Course it won’t stop the nannies from trying hard to look after you for your own good.
Levy and his colleagues report research in the U.S., Canada and England, that shows cigarette smoking rates have fallen more in the last two years than they have in the previous four or five years and that this trend has coincided with the increase in e-cigarette use. “While e-cigarettes may act as a gateway to smoking, much of the evidence indicates that e-cigarette use encourages cessation from cigarettes by those people who would have otherwise smoked with or without e-cigarettes,” Levy says.
But remember ! To a leftist (and most Libertarians) there is magically nothing wrong with marijuana smoke in your lungs … because … it’s natural
I was a terrible tobacco fiend, nicotine-soaked to the bone, I tried everything – gum, patches, xyban, champix, even cold turkey – but was unable to give up cigarettes for decades of trying. Yeah yeah, I’m weak… I’ve been exclusively vaping my nicotine since last August and, for the first time in memory, I have no desire whatsoever to smoke. I occasionally contemplate treating myself to a pack of smokes but, amazingly to me, I feel none of the addict’s desire to do so. There has definitely been significant improvements to my general health too. Vaping is a life-saver. I’m still addicted but indications are vaping will be a lot easier to quit than smoking.
“While e-cigarettes may act as a gateway to smoking,” yeah ok. Because before e-cigs nobody smoked, and they are going to switch from a dollar-a-day habit to a $14 a day one…
Ditched analogue for digital 7 months ago, and aside from the odd cigar there is no desire to go back…
ah jeez benji, did you open that closet door called ‘tar levels from pot smoking’ again?
I remember waaaaaay back int he heyday of popularization of pop this elephant in the room that got ignored by both sides. the ones ignoring an uncomfortable truth and the ones who viewed it as not dramatic enough.
This whole cigarettes versus pot juxtaposition never ceases to make me chuckle over its inherent contradictions.
Are there studies on second-hand pot smoke? Will packaging come with health warnings? Any word at all from the anti-smoking lobby on this? Have doctors weighed in on the negative effects of marijuana? Will the potheads be fined for lighting up in bars and restaurants or within nine metres of this or that building? And what about minors?
And then there’s the obvious moment when the penny finally drops and the pothead constituency realizes that government regulation means their stash will be (a) more expensive due to taxation (b) heavily controlled to minimize potency and (c) distributed by monopolistic government or government-approved agencies.
That’s when the illegal grow-ups and trafficking will start sprouting right back up thick and fast.
Interesting that you would respond to a post decrying nanny-statism with a typically “conservative” authoritarian stance complete with the requisite misfire aimed at “most libertarians…”.There is no “libertarian” stance on the health effects of marijuana but simply opposition to the state prohibition of another risky behavior of freely consenting adults. As with any substance smoked or ingested, risk varies with dosage, concentration, duration and toxicity. Nothing is risk free and on the continuum of risky and irrational (self-destructive) behavior, marijuana is likely somewhere close to alcohol and voting NDP.
My response IS about Nanny Statism. About how the Nanny State picks and chooses winners and losers. And for me … DOPE is a loser. For leftists and libertarians … a winner. And sorry, I don’t believe that a society benefits from legalizing ALL drugs … see: Opium Wars. A totally stoned Chinese society was really easy pickings for the Communists. Whatever maaaaaaaaaann … I am too busy to be bothered while sucking on my opium pipe.
The facts speak for themselves. E-cigarettes are proving effective for people who want to quit smoking and eliminate most of the harm caused by smoking tobacco.
Saskatoon’s City Council decided they had to suppress e-cigarettes and passed a by-law treating them the same as smoking tobacco.
In effect, they are pro-tobacco politicians, who oppose scientific harm reduction.
This should be an issue in the upcoming city elections this fall.
Thanks to vaping, Arnie hasn’t had a cigarette in one year. I never would have believed it. He even makes his own “juice” now and it is even cheaper. Incredible.
I’m on year 3 now vaping. No cigs since Feb 2014.
I DIY juice too, and rebuild my own coils in a Kayfun Lite. Just picked up an SX Mini a little while ago. OHMIGHOD I love it.
Haven’t tried temperature control yet, but if it pans out that’ll be huge.
lance. G I V E. I T. U P.
September 20th will be two years without cigs for me… couldn’t have quit without e-cigs.
Since lance is obviously too polite to say this
S.T.F.U 🙂
birds gotta fly
dogs gotta bark
smokers gotta smoke…even if it’s fake
ps I’m experimenting with native smokes, but the ones I get suck.
Why?
The descriptor, ‘popcorn lung,’ and news of an e-cig user dying of asphyxiation from the coating inside her lung would be enough to make me quit cold, were I a smoker. I have a coffee habit, instead.
They should stop regulating tobacco, as well.
“Saskatoon’s City Council decided they had to suppress e-cigarettes”
This is the result of a combination of an insatiable thirst to appear “progressive” and sheer ignorance about the science behind electronic smokes. There is no desire to make smokers quit. There is no desire to protect non-smokers from so-called “second-hand smoke” and there is absolutely no desire to apply common sense or listen to reason. Debate is closed and council will never revisit this ludicrous decision. If these nannies put such restrictions on e-cigs, marijuana smokers are in for a rough ride. It’s for the kids dontcha know?
Your irrational response is unwarranted and deceptive. There are cancer causing carcinogens in everything you intake. The difference is that levels (ppm,ppb) of these known carcinogens in the products you intake are considered safe to consume. Take your coffee addiction for example. There are 21 known carcinogens in a single cup of coffee which represents 3% of the known chemicals in coffee that have been tested for carcinogenicity.
Here are some of the cancer-causing agents in coffee: Acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, benzo(a)pyrene, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene, ethanol, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, isoprene, limonene, 4-methylcatechol, styrene, toluene, xylene.
Yet knowing all this health officials are not calling for a ban on coffee and consider it relatively harmless to consume. However, if I had an agenda, I could use this data to frame the narrative that drinking coffee increases the levels of these cancer causing agents in your system, thus scaring the public into believing drinking coffee increases your chances of developing cancer.
Now go away.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/09/how-the-media-totally-exaggerated-study-on-risk-of-popcorn-lung-from-e-cigarettes/
How The Media Totally Exaggerated Study On Risk Of ‘Popcorn Lung’ From E-Cigarettes
The Harvard study whipped up a storm of hyperbolic headlines including “Harvard study finds that E-cigarette flavors cause lung disease” and “Chemicals in Flavored E-Cigarettes Tied To ‘Popcorn Lung’ Disease.”
But the headlines may be shielding the truth about the potential risk of popcorn lung from using e-cigarettes. “Tobacco cigarette smoke contains high levels of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, on average 100 and 10 times higher,” compared to average e-cigarette exposure, says Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, an expert on e-cigarette research.
Since tobacco smoke contains far higher levels of diacetyl than flavored e-cigarettes and there has not been a single confirmed case of a smoker contracting popcorn lung, the likelihood that vapers will contract this particular lung disease is minimal, to say the least.
Good comments. To be clearer, diacetyl is only found in e-liquids that brand themselves as buttery flavour or taste.
If you’re still “vaping” nicotine long after you’ve quit sucking on tobacco, you’re still an addict regardless of how loud you may howl you’re not. Continually saying that the world is flat will not make it less round. Work on the addiction; then you have something to be proud about.
I don’t see anyone on here crowing about being a hero for substituting smoking cigarettes with vaping. I strongly suspect that most vapers enjoy the dual benefit of switching to a less harmful means of feeding the habit and, at the same time, saving a pile of cash. We’re certainly not looking for anyone’s approval or a big pat on the back for kicking a habit. As for being called an addict … so be it. The opinion of those that take delight in judging means bugger all to me.
“There are cancer causing carcinogens in everything you intake.” True. Wheat has at least 4 carcinogens.
“Work on the addiction; then you have something to be proud about.”
Your addition seems to be commenting about others additions.
Try to follow your own advice … and be proud.
The private sector steps up and gets things done…
https://health.spectator.co.uk/public-health-should-step-aside-vapers-are-now-leading-the-way-against-smoking/?utm_content=buffer9a158&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I looked up ‘hooch.’ 🙂 I would like to be as restrained as you are, with my caffeine fix. Two cups in the morning, one with lunch, and then whenever I feel like it until 7 or 8 p.m. I ran out of coffee once, and the thought of being without it sent waves of exhaustion through my body. That is bad. If it’s carcinogenic, oh, well. I have to go sometime. Ever notice how, as soon as they sit down or stop work, some people dig out a cigarette to smoke with their coffee? The two apparently go together, so those of us who don’t smoke are virtuous. Purists. And yes, the Science is definitely settled.
northernont, your recitation sounds like the ingredients list from a package of Lime Jello. Spare me the attitude.
Of course I’m an addict. No one anywhere is denying this. Why should I stop vaping?
Now, though, we’ve a means of satisfying that addiction that is for all intents and purposes about as bad for you as having the occasional Coke. What is wrong with that?
The notable exception, of course, is that Coke drinkers don’t seem to attract self-righteous jerks comparing their drink to chewing cocoa leaves. What is wrong with you?
Giving up nicotine cold turkey is extraordinarily difficult and I applaud those who have successfully done so. That being said, every ex-smoker that I know has become markedly self-righteous, judgmental and downright preachy. This leads me to believe that a side effect of nicotine depravation is the stimulation of the asshole gene … a condition commonly found in anti-smoking zealots.
There was no intention to sound self righteous or sanctimonious; I am not trying to pick a fight and there is nothing wrong with me. I have seen so many people addicted to heroin switch to methadone in an effort to self improve their lives only to fail and go back to using heroin or worse with sad consequences because they thought they were out of the woods with their safe substitute. If vaping can be thought of analogous to a personal ‘safe injection site’ (where the professed intention is to save lives), there is a good chance of relapse without a plan in place to reduce consumption. Why risk it? Nicotine is more addictive than heroin; so yes, it’s difficult to quit. That is why after over thirty years of unsuccessful education on tobacco consumption, legal sanctions against recalcitrant public smokers came into play. But quitting can be done, if need be, through the assistance of vaping.
“legal sanctions against recalcitrant public smokers came into play”
So what you’re saying is that draconian smoking restrictions were legislated in order to assist smokers to quit? All along we’ve been led to believe that these rules were instituted to protect non-smokers from the deadly threat of second-hand smoke. I guess this explains the bans against smoking on patios, in parks and too close to doorways all of which have nothing to do with second-hand smoke.
“The descriptor, ‘popcorn lung,'”
Odd. You’d be more worried about vaping that eating popcorn – which “popcorn lung” was named after?
Darwin – get a table for 1.
Sounds good, reads like grade four. Here, let me help you examine what you wrote:
‘I have seen so many people addicted to heroin switch to methadone in an effort to self improve their lives only to fail and go back to using heroin or worse with sad consequences because they thought they were out of the woods with their safe substitute.’
False assumptions galore.
Falsities:
1. heroine nicotine comparison based on somehow quantifying ‘addictiveness’ but then using that comparison in a ‘harm’ context.
2. equating harmful results of heroine addiction to harmful results of nicotine addiction.
3. Equating the heroine to methadone progression with nicotine to nicotine progression.
Did you even read the linked article? Are you functionally illiterate? dyslexic? I mean, there has to be a reason, right?
“If vaping can be thought of analogous” – I’ll just leave that statement right there, You can imagine I’ve highlighted the words, ‘if’ and ‘analogous’ and written in red in the margin how those two words should never be in the same sentence ever. Never cross the beams, never.
‘there is a good chance of relapse without a plan in place’
More ‘nicotine is heroin’ drivel. Unlike a relapse to heroine from methadone, you can’t ‘relapse’ from/to the same drug.
‘thirty years of unsuccessful education’ – And this, right here, takes the cake. Do you have +any+ idea what the rate of quitting was when the US Surgeon General declared smoking as dangerous? Or all the way up to about 4 years ago?
Next time, when verbalizing your fear, try actually talking about what you really fear; the traditional means of using the drug rather than projecting your smoke phobia onto the harmless drug.
But as we all know liberals and leftists want to control our lives 24/7 365 days a year since most liberals are too ignorant to know the difference