicotine containers yet?

        Dunno about the UK, but all of my eCig liquids, flavouring that's nicotine-free and base + nicotine has come in child-proof containers. Some from New Zealand and some from USA. Purchasing nic juice is legal here in Oz, but selling it is not. The nic juice from NZ is manufactured in Oz and sent to NZ so they can sell it back to us.

      5. Steven Raith

        Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

        "Does UK have child-proof liquid nicotine containers yet?"

        I've been at this over four years and never seen any container that wasn't child proof. Ever.

        And as you're clearly no toxicologist, here's what you have to remember.

        The Dose Makes The Poison.

        As others have pointed out, water toxicity is a thing that will flat out fucking kill you (Leah Betts anyone? No, ecstasy didn't kill her, drinking too much water while using it did).

        ""29141 calls during that study period to poison control centers" [between 2012-2015 USA e-cigs]"

        Calls to poison centres aren't poisonings - they're people worried about poisonings, which includes people who simply don't understand that you'd practically have to bathe in e-liquid for it to have any marked effect on you. Also, the numbers have dropped steadily since.

        I could explain this point by point, but Clive Bates does a better job of it, including putting those numbers into context. They're fucking tiny compared to cosmetics, painkillers, and pretty much anything that's recorded.

        Here's a good comparator: Laundry pods vs ecigs.

        The difference being, laundry pods regularly kill. E-liquids? I've only heard of a couple of cases where they were suspected as being part of it (and no, nicotine base doesn't count as that's actually a rare, DIY only thing in the market - and even then, that's only one case, mixed with fuckton of vodka...) - the concentration of nicotine in e-liquids is so low that their danger is mild (vomiting occurs quickly, well before any chance of hitting the LD50 - which would take litres for anyone bigger than a child) and because almost all liquids are sold in child proof bottles, those young/small enough to be at risk rarely get exposed.

        And yes, given that the number of vapers is in the tens of millions worldwide, a few thousand calls to poison centres and only handful of confirmed poisonings is rare.

        Steven R

    2. hmv

      Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

      And now recompute those risks for vaping liquid whose nicotine content is very, very low.

      And it beats smoking.

      1. Darryl

        Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

        Exactly. Almost anything is hazardous depending on dosages. Read the MSDS for ethanol next time you're having a beer.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

          > Exactly. Almost anything is hazardous depending on dosages.

          Or as Douglas Adams wrote:

          "Parents of young, organic life forms are warned that towels can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities."

    3. BazzF

      Re: Thank heavens it's harmless ...

      For what dosages? Water will kill you if you drink too much of it. Dosage is everything. Pure scaremongering, as usual.

  8. Falanx

    Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

    This was a metastudy of what exactly?

    Two years worth of data on a product that still contains a carcinogen, when it's been very. very well demonstrated over decades and millions of cases, that cancers are extremely time dependent medical conditions, with incubation periods more than capable of being measures in decades.

    And the people have the temerity to call themselves medical researchers?

    1. Lee 24
      WTF?

      Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

      So what carcinogen is that then?

      Propylene glycol (PG) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

      Vegetable Glycerine (VG) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol

      Nicotine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

      Those are the Main ingredient plus a little flavouring that should be Food Grade if you guy from a reputable supplier.

      1. graeme leggett

        Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

        someone mention glycerol?

        "Combustible. Gives off irritating or toxic fumes (or gases) in a fire. "

        "The substance decomposes on heating producing corrosive fumes of acrolein "

        http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0624.html

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

          It's a good job it's not combusting in this application then, or getting to the temps where acrolein is generated in any meaningful (or even detectable, in most cases) measures, eh?

          (and at the temperatures where it is generated, it tastes utterly foul, immediately causing usage cessation - it's called a dry hit, and anyone who uses these devices knows it. Smoking machines, oddly, do not)

          Steven R

          1. graeme leggett

            Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

            "generated in any meaningful (or even detectable, in most cases) measures, eh?"

            That's what long term health studies are for - to see if 'meaningful' amounts are the safe limits. I'll accept there oughtn't be a significant risk on the basis of the known chemistry and the actual temperatures involved

            Now if the sequence goes 'smokes cigs for years, switches to e-cig with nicotine for year, switches to nicotine free for a couple of years, throws e-cig into bin' then the short term studies done to date would seem to indicate that e-cig is a safe strategy for giving up cigarettes.

            If it's 'smokes cigs, switches to ecigs for the next 20 years, gets some lung/airway disease due to tiny amounts of something in the vapour' then it's a risk that ought to be known even that it's still much lower than smoking tobacco.

            1. Steven Raith

              Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

              So while we wait for those long term studies, how many smokers do you think should die from smoking related diseases, the risks of which they could have seriously reduced by switching to vapour tech?

              Because when we get down to brass tacks, there's plenty of evidence - good evidence - that vaping is about as close to 'safe enough' as we can expect from any inhalation based nicotine delivery system (which is a popular thing that will never, ever go away) to make it a no brainer for a smoker to switch.

              They have already decided that the benefits they get from smoking outweigh the well known risks - so if you massively reduce the risks, then that's an increase in the benefit.

              All the enjoyment, none of the death (to the best of our current knowledge).

              At this stage, with what we know about the relative risk, talking about long term testing as a reason to restrict access or to discourage peope from using these devices is utter sophistry; people are dying now from lit tobacco use.

              So far, other than extreme outliers (PG allergy, battery issues) no-one who uses these devices as directed has reported a serious reaction or problem from them, period.

              Are there possible long term risks from vaping? Of course there will likely be - probably an increase in COPD likelyhood and other airway issues over the long term.

              But it'll be significantly less than from smoking, because smoking is unique in it's ability to destroy the body.

              And as people will always 'smoke' in some form or another - it's been part of human culture for millenia - why restrict access to the safest method yet found of doing so based on what, when it comes down to it, is nothing more than mealy mouthed handwringing?

              Steven R

            2. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

              If it's 'smokes cigs, switches to ecigs for the next 20 years, gets some lung/airway disease due to tiny amounts of something in the vapour' then it's a risk that ought to be known even that it's still much lower than smoking tobacco.

              If you're really that worried, why aren't you and all the other worry-warts fucking well campaigning against exposure to far the higher levels in industry, music and theatre? An e-cig exposes the user to less than 1% of safe industrial levels. IOW, you can be exposed to more than 100 times as much from the legal limit of stage smoke at a rock concert, stage play or in a factory.

      2. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

        Those are the Main ingredient plus a little flavouring that should be Food Grade if you guy from a reputable supplier.

        The flavouring is GRAS* (generally regarded as safe) and therefore not considered worth testing. Many species in the Solanaceae family contain nicotine: potatoes, tomatoes, capsicums, chillies. aubergines... No doubt they are on the nannies' hit-list as well.

        * FDA terminology.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology

      Reads as a review of what little evidence is available. And there seems to be a lack as authors point out.

      "Only two of the included studies are randomized controlled trials and followed participants for at least six months. These provide the best evidence. The remaining 22 studies either did not follow participants for very long or did not put people into treatment groups so could not directly compare ECs with something else"

      So little reliable data on effectiveness but "These [the 22] studies can tell us less about how ECs might help with quitting smoking but can tell us about short-term safety"

      Notice words "short-term". Authors do say "categorical statements about the toxicity of ECs are not possible because of the large number of devices and fluids available and the frequent addition of new products to the market. However, among those brands of EC that have been tested, levels of toxins have been found to be substantially lower than in cigarettes, and are present at levels that are unlikely to represent a significant risk to health to either the user or to bystanders "

      And this is the important element "Stopping smoking is associated with large health benefits". So long as giving up the cigs is better for you then vaping, then you personally are onto a winner.

      Here's the full article

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3/full

  9. wolfetone Silver badge

    Popcorn Lung not a thing anymore then?

    Fantastic news.

    1. Lee 24

      That has been debunked so many times

    2. hmv

      Nope. Myth busted.

    3. Steven Raith

      It's even on Snopes, Wolfetone.

      I'm not even joking

      I at least now have a fairly comprehensive link to share about this, rather than having to explain it all myself.

      Steven R

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    For smokers who haven't tried vaping as a replacement

    If you are a smoker who would like to give up, do try vaping. The devices are cheap, especially compared to cigs in the UK.

    The experience is similar enough to smoking: give it 3 days or so. Initially you will prefer the cigs, but keep at it.

    I find that the vaping is a fantastic alternative because:

    * It provides the nicotine so no nasty withdrawals.

    * The social scene of smoking, often misunderstood and omitted, is continued.

    * With the vaper in your pocket it forms a mental barrier to buying or cadging fags: you know you have this alternative available.

    What I didn't expect was that I appear to not want to smoke as much or as often. Vaping is not just a replacement, it *appears* to actually somehow also lessen the need. Anecdotal and sample size of one, but I am happy with this.

    Then there is the advantage of being able to control the dosage of nicotine (down to zero if you dare), the complete absence of the carcinogen particles, no nasty clinging smoke smells (she wont even know you are smoking etc).

    Its rare in life that these kinds of win-wins come along. If you haven't tried one yet, treat yourself to a cheapo one and invest a little in improving your health and life quality.

    Icon shows a fellow nicotine addict :)

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

    So apart from causing cancer and heart disease, it's safe ?

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

      It's safer than smoking, so just don't recommend vaping to a non-smoker and your conscience will be clear.

    2. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

      Citation for either of those claims?

      Since I stopped smoking and switched to vaping, funnily enough my lungs are a lot healthier and I can (and do) do more exercise, massively improving my cardiac health, weight, fitness, happiness...

      I'd been smoking for >15 years, I don't think I've been this fit and healthy since I was 16, all of which is solely down to being able to breathe again. If I could have quit smoking without needing a vape, that would have been awesome... however it is extremely difficult to quit nicotine, even with NRT.

      1. Steven Raith

        Re: Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

        Tom, he's probably citing the Sun headline from a few weeks ago that 'vaping is as bad for you as fags', based on nothing more than that it stiffens the aortic arteries temporarily.

        However, what they didn't report:

        Arortic stiffening is temporary and goes back to normal within minutes - that is, it's an 'acute' effect.

        It takes 30mins of vaping to get same effect as one cigarette (5 mins of smoking)

        No cardiologist worth their salt would ever make claims about aortic stiffening being a prognosis for heart disease - it's not a marker for it. At all.

        Other things that cause exactly the same type and level of response: Coffee, jogging, having a tommy-tank, someone coming up behind you and going BOO. But you don't see people saying that going jogging or tugging one out will give you heart disease.

        Here is a comprehensive deconstruction and demolition of the Sun article from the former executive director of ASH.

        Steven R

    3. Darryl

      Re: Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

      Once again, we're seeing someone who can't distinguish between 'nicotine' and 'cigarette'

      Cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease. It's because they contain something like 6000 nasty chemicals. Fortunately, nicotine isn't one of those harmful chemicals (unless you drink it or bathe in it, I guess)

    4. quxinot

      Re: Cancer ? Heart Disease ?

      "So apart from causing cancer and heart disease, it's safe ?"

      Anything that elevates your blood pressure for extended periods of time will cause heart disease.

      So, throw in cocaine, idiot boss, caffieine, and children into the bucket to complain about too. And I suspect many of us would like more of those outlawed than currently typical.

  12. Matt Brigden

    here we go again incoming doomsayers

    17 months ago I stubbed out the last analog . 40 a day to vape . Quite happy on 0.3mg of nicotine so less than a fag and also less of the other junk too . In those 17 months I have sat watching a variety of articles get bent , regurgitated in parts and twisted . Most of it is utter tosh .

    Are the chemicals responsible for popcorn lung in ecigs - They were in a couple of brands of juice all of which have since removed them . What the report didnt say was the amount detected was miniscule when compared to a cigarette .

    Same for the rest yes there but at a much lower amount than a cig . The only people still bleating are surprise surprise the tobacco wonks and pharma guys all of which are directly threatened by ecigs .

    Stop reading the reports by the damned headlines and actually read the reports . The articles tend to twist facts . The independent research papers dont .

    No ecigs are not 100% safe BUT its a huge amount safer than smoking .. And face it neither is crossing the road .

    1. Darryl

      Re: here we go again incoming doomsayers

      There is still another group bleating... The militant non smokers who believe the false headlines about vaping being worse for you than smoking

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ...aaaaand, smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer!!

    Nothing changes .... I lived through the 60's and 70's when study after study proved that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer!! So there!!! The fact that all of these studies were paid for by Big Tobacco was downplayed by the same press that was funded by Big Tobacco advertising.

    1. Darryl

      Re: ...aaaaand, smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer!!

      I lived through the 60s and 70s too. And I remember these studies sponsored by the tobacco companies.

      One question, though... Which huge companies are backing these studies? The tobacco companies have been actively trying to discourage and outlaw e-cigs because they cut into their profits. It's only recently that they've taken an "If you can't beat them, try to take them over" attitude.

      Excepting these guys, who would rather you stayed with cigarettes, here are no big multi-billion dollar companies in the e-cig business who can afford to sponsor studies or buy politicians.

    2. Steven Raith

      Re: ...aaaaand, smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer!!

      Back in the 60's and 70s, access to this research by the public and non-academic experts was tricky and inconvenient - so blowing them apart with common sense or questioning and repeating the methodology was hard.

      These days, we have Pubmed commons and various open access journals, and the tobacco industry is under closer scrutiny than it ever has been - everyone is looking for them to lie again.

      The irony is, it's actually the anti-harmreduction crowd who are pushing out the most junk - poor methodology, clear conflict of interest. And thankfully, we can now see the research as soon as it's published, and openly question it's merits, methodology, etc.

      See these studies that have all been critiqued in the open.

      That simply wasn't possible 40 years ago.

      Because it's not 40 years ago.

      Steven R

  14. TRT Silver badge

    Just one question...

    Where does the nicotine in the nicotine liquids come from?

    1. Darryl

      Re: Just one question...

      Same place that the nicotine in a nicotine patch or puffer comes from. It's extracted from tobacco leaves. They have the largest concentration of nicotine in them, so it's a lot more cost effective than it would be to extract it from tomatoes or eggplant, for example.

      1. Steven Raith

        Re: Just one question...

        No doubt the implication is that the tobacco companies still make money out of it.

        But I can assure you, it's far less than they make out of tobacco itself....

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. TRT Silver badge

          Re: Just one question...

          I was just wondering. It's the same really as what do they do with the caffeine from decaffeinated coffee?

        3. Steven Raith

          Re: Just one question...

          Sigh, reply to myself because i meant cigarettes and rolling tobacco, not (just) 'tobacco' Dur.

          Not that I'm having a bad week or owt....

          Steven R

  15. Bert 1
    Thumb Up

    Benefit for a non-smoker

    Can I just point out that as a non-smoker, I am completely in favour of vaping.

    When entering or leaving any given building, I no-longer have to hold my breath.

    The profusion of aromas is actually quite enjoyable.

    (Although maybe I am becoming addicted to nicotine?)

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Benefit for a non-smoker

      (Although maybe I am becoming addicted to nicotine?)

      Naaah! Just addicted to common-sense :-)

  16. BazzF

    Coming up on 6 years cig free now due to vaping. It's come a long way from when I started.

    Now it seems to be mostly idiots trying to fog out whatever space they're in. Good way to get it banned. wankers.

    All I want is something that keeps me off the cigs, lets me enjoy whatever flavour I might like and, as I rebuild my own coils and the wire and wicking material is easily obtained I've stopped evangelising.

    Over the last year vaping has cost me around 20p a day. A considerable saving over what I was paying even when i stopped buying cigs let alone now.

    Hey, if you want to smoke, go ahead. They're your lungs. If you're under the impression that nicotine is a carcinogen, then I suggest using the internet thing to self-educate, or getfucked. Doesn't bother me what you beleive.

    1. Darryl

      Exactly. The government of British Columbia just banned vaping in all public spaces, including parks. All of the comments from those who thought this was a great idea were about not having to deal with "cloud chasers" trying to see how big a cloud of fog they can produce

  17. 0laf Silver badge

    Hate to be pragmatic but

    Hate to be pragmatic but is the basic equation not

    Is the harm from vaping > or < than the harm from smoking?

    If it's less - stop smoking start vaping

    If it's more - stop vaping start smoking again.

    I've not read anything that says vaping is less unhealthy than smoking. So who really give a toss if it still causes harm or not. For smokers it's better.

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

      Public Health England (an agency of the Department of Health) commissioned a meta-study that determined that vaping is around 95% less harmful than smoking.

      The three key findings:

      1) the current best estimate is that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than smoking

      2) nearly half the population (44.8%) don’t realise e-cigarettes are much less harmful than smoking

      3) there is no evidence so far that e-cigarettes are acting as a route into smoking for children or non-smokers

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

        Depends on what you mean by harm. Health professionals know a lot about the long term effects of tobacco smoking / consumption as the result of a lot of data gathered over many years. Vaping is a relatively new thing - there's at most 10 years of data, no life-time studies, there's a hundred and one ways to construct a vaping unit as well as thousands of different substances that could be used. I think that comparison of a set of a few short-term studies against a lot of life-long studies isn't a fair comparison from which one can draw a definitive conclusion; many people seem to be heralding this research as just that.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

          Vaping is a relatively new thing

          But heating a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerin isn't. It dates back many decades. Stage smoke, military demonstrations, delivery of drugs for asthma, all rely on the same technology. If it's relatively untested as is so frequently claimed, why the fuck are doctors and nurses allowed to treat asthmatics with the technology? If it's unsafe for e-cig users, it's unsafe for asthmatics.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

            As I said, a myriad of designs. But many therapeutic asthmatic "vaporisers" are actually atomisers. Atomisation can be achieved by physical methods which do not involve direct heat, such as nozzles or sonic bombardment. Stage smoke effects also come in a myriad of designs, from atomisation through dry ice to vaporised oil. I've said it before on here (and on other sites), and received massive criticism for it I might add, that the design of the heating element may well be critical in determining the purity of the vapour that is inhaled. A heating coil that is directly in the path of the inhaled vapour may well (actually it does and there are papers that back this up) contain nano-particles of metal which slough off the coil surface during the rapid expansion and contraction that heating causes. So any test on the oils and liquids which may involve vaporising them using, say, a heated glass flask, and then pulling the vapour into the atmosphere of a sealed rat or mouse cage, would miss out on that feature of the design. For comparison, it would be like saying cigarettes are safe if e.g. filter tips were made of asbestos but the experiment had been done using rolling tobacco. You've uncoupled the delivery system from the substance.

            So what I'm saying it that extrapolating long-term effects from short-term studies or from laboratory studies which only test part of the whole is a bad thing to do. There are some subjects which just polarise people immediately - e-cigs, mobile phone radiation, Brexit; you're one side or the other and if you're one camp you have to smear the other at every possible opportunity, denounce their research, slander their supporters and attack, attack, attack. That's not how to do science.

            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

              There are nano particles in the air I breathe (it's the saltiness of the sea breeze), there are nano particles of silver in those odour-eating socks (not to mention the unmentionables) and in the plastic wrap for foods in the fridge. In fact, there are hundreds of products from therapeutic drugs to sunscreen that contain nano particles. I guess if you say "nano particles" often enough it gets really scary.

              You mention poor emulation in relation to vapourising PG/VG differently in the lab than in the e-cig and it's a valid point. So why do investigators into cigarettes use a constant flow method of analysing the smoke when smokers do no such thing? Smokers puff and the burning portion of the cigarette varies in temperature. So I guess we can dismiss all that research into normal cigarette smoking for it's poor experimental design.

              It's worth noting here that there are no standards set in this area of research. Everyone who decides to measure the translation of nicotine from source to bloodstream invents their own technique so comparing studies is misleading to say the least.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

                @pompous_git

                My interpretation of TRT's post it: don't get too excited and start heralding vaping as totally safe until we have at least 1 lifetime's worth of study.

                Are you disagreeing with that? Are you declaring it completely safe? Are you advocating everyone takes up vaping?DO you have some vested interest?

                History is full of completely safe substances & practices that turned out to be anything but. Cautious optimism would seem to be the the right approach.

                I advise my few remaining smoking friends to try vaping to quite ciggies, and then to quit vaping.

                1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                  Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

                  My interpretation of TRT's post it: don't get too excited and start heralding vaping as totally safe until we have at least 1 lifetime's worth of study.

                  I recall an earlier conversation with TRT regarding his excitement about the potential danger of nano particles. What he referenced had nothing whatsoever to do with vaping.

                  If you construe my post as declaring vaping as completely safe, you need to reread it because I said nothing of the sort.

                  The only "vested interest" I have is in my health and that of my nearest and dearest. It has improved considerably since I took up vaping. So too has that of my son who also took up vaping at my suggestion. My son in turn has managed to persuade several of his friends to join the club who also report improved health. It would appear that there is a certain type of person who resents this.

                  1. TRT Silver badge

                    Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

                    "So too has that of my son who also took up vaping at my suggestion."

                    If he took up vaping as a replacement for smoking, that's fine. If he took up vaping as a non-smoker, you've done him a disservice.

                    If it's possible to for you to now give up vaping, I would suggest you do so.

                    I admit I was enthusiastic in an earlier post about the link between Alzheimer's and nano-particulate chromium and nickel. That was because I am involved in Alzheimer's research, and uncovered a trail of papers during a literature search surrounding an at the time unpublished finding that one of our groups had made about a possible mechanism for neuronal cell death. The trail led from histone complexes to nano-particulate nickel and chromium in general to the presence of those in the vapour from cheap Chinese knock-off vaporiser elements. There are as yet no papers directly linking Alzheimer's to vaping, though there are some linking it to atmospheric pollution. I did cite the papers concerned in the previous post. I leave it up to others to decide on their own health. I would add the the cost to the NHS of looking after smoking related disease is dwarfed by the cost of dementia care. Ill happily listen to arguments about tobacco tax covering the cost of the NHS, and any reasonable argument about the government being worried about a loss of tax revenue from people switchman to vaping.

                    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                      Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

                      If he took up vaping as a replacement for smoking, that's fine. If he took up vaping as a non-smoker, you've done him a disservice.

                      You forgot to mention that I also eat newborn Christian babies and pull the flies off wings.

                      If it's possible to for you to now give up vaping, I would suggest you do so.

                      I gave up smoking for 9 months several years ago. [Props to Kiwi for mentioning Alan Carr's excellent books.] I couldn't sleep, my tinnitus was much worse, I couldn't concentrate, I had dizzy spells, my sense of smell was greatly enhanced [I really hate the smell of stale menstrual blood] and the promised decrease in blood pressure never happened. All these symptoms (and more) disappeared after taking up smoking again. A few weeks later, I was introduced to vaping so my smoker's cough never returned.

                      Yes, I could give up vaping, but I'd really rather not commit suicide.

                      Regarding Alzheimer's, I remember being told that was caused by cooking in aluminium saucepans. Now it's caused by stainless steel (nickel and chromium)? Cooking in copper is a no, no. Presumably cooking in glass will be found to cause erectile dysfunction, or something. I'm old enough to have figured out that Bad Things are Lurking Everywhere, waiting to strike us down, but I can't be bothered anymore.

            2. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: Hate to be pragmatic but

              As I said, a myriad of designs. But many therapeutic asthmatic "vaporisers" are actually atomisers. Atomisation can be achieved by physical methods which do not involve direct heat, such as nozzles or sonic bombardment. Stage smoke effects also come in a myriad of designs, from atomisation through dry ice to vaporised oil

              The Git used to be a volunteer firefighter and we were sent for training from time to time. Here's the type of smoke generator used. And here's a typical MSDS for the fluid. Glycol BTW is another name for glycerin.

              My sister is a nurse who happens to also suffer from asthma. While TRT is correct that nebulisers for asthma sufferers create the aerosol mechanically, the drug she uses is not soluble in water. It's dissolved in propylene glycol!

              I think TRT has a barrow to push and he doesn't seem to mind being somewhat deceptive about it.

  18. Herby Silver badge

    Government addiction...

    Yes, the government is as addicted to cigarettes as anyone else. The bloody things are taxed so much in relation to their cost it is silly. The vaping people understand this and their product is by far a cheaper alternative. So, it is in the best interests of government to keep vaping and cigarettes in the same boat and tax them both to death.

    Look, if it is bad, outlaw it. Oh, wait we would lose revenue from it (see prohibition in the USA) and couldn't control it, which would be bad. We (at least here in the USA) regularly ban substances that cause cancer if ingested in such small doses that it might take 10 lifetimes to consume the lethal dose (see sodium cyclamate) but tobacco makes so much money that they can't ban it.

    Stupid.

  19. DougS Silver badge

    Lack of side effects doesn't mean they can't be regulated

    OK so banning them, or taxing them very heavily like cigarettes is obviously a bad idea if they help people quit smoking.

    But regulating in terms of "you can't use them anywhere that cigarettes are not allowed" is a different matter. If people are already required to step outside the bar to smoke, what's the harm in requiring them to also step outside to vape? OK its great if second hand "smoke" from vaping won't harm you like second hand cigarette smoke does, so it isn't a public health concern, but if you're hanging your argument on "vaping helps stop smoking" then restricting it to the same places as smoking doesn't hinder that goal.

    However, making vaping more convenient than smoking does hinder the goal of completely eliminating nicotine dependence - and that's what turns "smoker who substitutes vaping to fulfill his nicotine craving" into "former smoker who no longer craves nicotine". Leaving the nicotine craving in place obviously makes it more likely that a former smoker who vapes will go back to smoking versus a former smoker who has beat his nicotine craving entirely. It also makes it more likely that young people who have never smoked and start vaping will someday become smokers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lack of side effects doesn't mean they can't be regulated

      It also makes it more likely that young people who have never smoked and start vaping will someday become smokers.

      Horseshit.

    2. Steven Raith

      Re: Lack of side effects doesn't mean they can't be regulated

      I quite like a bit of nicotine. It does me no harm, and it harms no-one else around me.

      What about all those people who go batshit if they can't get a coffee in the morning?

      See how silly that argument sounds now?

      If you push vapers into the smoking areas, they are far more likely to keep dual using, or go back to smoking (especially when thanks to irresponsible journalism, most people think vaping is more dangerous than smoking - peer pressure etc).

      If you allow vapers to (with consideration) vape at the bar or in the office, that's a significant advantage over smoking, with no side effects to anyone around them (other than manners based things like not fogging the room out - again, consideration) then there is a far greater chance of getting them off the staggeringly dangerous lit tobacco and onto something that while not benign, is basically about as risky as having a latte with your lunch.

      It's very interesting how the debate about tobacco harm reduction has moved away from 'smoke for the nicotine, die for the tar' to a purely moral - and that is all it is, raw puritanism - crusade against perceived addiction. I'd go as far as to say it's very telling, actually.

      Steven R

    3. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Lack of side effects doesn't mean they can't be regulated

      However, making vaping more convenient than smoking does hinder the goal of completely eliminating nicotine dependence

      The only way to "completely eliminate" nicotine dependence would be a total ban on all products containing nicotine including: potatoes, tomatoes, capsicums, chillies, aubergines... Be very careful what you wish for.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Vaping doesn't help you with the nicotine addiction per se..

    .. but it is GREAT at dealing with the associated habit. The biggest con trick tobacco companies played on their audience was the habit forming via association. The addiction itself takes some 2 weeks to deal with, but the habit is what pulls you back in because habits are stored in the basal ganglia, in what is pretty much a one-way process - consider it a cache of regular occurring processes that's hard to wipe. Every time you land in a situation associated with smoking you'd trigger that habit - it's pretty much the same principle behind alcopops (to get kids early into drinking alcohol), buying Microsoft (OK, maybe not but it was fun to throw it in anyway) or even social media - habits are quite hard lock-ins.

    However, whereas it's hard to remove a habit, it's easier to change it into something else. That's why former smokers need a replacement activity like eating carrots, gnawing on pencils - or vaping.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. Mycho Silver badge

    Write it down and ignore it!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fine, just as long as all vape-apes

    Get in the sea!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But

    Is there a way to make vaping NOT look silly?

    Asking for a friend.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But

      Is there a way to make vaping NOT look silly?

      Yes, just do it, and do it for yourself. Don't go looking for an audience to proclaim how cool you are because that happens to be the exact most uncool thing to do :). Especially if you vape to give up smoking, you can feel confident that you're doing the right thing for both you and the people that care about you and that's the most important thing of all.

      The rest, well, they don't really matter and they know it - that's why they try to have influence. Tip from my evil side: there's nothing that irritates bullies and wannabes more than being ignored, so enjoy that :).

  24. superpurpleturtle

    Why all the coughing

    If E-Cigs don't harm you why do users seem to constantly cough?

    I have been smoking for 20 years and my cough doesn't exist, compare that to a ecig user of 6 months who cough's all the time

    Not even mentioning the fact that I smoke about 10-15 a day, wheras the ecig users just constantly smoke all day!

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: Why all the coughing

      I've read that cigarettes suppress the cough somehow. That's probably why smokers cough comes sporadically rather than constantly - the bad shit builds up until it overwhelms the cough suppressant properties.

      E-cigs don't do this. I remember initially coughing when I switched, which apparently is my lungs clearing themselves out - the same thing happens when people quit cold turkey.

      As an asthmatic, I obviously never should have started smoking in the first place ( stupid 14 year old me ), but since the switch my asthma has improved enormously.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Why all the coughing

        since the switch my asthma has improved enormously.

        Switching from tobacco smoking to e-cigs made no difference whatsoever to my "chronic asthma". It was cured by completely following a switch to drugs for chronic heart failure. Many in the medical profession wouldn't know whether it's raining or Tuesday!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why all the coughing

          Many in the medical profession wouldn't know whether it's raining or Tuesday!

          Amen to that, although I seem to be able to pick out the good ones. That said, so far I've also been lucky when such facilities were offline due to unplanned encounters with implacable objects like mountains :).

          I didn't START smoking because of chronic "youth" asthma. The asthma has gone, and I'm still smoke free*.

          * although, I can't tell you if I smoke after sex or not, I never looked..

    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Why all the coughing

      Not even mentioning the fact that I smoke about 10-15 a day, wheras the ecig users just constantly smoke all day!

      I used to smoke that number (rollups with filters). People frequently remark on the fact that I don't seem to vape anywhere near as often as I used to smoke. It must be said I'm vaping 48 mg juice and only take 4-6 drags. No smoker's cough either which is great.

  25. Valarian

    I Quit Accidentally

    I smoked for 25 years, 20 a day on average. I knew it was bad for me, but I *liked* it, dammit. Tried to quit a few times, but the longest I stayed off 'em was six months. When the first e-cigs appeared I tried a few brands but never found one that hit the spot in the way a good lungful of carcinogens did.

    In 2014 a mate persuaded me to try a new type of e-cig - a big chunky battery with variable-power options, a sizable glass tank with customisable heater/atomiser, and so many flavours of e-liquids it was silly. I gave it a go and after a few days had tuned it to deliver the hit I needed. I smoked my last cigarette in August 2014 and have not had one since.

    I decided to cut down on the nicotine content, and by Christmas 2014 was vaping what was basically flavoured water - no drug at all. I was still 'smoking', and enjoying it, but without the risk of Choking Cancerous Death(tm). Job done.

    Until summer 2015, when I got a bad cold and didn't vape for a week. I fell out of the habit, and didn't get around to picking it up again. I didn't intend to quit - it was an accident.

    Over a year on, and still no urge to vape (or smoke a fag either).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I Quit Accidentally

      Until summer 2015, when I got a bad cold and didn't vape for a week. I fell out of the habit, and didn't get around to picking it up again. I didn't intend to quit - it was an accident.

      Ah, that's another thing with habits stored in the basal ganglia*: it's known that STRONG changes to circumstances like illness and accidents do affect them, but there has so far not been a good study on which changes do.

      * A good book to read about this is "The power of habits" by Charles Duhigg - very informative, based on proper research and IMHO definitely worth your time if you're interested in how your brain does things.

  26. Jess

    Being probably the most rabibly antismoking person I know

    it is probably worth sharing that I don't have a problem with people vaping unflavoured fluid right next to me. Even in a car. (I will not travel in a car with someone smoking.)

    The flavoured fluid is a different matter, some of it is pretty awful (though not usually to the same level as smoking).

    My feeling is vaping flavoured fluids should be subject to the same laws as smoking, while (adults vaping) unfavoured fluids should be down to the policy of the location itself.

    1. janimal

      Re: Being probably the most rabibly antismoking person I know

      As an ex-smoker thanks to vaping and an ex-vaper thanks to not actually wanting to habitually inhale anything just for the sake of it. There are times when I would prefer someone to be smoking a cigarette.

      My friend is one of those cloud monsters & is fond of custard and other sickly sweet flavoured juices. When he exhales a massive cumulonimbus of custard I just want to vomit. It really makes me choke.

  27. Stuart Tomlinson

    Went from a 30 to 40 a day smoker to ecigs 4 years ago and not touched a cigarette since;. So worked for me where gum, patches and hypnosis failed.

    Unfortunately was diagnosed with M1a lung cancer 3 months ago, but that's 20 plus years of smoking for you!

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Sorry to hear that :(.

  28. Dick Emery

    First post had it right all along

    Everything stated above is only a subtext to the initial first posters reply. The powers that be in both government and BT&P are shit scared that their revenue stream is suddenly going to dry up. When everything is said and done it comes down to one thing and one thing only.

    Money.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019