Poll: E-cigs

[Kajt]

What's there not to like about it?

 

[Inverse Skies]

I'm sorry, who are 'we' exactly? I want people to smoke as much or as little as they damn well please because they live in a free country that doesn't try to stop them making decisions it doesn't agree with.

In addition, your scenario is blatantly absurd; expensive electronic fake smokes aren't going to be passed around schoolyards, you could just as easily dream up similar scenarios about kids chewing nicotine chewing gum.

The whole idea behind health promotion is to try and stop people choosing unhealthy lifestyle habits so they are less likely to enter the hospital system and hence the system benefits from fewer patients and a healthier society in general. Society actually benefits from as few people smoking as possible, so by saying we I would include the greater community in that statement.

Oh really? Cigarette companies used to hand out toys to kids which were similar to the designs and styles they had with their packages. Hence when the kid started to smoke later on in life, they automatically went back to the style of packaging which they had associated the pleasureable feelings of childhood with. That's a prime example of a scenario in which they try and get people to start smoking. Also, if regular cigarettes are passed around schoolyards then there's nothing to say someone couldn't get hold of one of these e-cigs and allow kids to try it because 'it's healthier than a normal cigarette'. It's very much a legitimate concern.

 

[Sir Ollie]

As a smoker i give it a go, just sounds to crazy to be true

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

This all sounds very very similar to nicotine inhalers that you can get. Sure you don't have the simulation of smoke going into your lungs but the end result is essentially the same. Why do we need another simulation to help people quit when a provenly successful one already exists?

 

[Willwillwritehiswill]

You mean like this?
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/gamucci-micro-electronic-cigarette/index.html
If i was a smoker, i'd give it go.

 

[Crimsanon]

Smoking's not about the taste, it's about the drugs. Any replacement cigs that don't include some form of drug is not going to hold the attention of a smoker for long.

 

[Evil Tim]

Society actually benefits from as few people smoking as possible, so by saying we I would include the greater community in that statement.

Wrong, actually. In many Western countries anything up to 75% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is tax. Everyone stops smoking, that means everyone who doesn't smoke ends up having their income taxes raised, much like if everyone used public transport the losses on fuel tax would hit everyone with a tax hike. Why do you think governments don't just ban it? Smokers pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts and then often drop dead before they can retire and start drawing a pension. It's win-win.

Oh really? Cigarette companies used to hand out toys to kids which were similar to the designs and styles they had with their packages.

Emphasis: used to, back when it was thought of as perfectly fine for them to do so. Kids are far more likely to try a real cigarette in school than they would be to come across someone toting a packet of ridiculous electro-fags. Or rather passing around their ridiculous electro-fag, since it's a single unit; would you want to use what amounts to a well-sucked pen? Again, nobody does this with nicotine patches or gum, do they? It's far from a 'legitimate concern,' it's just a paranoid slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Wrong, actually. In many Western countries anything up to 75% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is tax. Everyone stops smoking, that means everyone who doesn't smoke ends up having their income taxes raised, much like if everyone used public transport the losses on fuel tax would hit everyone with a tax hike. Why do you think governments don't just ban it? Smokers pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts and then often drop dead before they can retire and start drawing a pension. It's win-win.

Emphasis: used to, back when it was thought of as perfectly fine for them to do so. Kids are far more likely to try a real cigarette in school than they would be to come across someone toting a packet of ridiculous electro-fags. Again, nobody does this with nicotine patches or gum, do they?

So suddenly money is much more important than peoples health? In Australia we average around 18thousand smoking related deaths per year, a shockingly large number for a item which isn't necessary. Also, as someone who wishes to be an oncologist I would prefer to treat as few cases of squamos cell carcinoma caused by cigarettes as possible. Saying it is a win-win situation places no emphasis on the persons life as an actual person, and demeans them into nothing more than a piece of meat which coughs up money, it places no emphasis on how much their family suffers when they pass on from an activity they should be discouraged from in the first place.

The difference between an e-cig and nicotine patches or gum is an e-cig actually tastes like and emulates the experience of smoking a real cigarette, hence if children/teenagers are exposed to something which is seen as 'healthy' compared to actual cigarettes then they're more likely to pick up the taste and hence are more likely to smoke. And yes, back in highschool I have seen people eat nicotine gum. And as I recall from seeing said people later on in uni, they were smoking then. This e-cig would be something which only drives that process, and we want to stop people smoking rather than start.

 

[sky14kemea]

ill tell my mum if they come out in the UK, she keeps trying to quit, so maybe these will help for the time being =D

 

[Inverse Skies]

Actually it's a very valid point. People whom choose to smoke do so knowing the dangers it causes. And in return, for destroying themselves, they're paying insane amounts of tax money. And packs of smokes only keep getting more and more expensive. So, while you may not want to treat me when I'm 60 and have lung cancer, chances are, simply from the tax I payed over the years smoking, I will have payed several people's life treatment. Especially at a pack of smoke costing 7.50 and most of that going to taxes.
Not only that, but you can't get treated for lung cancer if you don't have insurance last time I checked. So, not only will I have been paying all my life for that hospital bed by purchasing smokes, I'll have been paying all my life for that hospital bed, through my insurance alone.
Smokers give back a lot. And it's viewable in our wallets.

Ahhh, the inherent differences in the American and Australian health care systems. You don't need insurance to be treated in Aus, but it helps if you do have it as there is no waiting line and you get into a private hospital rather than the public system.

So you're happy to spend an average of $3000 a year (Aus) for an activity which provides no benefits to your health and has a rather large stigma attached to it? I'll have to research the DALYS (disability adjusted life years) caused by smoking, that might be interesting. Hold on a sec.

 

[Evil Tim]

So suddenly money is much more important than peoples health?

My health is my business, not yours. If I decided one day I wanted to saw off my own leg or leap out of my bedroom window, the healthcare system is fine treating that, so it can deal with my smoking if I'm willing to pay for it, which I am.

The difference between an e-cig and nicotine patches or gum is an e-cig actually tastes like and emulates the experience of smoking a real cigarette, hence if children/teenagers are exposed to something which is seen as 'healthy' compared to actual cigarettes then they're more likely to pick up the taste and hence are more likely to smoke.

Rubbish. Would you suck on the end of a biro belonging to some other kid if they told you it was a pretend cigarette? Would you let other kids do that to yours? Hell no. Passing a pack of cigarettes around your friends works because you aren't all sharing the same one; you have to go a little stronger than tobacco before people get mellow enough to take a drag and pass it on without looking at what a soggy mess the end is.

And yes, back in highschool I have seen people eat nicotine gum. And as I recall from seeing said people later on in uni, they were smoking then.

I just had three doctors, a psychiatrist and Skeletor knock on my door and remind me anecdotal evidence is completely useless.

This e-cig would be something which only drives that process, and we want to stop people smoking rather than start.

No, 'we' don't. People are, as they should be, free to make their choice as they see fit; smoke or don't smoke, without an overbearing government glaring over their shoulder ready to slap them down for making a choice the do-gooders of the world don't approve of. If someone chooses to smoke today they do so fully aware of the risks and consequences. Constantly nagging them that it's naughty is just self-righteousness for it's own sake.

Moreover, your argument is a paranoid slippery slope fallacy; the device has clear negative points when compared to an actual cigarette that mean it's not likely to be something a kid would want to try, and is far more expensive than a real cigarette anyway.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

I've seen a guy smoking this and he loved it, but it's shit in my opinion. The thing I like the most about smoking is the feeling you get when your lungs fill with black, sticky tar. You can't have smoking without smoke.

Haha, thats exactly how I feel too. It doesn't satisfy unless it tingles your lungs.

 

[Crash486]

It gives smokers the pleasure of smoking but not the nicotine fix which has addicted them to smoking. Actually this sort of thing worries me quite a lot, as it's basically saying to children that is it alright to smoke this form of cigarette as it is not damaging at all. How does it replicate the taste of tobacco anyway?

Do you have a link to an article or something? As there's a few unanswered questions from this.

Well, it's illegal in Australia, so I guess it doesn't really affect us.

Smoking is illegal in Australia? Wow, no smoking, no violent video games, no salvia. You guys really ARE oppressed. 2 Steps away from becoming china.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Pontless its the nicotine rush that keeps comeing back, why dont they just support rollups or something its the exscessive amounts of tar in commercial smokes that causes most of the damage anyway.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I'll wait a couple years until the long/medium term side effects start appearing, because no one in the commercial industry studies those in humans.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Actually it's a very valid point. People whom choose to smoke do so knowing the dangers it causes. And in return, for destroying themselves, they're paying insane amounts of tax money. And packs of smokes only keep getting more and more expensive. So, while you may not want to treat me when I'm 60 and have lung cancer, chances are, simply from the tax I payed over the years smoking, I will have payed several people's life treatment. Especially at a pack of smoke costing 7.50 and most of that going to taxes.
Not only that, but you can't get treated for lung cancer if you don't have insurance last time I checked. So, not only will I have been paying all my life for that hospital bed by purchasing smokes, I'll have been paying all my life for that hospital bed, through my insurance alone.
Smokers give back a lot. And it's viewable in our wallets.

Hmmm, I can't quite find it for smoking alone, but I see the DALY's for cardiovascular disease and cancer (two major consequences of smoking) are 600,000 and 500,000 respectively, so in Australia every year there is potentially a maximum of 1,100,000 years of life lost due to some sort of disability (not just death) which could be attributable to smoking. Obviously not all of these would be attributable, but even if half were that's still around 500,000 years of life lost due to one single cause, which is shockingly high.

Another interesting thing is that for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes, the consumption rate can be expected to fall by 4%. Therefore, price increases are the single most effective way of causing people to stop smoking. Hence the argument in saying that governments are only doing it to rake in more tax dollars is somewhat false, as international research has suggested this link between higher prices and lower consumption, hence the tax increases are actually a means to cause people to stop smoking.

 

[Rabid Llama of Doom]

I've actually tried it as I am a filthy filthy smoker
It really wasn't an improvement in any way. The nicotine that one would get from it was very weak and was not as "fulfilling" as a normal cancer stick. The flavors from it would closely resemble what I imagine fungus tasting like. It was also expensive as hell. It is nice, however, that it gives off no tar.

It could be a somewhat useful tool in helping people try to quit, but i think it would only be reinforcing the mindset of smoking in the long run.
Maybe people (myself most definately included) need to put aside the selfish based impulsive mindset of smoking to quit. Smoking is an expensive way to kill yourself and I think it's quite the opposite of necessary in society.

Looking back maybe i would have more room to talk in this once i actually do quit.

 

[Inverse Skies]

My health is my business, not yours. If I decided one day I wanted to saw off my own leg or leap out of my bedroom window, the healthcare system is fine treating that, so it can deal with my smoking if I'm willing to pay for it, which I am.

Rubbish. Would you suck on the end of a biro belonging to some other kid if they told you it was a pretend cigarette? Would you let other kids do that to yours? Hell no. Passing a pack of cigarettes around your friends works because you aren't all sharing the same one; you have to go a little stronger than tobacco before people get mellow enough to take a drag and pass it on without looking at what a soggy mess the end is.

I just had three doctors, a psychiatrist and Skeletor knock on my door and remind me anecdotal evidence is completely useless.

No, 'we' don't. People are, as they should be, free to make their choice as they see fit; smoke or don't smoke, without an overbearing government glaring over their shoulder ready to slap them down for making a choice the do-gooders of the world don't approve of. If someone chooses to smoke today they do so fully aware of the risks and consequences. Constantly nagging them that it's naughty is just self-righteousness for it's own sake.

Moreover, your argument is a paranoid slippery slope fallacy; the device has clear negative points when compared to an actual cigarette that mean it's not likely to be something a kid would want to try, and is far more expensive than a real cigarette anyway.

Actually, as a person in medschool who is going to be a doctor in a few years I'm very much interested in your health and keeping you as healthy as possible. Hence why governments are shifting towards the idea of health promotion in order to try and keep society as a whole as healthy as possible so they don't impose a burden on the health care system later on in life when chronic diseases start to come to the fore. That's why we're interested in your health, its better for society to have more people living longer with less disabilities from chronic diseases.

So by your theory kids don't pass joints around in a similar fashion?

See my previous statement, constantly trying to get them to quit is for the betterment of society through less strains on the health care system through less people with illnesses directly caused through smoking. Hence why governments pour millions into quit campaigns.

Just because kids aren't likely to want to try it doesn't mean it should be banned lest in become a way for them to try cigarettes without suffering the consequences of doing so.

 

[Inverse Skies]

In America, if you walk into the Emergency Room, they legally have to treat you. It's an abused system and is why our health care tax, which we pay on top of paying for health care, is so expensive.
However, that doesn't go with saying that I want my tax money paying for someone who smokes and refuses to pay for health care.
I don't quite like the fact that I smoke, I've only been doing it for 9 months, and already am having trouble quitting. I think cigarettes and alcohol should be outright legalized if we're so adament about our war on drugs.
I personally just hate it when people say that those whom endanger their health shouldn't be treated. It's hypocrisy to a level of insanity.You said you wanted to be an oncologist right? What if you wanted to be a podiatrist? Would you treat skateboarders? They surely know the risks of jumping a flight of stairs on a tiny, wooden, almost uncontrollable mode of transportation*
What if you wanted to be an EMT? Would you treat someone whom was in a car accident? Surely they know the risks of getting in a screaming metal death trap.

*I believe you see a podiatrist for broken bones. That's what I had to see in '07 when I broke my leg.

A podiatrist specialises in feet. Hence why you would have seen one when you broke your leg.

I didn't say anything about not treating them, its my moral obligation to do so and I would treat them just like any other patient. Just that I would rather not see cases of small cell lung cancer and the like which are caused by smoking and hence are an unnecessary case in the idea it was preventable. Besides, lung cancer has an 80% mortality rate, one of the highest amongst all cancers. You don't want to mess around with those sorts of odds if you can at all help it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

[/facepalm]

Taxes on smoking help keep cigs out of hands of kids. There's your 4%. And if it really worked at 10% increase for 4% decrease, smoking would be gone in the US by now. Something is seriously fishy with those numbers.

I have quit alcohol (glad I did), caffiene (not happy with quitting that) and pot (really pissed I had to give that up). Quitting all three together was easier than quitting smoking. I still smoke cigs. Would love to give it up but it's not happening anytime soon. I just don't want to feel homicidal every day for the next 3-9 years.

I really want an e-cig for a multitude of reasons. Pisses me off that cigs are legal as anything but e-cigs aren't when e-cigs are clearly a healthier option whether you're using them to help yourself quit or not. I just had a long conversation last weekend with a lady who uses an e-cig who had been using it for a year or more and it was working wonders for her. No more lung problems and she had tapered off her nicotine consumption considerably. She was living a healthier life while keeping a habit she enjoyed. Makes sense to me.

If governments really wanted to do away with smoking in the US, they would have already. I guarantee you that in my state tobacco taxes are heavily relied upon by the state government with no real concern for the smokers, just the treasury. Why is smoking still legal? One simple term: TOBACCO LOBBY! Those fuckers have screwed the US populace eight ways from reverse and back again.

As for the argument that e-cigs are a gateway for kids to smoke, I'm calling complete BS on that. KIDS WILL FIND ALL KINDS OF CRAP THAT'S UNHEALTHY AND TRY IT! E-cigs can easily be marketed for adult even without claiming them as a quitting aid. Just because any habit is bad for kids is not a reason to take it away from adults. You really want to keep kids healthy? For US: TRY BLOODY FUNDING EDUCATION PROPERLY AND MAKE SCHOOLS INTO A HONESTLY HEALTHY SECOND HOME FOR KIDS WHERE THEY CAN BE PROPERLY MONITORED, RAISED AND TAKEN CARE OF! Oh wait I forget conservatives aren't interested in common good, especially for children. Oh well.