Regulation is bs anyway. Look at what goes into food and drinks (like monster, redbull etc).
Imo real cigarettes kill, that is a fact. E-Cigarettes cannot be any worse than that.
I hear people say "you don't know what is in them" and whilst that is semi-true, I ask that same person to name me all the thousands of chemicals found in cigarettes.
Also if you make your own juice and purchase the chemicals needed it should just a few ingredients such as pharmaceutical grade nicotine, prypo/or vegetable glycerin (best to mix both in particular parts) and a flavouring. The worst is the flavouring because that is a small mixture of chemicals in itself I believe.
Just my own opinion mind.
Imo real cigarettes kill, that is a fact. E-Cigarettes cannot be any worse than that.
I hear people say "you don't know what is in them" and whilst that is semi-true, I ask that same person to name me all the thousands of chemicals found in cigarettes.
Also if you make your own juice and purchase the chemicals needed it should just a few ingredients such as pharmaceutical grade nicotine, prypo/or vegetable glycerin (best to mix both in particular parts) and a flavouring. The worst is the flavouring because that is a small mixture of chemicals in itself I believe.
Just my own opinion mind.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
With real cigarettes there has been lots of research in to their contents and their dangers are well known. I don't need to know what they are to know they are dangerous. All of this is because they are regulated and investigated.
With e-cigarettes they are not regulated or studied. You have been pharmaceutical companies making them and they are probably safe (they do know what is harmful to the body and they are not going to put their reputations on the line just for a quick buck in this market). Then we have the ones sold in independent shops - We have zero idea what is in these at all. They could be genuine attempts to make a real product or it could be someone out to scam the public (trends like this always attract the scammers) - these could be full of anything they had laying about at the time. People could be sucking vaporised floor cleaner in to their lungs.
Regulation does make a difference - there is nothing in Red Bull or Monster that is toxic unless you completely overdose on it. Then it becomes a problem in exactly the same was overdosing on coffee is. Due to regulation we know (for example) that there are no known carcinogenics in Red Bull or Monster - we cant say that about the e-cigarettes because they are not tested or regulated
Upvote
0
You shouldn't need a lab report to know ecigs are potential dangerous either. Anything that is not air, or water or nuts or fruit and veg is effectively bad for you and even then they say water contains chemicals (at the point of being treated) fruit and veg is sprayed with chemicals to aid it to hold whilst its packed and distributed..pretty much everything is bad for you and even if you live a cave mans lifestyle you can still get run over by a bus.
The opening posters qujestion was "E-cigarette safe or not" and my answer is still "safer than cigarettes".
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
Are they safer than cigarettes or not is impossible to call. If it comes from a big pharmaceutical company I would have a lot of faith that it was safer than smoking. If it came from an unknown brand I would say you are basically gambling with your life - you have no idea if they have filling it with good products or floor cleaner or any other nasty chemicals. I personally wouldn't take that risk.
This industry seems to be attracting the usual get rich quick crowd. Last year they were making cupcakes, next year they will be do something different (not sure I would trust their quality control). It is also attracting scammers who would put in anything if it smelt right long enough to sell.
The wrong chemicals could cause cancer but I suspect they are more likely to induce chemical burns in your lungs.
This industry seems to be attracting the usual get rich quick crowd. Last year they were making cupcakes, next year they will be do something different (not sure I would trust their quality control). It is also attracting scammers who would put in anything if it smelt right long enough to sell.
The wrong chemicals could cause cancer but I suspect they are more likely to induce chemical burns in your lungs.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
I think measuring your chances of getting cancer is a false measure of safety with ecigs. Unregulated chemicals entering your lungs can cause serious injuries that will basically clog up or damage your lungs for life without causing any sort of cancer. So you have an unknown chance of causing cancer plus an unknown chance of damaging your lungs in many other ways.
Look at all the industries where breathing in various stuff causes serious lung damage without causing cancer. Coal mining, milling (flour and wool), dealing with certain chemicals, etc.
Some chemicals simply burn the outer surfaces of the lung, permanently stopping them from letting through oxygen. Some vaporised chemicals turn in to liquids that solidify when they come in to contact with the moisture of your lungs (especially powder based products) - again sealing off parts of your lungs never to be opened up again.
Ecig's are meant to be consumed over shorter periods to help you get off the real ones. That could take weeks, months or the best part of a year. During that time you only have to pick up one e-cig made up of dodgy chemicals to immediately irreparably damage your lungs. That is a hell of a gamble.
Just think how many other cheap knock off products from unknown sources would you trust with your lungs?
Look at all the industries where breathing in various stuff causes serious lung damage without causing cancer. Coal mining, milling (flour and wool), dealing with certain chemicals, etc.
Some chemicals simply burn the outer surfaces of the lung, permanently stopping them from letting through oxygen. Some vaporised chemicals turn in to liquids that solidify when they come in to contact with the moisture of your lungs (especially powder based products) - again sealing off parts of your lungs never to be opened up again.
Ecig's are meant to be consumed over shorter periods to help you get off the real ones. That could take weeks, months or the best part of a year. During that time you only have to pick up one e-cig made up of dodgy chemicals to immediately irreparably damage your lungs. That is a hell of a gamble.
Just think how many other cheap knock off products from unknown sources would you trust with your lungs?
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
I would imagine i breathe in more dangerous stuff crawling round peoples lofts or under their floors than i do when i have a puff on an Ecig.
On the other hand, when i smoked i was ingesting a great deal more harm that was physically tangible - light headed, burning chest, dizziness, lack of breath, increased heart rate. I could feel internally what fags were doing to me. (no pun intended)
Swapping to ecigs has increased the quality of my life considerably. I'm the fittest i've been in years.
What you are saying is right in one sense, but i compare what you are saying to fake vodka that can blind people.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
The NHS website refers to them as devices to help give up smoking. Just do various googles for NHS and e-cigs. They refuse to say if they are helpful or not, or more dangerous or not. A few things the NHS website and Wikipedia point out
1. From 2015 the industry will start to see regulations rolled out and manufacturers will eventually need medical licenses. i.e. They are shifting from normal products under food type regulations to medical.
2. A US report that says that carcinogenics are to be found in some types - it seems to focus on the nicotine systems. It is not to the level found in cigarettes but they don't know yet if it has the potential to cause cancers. Tests are still on going.
3. The NHS mentions being sure of what you are buying as the contents are not always as per the labels and the labels are fairly meaningless unless you know what you are reading.
4. They also question how effective it is at stopping smokers in the long term - If the user is using nicotine based e-cigs they end up swapping one addiction for another. The NHS can not advise if the new addiction is safer or not because they do not know yet. Early indicators are that it is better than cigarettes but so far the only tests are on mice and on 40 people. There appears to be zero testing to say it is safe.
5. Several countries have banned them until proven safe. Some have banned just the nicotine versions.
6. The Welsh Assembly is looking to ban them from public use regardless of the type as it is now seen as the gateway to smoking by youngsters.
7. The Welsh Assembly were looking to ban the sale of them to 18's but that has been superseded by the regulations coming in next year.
Now while there is nothing in the rule book that says e-cigs are for short term use only, taking all of the above in to consideration, it looks like the NHS are treating it as though it should be a short term use thing. I have far more faith in what they are saying above than any e-cig manufacturer or seller.
1. From 2015 the industry will start to see regulations rolled out and manufacturers will eventually need medical licenses. i.e. They are shifting from normal products under food type regulations to medical.
2. A US report that says that carcinogenics are to be found in some types - it seems to focus on the nicotine systems. It is not to the level found in cigarettes but they don't know yet if it has the potential to cause cancers. Tests are still on going.
3. The NHS mentions being sure of what you are buying as the contents are not always as per the labels and the labels are fairly meaningless unless you know what you are reading.
4. They also question how effective it is at stopping smokers in the long term - If the user is using nicotine based e-cigs they end up swapping one addiction for another. The NHS can not advise if the new addiction is safer or not because they do not know yet. Early indicators are that it is better than cigarettes but so far the only tests are on mice and on 40 people. There appears to be zero testing to say it is safe.
5. Several countries have banned them until proven safe. Some have banned just the nicotine versions.
6. The Welsh Assembly is looking to ban them from public use regardless of the type as it is now seen as the gateway to smoking by youngsters.
7. The Welsh Assembly were looking to ban the sale of them to 18's but that has been superseded by the regulations coming in next year.
Now while there is nothing in the rule book that says e-cigs are for short term use only, taking all of the above in to consideration, it looks like the NHS are treating it as though it should be a short term use thing. I have far more faith in what they are saying above than any e-cig manufacturer or seller.
Upvote
0
The NHS questioning it and citing them as a potential cessation aid is just the NHS.
People will naturally look to quit/cut nicotine consumption, but I honestly do not think anybody sees them as a short term alternative bar a small minority, who are using for that very purpose.
Whilst science is taking its time doing its lab tests, I can report that since I quit cigarettes and started on an ecig I have:
I'll take my chance over actual cigarettes personally.
People will naturally look to quit/cut nicotine consumption, but I honestly do not think anybody sees them as a short term alternative bar a small minority, who are using for that very purpose.
Whilst science is taking its time doing its lab tests, I can report that since I quit cigarettes and started on an ecig I have:
- lost my wheeze;
- cough a lot less;
- skin is much better;
- energy levels are increased;
- don't smell like an ashtray; and
- save approximately £40 week/£2000 per year (taken buying juice etc in account).
I'll take my chance over actual cigarettes personally.
Upvote
0
The question should perhaps be (with respect to sirearl) . . . .Are e cigarettes more harmful than normal cigarettes?
As it is a relatively new (mass consumption during last 10 years) there has not been sufficient time to do any scientific studies with regards to harming one's health due to smoking e cigarettes and connecting it solely to e cigarette smoking.
Smoking normal cigarettes does cause harm and this has been proved.
Putting any chemicals in your body is never good and this can be said for the vegetables we eat which have pesticides sprayed all over them, as well as medication which the vast majority have side effects to different degrees, not to mention all the possible side effects detailed on every prescribed medication.
Businesses involved with e cigarettes could and should be testing their e liquids to ensure it does not contain any "harmful" substances.
Any more than that it is for the government bodies to enforce regulations to ensure this is done on a widespread scale across all suppliers of e cigarettes, IF THEY FEEL THIS IS NEEDED.
To the present day, this is not the case, so we must assume that there is not sufficient information to associate e cigarette smoking with being harmful.
We supply e cigarettes and e liquids to customers in USA where the standards required are higher than that of the EU and UK. Each batch is tested by SGS with a certificate identifying each batch.
Whist the majority of e liquids are nicotine based, we are seeing a trend to non nicotine based liquids with new and unusual flavours.
This suggests to me that although many people started smoking e cigarettes to come off of real cigarettes, there is a growing trend to enjoy the "smoking" experience, experiencing a variety of flavours.
Very similar to smoking a shisha pipe.
The greatest concern for the future of e cigarettes is the potential loss of tax revenue for governments concerned and I hope that this is not influenced in their decision making.
The cigarette companies have billions to lose if the trend continues.
Which will leave 2 options:
1. They "pressurise" governments into acting to stop the sales of e cigarettes, whilst bank rolling studies showing harmful effects of these products.
2. They join the bandwagon!
Until any harm is conclusively proved or governments regulate the selling of e cigarettes, its for each individual to decide what is best for them.
The above comments from people who are smoking e cigarettes points to benefits only.
Happy smoking (or vaping)
As it is a relatively new (mass consumption during last 10 years) there has not been sufficient time to do any scientific studies with regards to harming one's health due to smoking e cigarettes and connecting it solely to e cigarette smoking.
Smoking normal cigarettes does cause harm and this has been proved.
Putting any chemicals in your body is never good and this can be said for the vegetables we eat which have pesticides sprayed all over them, as well as medication which the vast majority have side effects to different degrees, not to mention all the possible side effects detailed on every prescribed medication.
Businesses involved with e cigarettes could and should be testing their e liquids to ensure it does not contain any "harmful" substances.
Any more than that it is for the government bodies to enforce regulations to ensure this is done on a widespread scale across all suppliers of e cigarettes, IF THEY FEEL THIS IS NEEDED.
To the present day, this is not the case, so we must assume that there is not sufficient information to associate e cigarette smoking with being harmful.
We supply e cigarettes and e liquids to customers in USA where the standards required are higher than that of the EU and UK. Each batch is tested by SGS with a certificate identifying each batch.
Whist the majority of e liquids are nicotine based, we are seeing a trend to non nicotine based liquids with new and unusual flavours.
This suggests to me that although many people started smoking e cigarettes to come off of real cigarettes, there is a growing trend to enjoy the "smoking" experience, experiencing a variety of flavours.
Very similar to smoking a shisha pipe.
The greatest concern for the future of e cigarettes is the potential loss of tax revenue for governments concerned and I hope that this is not influenced in their decision making.
The cigarette companies have billions to lose if the trend continues.
Which will leave 2 options:
1. They "pressurise" governments into acting to stop the sales of e cigarettes, whilst bank rolling studies showing harmful effects of these products.
2. They join the bandwagon!
Until any harm is conclusively proved or governments regulate the selling of e cigarettes, its for each individual to decide what is best for them.
The above comments from people who are smoking e cigarettes points to benefits only.
Happy smoking (or vaping)
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
The NHS are saying it is as far as they can recommend its use. They are saying without the tests they are not willing to sanction it. They are far from alone.
Do a search on the countries they are banned from until testing is completed. Some ban all versions, some ban just the nicotine based versions. The US has found carcinogenic in them.
That sort of indication from dozens of countries would indicate that they are far from being declared safe. They may well be, but until the tests are done no one knows and so it is a gamble. In response to the OP it can not be said to be safe.
With the nicotine versions there is also added dangers of nicotine overdose. There is no controls set over the amount of nicotine in these things or how much you should intake. The symptoms for that go all the way up to coma and death. Yet people want to trust an unregulated industry to get that dosage right every time.
You say you have seen immediate benefits in your health (which I don't doubt for one second) but you don't know what else it is doing to your body. Compare it to Paracetamol, great at getting rid of headaches in the short term, deadly to you and your liver if you keep taking it.
The dangers of inhaling of foreign chemicals is not just a potential danger to your lungs, there could be dangers to all of your body. We wont know that until 10-15 years down the road when people start falling ill and dropping dead from it. Probably why the NHS wont recommend it for long use and why countries are banning it until fully tested.
The only people who are saying it is ok for long term use are the manufacturers and sales people.
In all of this there are too many gambles for it to be declared safe. There is a gamble about what is going in to them and there is a gamble over their long term use. If there are gambles it is not safe. That does not mean you will drop dead from smoking them, it just means it is not 100% risk free.
Do a search on the countries they are banned from until testing is completed. Some ban all versions, some ban just the nicotine based versions. The US has found carcinogenic in them.
That sort of indication from dozens of countries would indicate that they are far from being declared safe. They may well be, but until the tests are done no one knows and so it is a gamble. In response to the OP it can not be said to be safe.
With the nicotine versions there is also added dangers of nicotine overdose. There is no controls set over the amount of nicotine in these things or how much you should intake. The symptoms for that go all the way up to coma and death. Yet people want to trust an unregulated industry to get that dosage right every time.
You say you have seen immediate benefits in your health (which I don't doubt for one second) but you don't know what else it is doing to your body. Compare it to Paracetamol, great at getting rid of headaches in the short term, deadly to you and your liver if you keep taking it.
The dangers of inhaling of foreign chemicals is not just a potential danger to your lungs, there could be dangers to all of your body. We wont know that until 10-15 years down the road when people start falling ill and dropping dead from it. Probably why the NHS wont recommend it for long use and why countries are banning it until fully tested.
The only people who are saying it is ok for long term use are the manufacturers and sales people.
In all of this there are too many gambles for it to be declared safe. There is a gamble about what is going in to them and there is a gamble over their long term use. If there are gambles it is not safe. That does not mean you will drop dead from smoking them, it just means it is not 100% risk free.
Upvote
0
Carl, I think most smokers are inclined to gamble with their lives as it suits them, just as someone who does 170mph on a motorcycle is, in fact any type of risk-taking activity it could be said. Couple with that the addiction factor in these type of pleasure-seeking, adrenaline (or nicotine) junkies get and so on.
My point being - As (usually) ex smokers, we can immediately tell we feel so much better after a few days on the e-cigs. Personally speaking it's an absolute revelation, and speaking as someone who has been reckless enough with his life to smoke, I am also clearly still reckless enough to risk it with the e-cigs, same as I hurtle along on my pushbike now at 35mph!
My point being - As (usually) ex smokers, we can immediately tell we feel so much better after a few days on the e-cigs. Personally speaking it's an absolute revelation, and speaking as someone who has been reckless enough with his life to smoke, I am also clearly still reckless enough to risk it with the e-cigs, same as I hurtle along on my pushbike now at 35mph!
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
I agree with you Simon, my point is that we can not call it safe at this point it is just 100% guess work. Early indicators say it is safe-ish but there are problems (possible carcinogenics, nicotine poisoning, unkown contents from unregulated suppliers etc).
The original question was is it safe, and the answer has to be no its not 100% safe and we don't truly know how safe it is. So its a gamble. I personally think if you go for the ones from the big pharmaceutical companies, follow their dosage instructions and only but their refills you are probably safe. Smoke these things 24/7 and get your refills from the local market then you are taking a massive risk.
The original question was is it safe, and the answer has to be no its not 100% safe and we don't truly know how safe it is. So its a gamble. I personally think if you go for the ones from the big pharmaceutical companies, follow their dosage instructions and only but their refills you are probably safe. Smoke these things 24/7 and get your refills from the local market then you are taking a massive risk.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
There is a big difference between ingesting and inhaling. One is designed to pass through anything that irritates the body, for lungs it is generally a one way trip. This is why coal miners and millers end up with screwed up lungs but not digestive systems.
There is a lot of assumption that things we digest must be natural good and ok for our lungs. As any miller will tell you flour is good in food but not for breathing.
Lungs are incredibly delicate bits of kits to be gambling with. You can coat them with dust or tar and effectively block them off. You can also breathe in chemicals that can irritate them and block up airways, you can even breathe in chemicals that can burn the external surfaces of the lungs and seal them like a stake. You cant clean or repair lungs.
As I said the ones from the big pharmaceutical companies are probably perfectly safe. It is the ones at the other end of the market that worries me. Firstly you have dodgy people who could put anything in their liquids including cleaning products. Then you have the unregulated armatures who may put in too much nicotine or who are assuming certain things are ok because they are edible.
If people want to take that gamble with their lungs then that is up to them.
There is a lot of assumption that things we digest must be natural good and ok for our lungs. As any miller will tell you flour is good in food but not for breathing.
Lungs are incredibly delicate bits of kits to be gambling with. You can coat them with dust or tar and effectively block them off. You can also breathe in chemicals that can irritate them and block up airways, you can even breathe in chemicals that can burn the external surfaces of the lungs and seal them like a stake. You cant clean or repair lungs.
As I said the ones from the big pharmaceutical companies are probably perfectly safe. It is the ones at the other end of the market that worries me. Firstly you have dodgy people who could put anything in their liquids including cleaning products. Then you have the unregulated armatures who may put in too much nicotine or who are assuming certain things are ok because they are edible.
If people want to take that gamble with their lungs then that is up to them.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
You are kind of missing the my point.
It would be the last thing I would try in the giving up process. I wouldn't use it as a permanent replacement for smoking without speaking to my doctor first and getting all the facts.
All of that is by the by, that does not make it safe - it just makes it safer than something than something that is known to be deadly (According to Cancer Research smoking has played the part in 100 million deaths and is known to cause cancer in 14 different places in the body).
To say ecigs is safer than smoking is like saying juggling knives is safer than juggling guns.
Safer does not equal safe. The original question was are they safe. There is no evidence to say they are safe, just indicators that they are a lot safer.
That margin of safeness comes down dramatically when you buy cheap or self prescribe these devices. The safety has to come down the longer you use them as well.
At this point we have no idea if the current medical suspicions that it is mostly safe is correct or if we are saving up a bunch of trouble for the future.
It would be the last thing I would try in the giving up process. I wouldn't use it as a permanent replacement for smoking without speaking to my doctor first and getting all the facts.
All of that is by the by, that does not make it safe - it just makes it safer than something than something that is known to be deadly (According to Cancer Research smoking has played the part in 100 million deaths and is known to cause cancer in 14 different places in the body).
To say ecigs is safer than smoking is like saying juggling knives is safer than juggling guns.
Safer does not equal safe. The original question was are they safe. There is no evidence to say they are safe, just indicators that they are a lot safer.
That margin of safeness comes down dramatically when you buy cheap or self prescribe these devices. The safety has to come down the longer you use them as well.
At this point we have no idea if the current medical suspicions that it is mostly safe is correct or if we are saving up a bunch of trouble for the future.
Upvote
0
Carl, I think the following.
Cigarettes are known to be harmful and kill.
E cigarettes are not and do not .
There is no evidence to support any claims that e cigarettes are harmful, only opinions of what might happen if e liquids are not prepared properly.
This is simple to overcome, buy from reputable companies that can provide a test report. There is a liability issue which would not allow them to sell products if they will be harmful.
The countries that ban e cigarettes have not banned them because they have evidence of them being harmful. Maybe they have other motives for doing so.
I'm not sure your analogies are appropriate n this case.
Like most threads, they evolve and as this thread has clearly shown that posters that have moved from cigarettes to e cigarettes describe the benefits.
As there have been no studies made public that show they harm, this must be a better alternative to continue smoking products that are known killers.
This is not a recreational issue, it's a possible alternative and solution to come off of a product which is harmful and will kill you eventually. This is a known fact.
People take medication for long periods of time, knowing there are side effects, but make the decision that the side effects are relatively small and that the medication aids that specific problem.
It's a case of weighing up whether the benefits are better than any possible side effects.
Until studies, from organisations that do not have any direct influence one way or the other, can show and prove their findings against smoking e cigarettes, we must assume that they are not harmful.
I take on board that they should not be bought from companies that cannot show certification for their products.
There is also a liability issue and the insurance companies should only offer companies liability insurance if they have the required certification for their products.
Cigarettes are known to be harmful and kill.
E cigarettes are not and do not .
There is no evidence to support any claims that e cigarettes are harmful, only opinions of what might happen if e liquids are not prepared properly.
This is simple to overcome, buy from reputable companies that can provide a test report. There is a liability issue which would not allow them to sell products if they will be harmful.
The countries that ban e cigarettes have not banned them because they have evidence of them being harmful. Maybe they have other motives for doing so.
I'm not sure your analogies are appropriate n this case.
Like most threads, they evolve and as this thread has clearly shown that posters that have moved from cigarettes to e cigarettes describe the benefits.
As there have been no studies made public that show they harm, this must be a better alternative to continue smoking products that are known killers.
This is not a recreational issue, it's a possible alternative and solution to come off of a product which is harmful and will kill you eventually. This is a known fact.
People take medication for long periods of time, knowing there are side effects, but make the decision that the side effects are relatively small and that the medication aids that specific problem.
It's a case of weighing up whether the benefits are better than any possible side effects.
Until studies, from organisations that do not have any direct influence one way or the other, can show and prove their findings against smoking e cigarettes, we must assume that they are not harmful.
I take on board that they should not be bought from companies that cannot show certification for their products.
There is also a liability issue and the insurance companies should only offer companies liability insurance if they have the required certification for their products.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
As I said the US are reporting cases of carcinogenic being found in them. That is known killer number 1.
Several children in the US have died as a result of drinking the filler. With flavours like bubble gum and attractive packaging, I can see why this happens. Without regulations governing packaging that will keep happening. Killer number 2.
In the US there were 1,400 cases of poisoning caused by e-cigs last year. Up 300% on the year before and is expected to keep climbing as they get more popular. There is not data on if anyone died but nicotine poisoning results in anything from nausea to coma and death. The amount of nicotine in the refills range from 2% to 10%, so simply switching your brand can increase your intake by 500% if you are unaware. Killer number 3 (maybe)
A quick google found this report that suggests use of an e-cig aggravated an illness to the point of causing a death. Killer number 4 (maybe)
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/wardley-mans-death-linked-using-4438085
Then you get to the devices themselves. Cheap knock offs have been known to explode and cause fires while charging.
I could go on Googling these reports and studies. It is completely impossible to say they do not kill just because we don't know. All medical advice indicates there are dangers but they are no where as near as dangerous as cigarettes.
Before they can be declared 100% safe of causing illnesses and death decades of studies have to be carried. They have to be studied to see how they interact with a huge range medical conditions. We wont know the long term effects until long term users die off and autopsies are carried out on hundreds if not thousands of people.
I'm not against e-cigs, I just need to think they need to be regulated. The packaging needs regulating so kids are not attracted to them and if they are they can not get in to them. The age at which you can buy them needs to be regulated. The contents need to be regulated and I would say people who sell them need to licensed in a similar way to cigarettes are now.
Several children in the US have died as a result of drinking the filler. With flavours like bubble gum and attractive packaging, I can see why this happens. Without regulations governing packaging that will keep happening. Killer number 2.
In the US there were 1,400 cases of poisoning caused by e-cigs last year. Up 300% on the year before and is expected to keep climbing as they get more popular. There is not data on if anyone died but nicotine poisoning results in anything from nausea to coma and death. The amount of nicotine in the refills range from 2% to 10%, so simply switching your brand can increase your intake by 500% if you are unaware. Killer number 3 (maybe)
A quick google found this report that suggests use of an e-cig aggravated an illness to the point of causing a death. Killer number 4 (maybe)
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/wardley-mans-death-linked-using-4438085
Then you get to the devices themselves. Cheap knock offs have been known to explode and cause fires while charging.
I could go on Googling these reports and studies. It is completely impossible to say they do not kill just because we don't know. All medical advice indicates there are dangers but they are no where as near as dangerous as cigarettes.
Before they can be declared 100% safe of causing illnesses and death decades of studies have to be carried. They have to be studied to see how they interact with a huge range medical conditions. We wont know the long term effects until long term users die off and autopsies are carried out on hundreds if not thousands of people.
I'm not against e-cigs, I just need to think they need to be regulated. The packaging needs regulating so kids are not attracted to them and if they are they can not get in to them. The age at which you can buy them needs to be regulated. The contents need to be regulated and I would say people who sell them need to licensed in a similar way to cigarettes are now.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
I'm not saying it is not a better alternative than smoking, as it stands at the moment it clearly is.
The original question was is it safe? Safer does not mean safe. To be safe it has to be free of all dangers. I'm not saying they should be banned either, just regulated as there are too many places where dangers can lurk with current status quo.
The reason drugs and medication is regulated is because there are dangers if you take them wrong, self prescribe or take too many. The regulation helps keep a tight as a control over them as possible. That does not stop muck up's on dosages, allergies or people just bucking the system.
We add regulation to e-cigs then it will allow these risks to be kept to a minimum.
I don't believe we need heavy handed regulation on this at all, we need things like
1. Child proof containers that do not carry marketing that attracts kids
2. Labels to warn of the dangers
3. Those that manufacturer the refills have to be licensed and checked along the line of food manufacturers.
4. Those that sell direct to the public need licenses similar to they way real cigarette sellers do
5. If the nicotine dosage is over X% (i.e. extra strong) it has to be sourced from a pharmacy rather than a news agent.
6. Greater punishment for people selling chargers (or any electrical device) that does not come to standards.
Regulation will also help the research as there will be far better numbers on the usage.
SirEarl - I agree but the dangers are not limited to cancer. There are cases where people suffering with certain conditions probably ended up dead because of their use of e-cigs. At the moment we only get to find out these conditions when people drop dead. Again, it is still probably a lot safer than smoking and is probably a good trade off.
The original question was is it safe? Safer does not mean safe. To be safe it has to be free of all dangers. I'm not saying they should be banned either, just regulated as there are too many places where dangers can lurk with current status quo.
The reason drugs and medication is regulated is because there are dangers if you take them wrong, self prescribe or take too many. The regulation helps keep a tight as a control over them as possible. That does not stop muck up's on dosages, allergies or people just bucking the system.
We add regulation to e-cigs then it will allow these risks to be kept to a minimum.
I don't believe we need heavy handed regulation on this at all, we need things like
1. Child proof containers that do not carry marketing that attracts kids
2. Labels to warn of the dangers
3. Those that manufacturer the refills have to be licensed and checked along the line of food manufacturers.
4. Those that sell direct to the public need licenses similar to they way real cigarette sellers do
5. If the nicotine dosage is over X% (i.e. extra strong) it has to be sourced from a pharmacy rather than a news agent.
6. Greater punishment for people selling chargers (or any electrical device) that does not come to standards.
Regulation will also help the research as there will be far better numbers on the usage.
SirEarl - I agree but the dangers are not limited to cancer. There are cases where people suffering with certain conditions probably ended up dead because of their use of e-cigs. At the moment we only get to find out these conditions when people drop dead. Again, it is still probably a lot safer than smoking and is probably a good trade off.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
That wasn't the question - the question is it safe not what is it safer than.
It is impossible to claim that it does not have dangers, so it is not safe. "Is it safe?" is a yes or no answer not "ahh, but its safer than this or that". I don't think "yes" answer is a possible answer here. We have research in US suggesting cancer dangers, 1,400 poisonings in a year, kids being harmed, the NHS not willing to call it safe and dozens of countries banning it - with all that in mind the answer can not be yes.
There are two main dangers here. Firstly we have no idea of how safe it is (suggestions are that it is no where near as dangerous as smoking) as no studies have been completed and we have not seen the long term effects yet. The second danger is a lack of regulation.
I have no idea if it is safer than walking down the street or not, but there again no one does. What I'm saying is it is impossible to simply say its safe.
It is impossible to claim that it does not have dangers, so it is not safe. "Is it safe?" is a yes or no answer not "ahh, but its safer than this or that". I don't think "yes" answer is a possible answer here. We have research in US suggesting cancer dangers, 1,400 poisonings in a year, kids being harmed, the NHS not willing to call it safe and dozens of countries banning it - with all that in mind the answer can not be yes.
There are two main dangers here. Firstly we have no idea of how safe it is (suggestions are that it is no where near as dangerous as smoking) as no studies have been completed and we have not seen the long term effects yet. The second danger is a lack of regulation.
I have no idea if it is safer than walking down the street or not, but there again no one does. What I'm saying is it is impossible to simply say its safe.
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
Never suggested regulating fun, just regulating the people who want to introduce potentially dangerous chemicals directly in to your lungs. I'm not saying ban e-cigs, I'm suggesting the public needs protecting and educating on potentially dangers.
We all enjoy fun that can be classed as dangerous in one way or another, but we usually go in to eyes wide open to the potential dangers. Personally I've done all sorts of dangerous things ranging from surfing to driving around in a war zone - Every time I was fully aware.
If I buy product that claims to be healthy and safe it should be exactly that. If there are risks they should be clear and I can make my own decision. I should not be lied or fooled in to doing something potentially dangerous.
Regulations are also needed to protect the uneducated. Take for instance the kids that have dies from drinking bubble gum or strawberry flavour refills.
We all enjoy fun that can be classed as dangerous in one way or another, but we usually go in to eyes wide open to the potential dangers. Personally I've done all sorts of dangerous things ranging from surfing to driving around in a war zone - Every time I was fully aware.
If I buy product that claims to be healthy and safe it should be exactly that. If there are risks they should be clear and I can make my own decision. I should not be lied or fooled in to doing something potentially dangerous.
Regulations are also needed to protect the uneducated. Take for instance the kids that have dies from drinking bubble gum or strawberry flavour refills.
Upvote
0
Carl a few deaths is frankly nothing. It's accidents, the numbers game, chance. A shame for the people involved but not much else.
I am perfectly aware that by vaping, I am taking a risk. Nobody has suggested to me that they are safe. I still do it.
By comparison, look at the illegal drugs industry. Millions of people, all over the world, taking drugs, having fun, others ruining lives. Many, many deaths, injuries, problems. Nobody's regulating it. Which would indicate to me that they (the vast majority) are happy not to.
Too much of anything is going to be bad for you!
I am perfectly aware that by vaping, I am taking a risk. Nobody has suggested to me that they are safe. I still do it.
By comparison, look at the illegal drugs industry. Millions of people, all over the world, taking drugs, having fun, others ruining lives. Many, many deaths, injuries, problems. Nobody's regulating it. Which would indicate to me that they (the vast majority) are happy not to.
Too much of anything is going to be bad for you!
Upvote
0
E
Excel Expert
How is illegal drugs unregulated when it is 100% against the law? It can not get anymore regulated than that. It is dead simple, get caught with it and you get nicked. If we follow the US and start to decriminalise things like cannabis, they will come under there own regulations as well as the usual smoking related laws.
Vaping is probably as safe as taking Aspirin or Paracetamol. Both are regulated. With the weaker dosages packs are not allowed more than X amount of tablets and you can only buy one pack at a time. Stronger measures are available form the pharmacist if you talk to the pharmacist and the strongest are only available with a prescription. None of them are allowed marketing that appeals that kids. They all come with details of the dangers. None of that stops you buying or using them - it is not meant to. It has however greatly reduced accidental overdoses and painkiller abuse.
Controls behind the scenes makes sure you get a product that is up to standard. For example it is entirely possible to incorrectly mix the components of a painkiller if it is not made to a certain standard and end up with a pill that is 100% aspirin, which could be fatal. We need similar measures to make sure you don't end up with 100% nicotine in your refill. Again we don't need anything more than that. At the moment I don't believe manufacturers even fall under food hygiene checks (can someone confirm that).
None of the above is obstructive or stop you buying e-cigs. It just helps protect the end user from injury and the manufacturer from getting sued out of existence.
We have hundreds, maybe thousands, of laws that help protect us from things that kill only half a dozen people. Just look at your car - how many things can your car fail its MOT for and make it illegal to drive. How many people does a faulty windscreen washer kill a year? How many people a year get killed because nut allergies yet it is a legal requirement for food products to carry warnings.
Just because an unfortunate few get killed by these sort of things it does not mean we shouldn't put systems in place to reduce the unfortunate few down to as close to zero as possible.
Vaping is probably as safe as taking Aspirin or Paracetamol. Both are regulated. With the weaker dosages packs are not allowed more than X amount of tablets and you can only buy one pack at a time. Stronger measures are available form the pharmacist if you talk to the pharmacist and the strongest are only available with a prescription. None of them are allowed marketing that appeals that kids. They all come with details of the dangers. None of that stops you buying or using them - it is not meant to. It has however greatly reduced accidental overdoses and painkiller abuse.
Controls behind the scenes makes sure you get a product that is up to standard. For example it is entirely possible to incorrectly mix the components of a painkiller if it is not made to a certain standard and end up with a pill that is 100% aspirin, which could be fatal. We need similar measures to make sure you don't end up with 100% nicotine in your refill. Again we don't need anything more than that. At the moment I don't believe manufacturers even fall under food hygiene checks (can someone confirm that).
None of the above is obstructive or stop you buying e-cigs. It just helps protect the end user from injury and the manufacturer from getting sued out of existence.
We have hundreds, maybe thousands, of laws that help protect us from things that kill only half a dozen people. Just look at your car - how many things can your car fail its MOT for and make it illegal to drive. How many people does a faulty windscreen washer kill a year? How many people a year get killed because nut allergies yet it is a legal requirement for food products to carry warnings.
Just because an unfortunate few get killed by these sort of things it does not mean we shouldn't put systems in place to reduce the unfortunate few down to as close to zero as possible.
Upvote
0
R
Root 66 Woodshop
I've been smoking since I was about 13 years old possibly longer i can't remember...
The concept of smoking kills is all BS... I've known family members live to 96 years old who have smoked since a very early age - die of old age and my grannie who died at 75/76 who had never smoked in her life of cancer.
Anyone can get cancer, it's a mutation at the end of the day of the cells we all have.
The 1000's of children who die of Leukemia or other cancer related deaths is testament to that fact.
The only time I've ever heard of someone getting cancer... "who smokes" is when they try to give up... it sounds bad but it's true... once the mutation is in the body it needs to stay the same, the only way it will stay the same is by continuing to smoke... once you give up, or attempt too the mutation starts to evolve and becomes "cancerous".
Will I give up.... hell no, why should I? I'm just another meat sack on this rock... who gives a toss... I certainly don't.... when I'm gone the world will never notice.
The concept of smoking kills is all BS... I've known family members live to 96 years old who have smoked since a very early age - die of old age and my grannie who died at 75/76 who had never smoked in her life of cancer.
Anyone can get cancer, it's a mutation at the end of the day of the cells we all have.
The 1000's of children who die of Leukemia or other cancer related deaths is testament to that fact.
The only time I've ever heard of someone getting cancer... "who smokes" is when they try to give up... it sounds bad but it's true... once the mutation is in the body it needs to stay the same, the only way it will stay the same is by continuing to smoke... once you give up, or attempt too the mutation starts to evolve and becomes "cancerous".
Will I give up.... hell no, why should I? I'm just another meat sack on this rock... who gives a toss... I certainly don't.... when I'm gone the world will never notice.
Upvote
0
Nobody has every said you have to smoke to get cancer. Nobody says if you don't smoke, you won't get cancer.
Smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer. You are increasing the risk of dying early.
My mum smoked almost all her life. Died of a non-smoking related issue. That doesn't mean smoking doesn't impact on your health.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...cer-type/lung-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two
Smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer. You are increasing the risk of dying early.
My mum smoked almost all her life. Died of a non-smoking related issue. That doesn't mean smoking doesn't impact on your health.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...cer-type/lung-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
