E-Cigarettes - are they damaging to your health?

buswankers

Are they bad for your health? I've read some articles that maintain that they are and some that state they are not as bad as regular cigarettes.

The reason I ask is that my boyfriend has recently given up smoking and is now using electronic cigarettes as an alternative, but we are both wondering whether or not it is harmful to his health - obviously they are better than smoking regular cigarettes but is there any definitive answer to this question as from reading up on line there seems to be a lot of conflicting theories on the matter. Obviously he would prefer to go cold turkey but at the moment he doesnt think he'd get by - this man was smoking 20 smokes a day. I know that he is merely replacing one habit with another but the fact that these e-cigs make giving up smokes that little bit easier is great.

I know there are no medical experts here & I am not looking for medical advice but would just like some opinions on the point! Thanks

youcancallmeal

Obviously you are still addicted to nicotine when you use e-cigs. I would say it is still a bit worse than not smoking but a lot better than normal smoking. You should look into the effects nicotine has on the body like mood altering and increasing blood pressure and heart rate.

Janiejordon

All products have some side effects, so ecigs also affect your health somehow. Like due to e cigs you can feel some headache, stress etc.

drunkmonkey

There not regulated in anyway, anti freeze was found in some liquids, nobody is addicted to smoking it's Nicotine is the problem, your boyfriend needs to give up nicotine and then he's free from smoking or any supplement like eCigs, nicotine patches etc.
Champix has worked for a lot of people I personally know even myself and plenty of people here on boards as well.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

youcancallmeal pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said worse than not smoking, better than smoking.
nicotine is a drug and like all drugs will have benefits and disadvantages to its use

maybe a better way to think of it is not replacing one habit with another but finding a safer way to enjoy a bad habit. like riding a bike in full leathers and a helmet as opposed to bollock naked. cigarettes have all sorts of **** added to them that the e-juice doesn't and outside of the general health benefits of not inhaling all that stuff it means the nicotine affects you differently too. when i was a smoker i'd start to get tetchy if I went an hour without one.. i wouldn't go to the shop without a pack so I could have one on the way and on the way back. with the ecig.. i use it every 15-20 minutes, 3-4 drags and put it away.. but if my battery runs out or if I leave the house and forget it I'm well able to go 6+ hours before I even think about it.

ShaShaBear

Second the Champix, my partner is off them 4 weeks yesterday without so much as a drag off a cigarette or any electronic crutches.

The problem with E-cigs is that people consider them an alternative, when they are absolutely not. They are meant to slowly wean you off the nicotine while allowing you to replicate the physical habits you have become accustomed to like inhaling deeply and holding something between your fingers, or going out to the beer garden with your mates.

You are not meant to quit smoking and then continue to pump yourself with the drug you are addicted to by another means because you think it is less damaging.

Getting run over by a cyclist is less damaging than getting run over by a motorist. But you'd honestly see that neither are a good option, as both are damaging. Smoking with an e-cig is no different.

Again, have to applaud the Champix, my partner said the only time he feels any cravings any more are when he is doing something that he always accompanies with a cigarette - driving long distances, watching the football and drinking beer, and *ahem* after fun-times :rolleyes:
He knows only rightly that the craving he has is pure habit, and not the drug itself now, so he has started having a cup/flask of tea on the occasions where he really wants to smoke, and it's gotten him thus far with no problems!

Green Hornet

Despite all the Champix love in here, be wary......research it before you decide to go that route.....

Never used it but I know a few who have and it isn't as rosy as its portrayed here, at least for a percentage of people who used it.

ShaShaBear

Green Hornet wrote: »

Despite all the Champix love in here, be wary......research it before you decide to go that route.....

Never used it but I know a few who have and it isn't as rosy as its portrayed here, at least for a percentage of people who used it.

No medication is. My partner also suffered vivid dreams, sometimes crossing into nightmares. He also felt extremely nauseous if he took a tablet on an empty stomach.
He still maintains it was better than the alternative, and that once he knew how to combat the issue, it was a painless experience.
Even panadol have unpleasant side-effects, but people will still risk it to get rid of a bad headache :P

Anyone

ShaShaBear wrote: »

No medication is. My partner also suffered vivid dreams, sometimes crossing into nightmares. He also felt extremely nauseous if he took a tablet on an empty stomach.
He still maintains it was better than the alternative, and that once he knew how to combat the issue, it was a painless experience.
Even panadol have unpleasant side-effects, but people will still risk it to get rid of a bad headache :P

Given its links to suicide as a side affect, I think comparing champix to panadol might be pushing it.

I find it hard to believe that doctors are still prescribing it.

ShaShaBear

Anyone wrote: »

Given its links to suicide as a side affect, I think comparing champix to panadol might be pushing it.

I find it hard to believe that doctors are still prescribing it.

Well our doctor said it was because they can't conclusively prove that the links to suicide are solely down to the medication, and not withdrawal symptoms from nicotine. In any case, they worked fine this end apart from the nausea and dreams, which is what my mother and uncle also experienced. I've not come across anyone with more harmful side-effects than that.

spix

Recent study done on e-cigs (and the only one with any credibility)

Conclusion is that they pose pretty much no health risk. Infinitely better than regular cigarettes of course.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

The problem with E-cigs is that people consider them an alternative, when they are absolutely not

They are both, its up to the user to decide which way they want to use ecigs. There's plenty of people who use them as an alternative with no intention of ridding their nicotine addition. There's also plenty of people who have been able to completely quit after a couple of weeks of using them.

MickelRants

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There not regulated in anyway, anti freeze was found in some liquids, nobody is addicted to smoking it's Nicotine is the problem, your boyfriend needs to give up nicotine and then he's free from smoking or any supplement like eCigs, nicotine patches etc.
Champix has worked for a lot of people I personally know even myself and plenty of people here on boards as well.

1. Champix now carries a warning due to the high incidence of suicide as it was not anticipated that a mood altering drug (and in fact an antidepressant) would result in suicidal feelings) Pfizer settled for 175m in lawsuits and costs. You might have noticed those mood changes whilst on champix.

2. No, antifreeze was never found in e-liquid you are either confusing this with the fact that one of the ingredients in e-liquid MPG or monopropolyene glycol is used in the manufacture of antifreeze... non toxic antifreeze I might add. Or you are deliberately attempting to deceive the person you are talking to...either way that makes you an idiot. Water is also used in the manufacture of antifreeze both toxic and non toxic varieties... that does not make drinking water dangerous. Stop spreading rumours and nonsense.

3. To date from 10 years of research and thousands of studies...more studies I might add than most products you buy and eat from any supermarket not a single toxin has been found in e-cigs... not one. Moreover its not like the tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies haven't done everything possible to try demonstrate such health risks since they pay for 'most' of the research. But thats pretty much obvious to everyone since million use them and nobody has yet presented themselves to a doctor suffering from any ill effect. You would imagine if there was antifreeze in it there would be at the very least someone sick...and likely a trail of bodies!

4. It is possible to buy e-liquid in reduction packs which reduce the nicotine level intake overtime. They are very cheap especially when compared to other NRT methods and champix (about 10% of the cost) and they also demonstrate efficacy above both pharmaceutical solutions AND other NRT method, which you would know had you looked into this at all but didn't.

I also notice in your other posts you seem to be specifically anti e-cigs and even refer to it at one point as smoking... didn't bother looking at all your posts ...but vaping is not smoking on account of there is no smoke... which you also know but don't seem to be able to reiterate.


So repeat after me 'vaping is safe (as demonstrated) champix is dangerous (as demonstrated and admitted by the manufacturers) gums and patches don't work (since if they did then they might have had at least some impact on the level of nicotine addiction) and you contradict yourself in some crazy holy war against e-cigs for what ever reasons known only to yourself at the moment... but I doubt it would take me too long to run a search and scrape for your posts across boards.ie and find out what you are up to???

MickelRants

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There not regulated in anyway,

WRONG... e-liquid is a consumable product and as such falls under the food safety laws... its not dangerous. You know this too...would you like me to post the links to the research that demonstrates it? I can do that.... but why bother...everyone reading this and your clearly deliberately inaccurate posts can too...at which point the nonsense about champix backfires.

Ohh look heres a link from the FDA warngin about Champix

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm169988.htm

and heres the story

http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/news/latest-news/pfizer-settles-majority-of-us-champix-cases

But you already know this... and now after looking at your posts its pretty obvious what sort of insidious, harmful and downright nasty little game you are playing with people who thus far have not found out anything about e-cigs... evil little ****!

MickelRants

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Well our doctor said it was because they can't conclusively prove that the links to suicide are solely down to the medication, and not withdrawal symptoms from nicotine.

The cry of 'the can't conclusively prove' applies to absolutely everything on the face of the earth... a bottle of milk is not conclusively demonstrated to be safe nor is it conclusively proven to be dangerous.... nor is chewing wrigleys...or walking to the park!

What is generally the case in this world is that something is used unless an issue arises and its addressed. Pfizer seem to have got off scot free there since an issue arose the available evidence demonstrated culpability and responsibility and they walked with a mere 175million payout!

The incidence of suicide with their drug is many times that of the people that simply quit cold turkey. So forget about the need to 'conclusively demonstrate' it...would you go along with that if it was blatantly obvious a car was coming towards you but it not 'conclusively proven' it will hit you? Just go with the body of knowledge you have and the the most likely story.

Your doctor being a doctor who sat through numerous classes in pathology would understand that. Clearly he needs to have someone in the HSE have a word with him about dispensing non medical and also inaccurate advice, using gaps in knowledge as some sort of excuse to give a dangerous drug a 'pass' and prescribe it to patients just to make a few bucks on Champix.

MickelRants

ShaShaBear wrote: »

T
You are not meant to quit smoking and then continue to pump yourself with the drug you are addicted to by another means because you think it is less damaging.

Ecigs are less dangerous... its not a 'might be' its a fact.... You'd be thinking right in that case since e-cigs are demonstrably a lot less damaging...

Certainly given the body of knowledge available for both champix and e-cigs the e-cigs have thus far no known health risks and have been researched MORE than champix... and indeed more popular and used more than champix.

The champix on the other hand...well you don't have to 'think' it might be dangerous the manufacturers and FDA agree its dangerous and now warn patients of those dangers.

The e-cig / champix comparison is like trying to decide if your sister should mind your children (e-cigs) or a child sex offender (champix). Now fair enough its not proven that the sex offender would get up to anything... sure no harm ehh? And likewise there's no conclusive evidence your sister wouldn't harm the kids... after all not every avenue of research of the sister has been done... [facepalms]

Micky Dolenz

MickelRants, so you have a vested interest in e-cigs?

mewso

MickelRants wrote: »

either way that makes you an idiot

Infracted for personal abuse. You make some good points Mickel but there is no need to abuse people while you do so.

dePeatrick

I really don't understand people's resistance to ecigarettes, I had smoked for 40 years and tried everything over the last 15 and nothing worked until I tried ecigarettes, tried a tester at a booth in a shopping centre and I liked it so bought it.

I have no interest in smoking cigarettes again as they now taste and smell awful to me and am getting into the whole vaping thing and looking forward to trying new eliquids and better vaporisers. Never felt better, and I envoy vaping, whether I will ever give that up....well recent research suggests that nicotene is good for older people as regards memory etc....:)

Get Real

I too switched to e-cigs and had the same health concerns. However, after reading articles (the few that exist so far) and also from how i felt myself (breathing, mood etc) I concluded that even if there is some harm, e-cigs are by far, the lesser of two evils.

Then, after about 6 weeks, I quit vaping too. I have no problem with people who want to vape, and vape away I say . But for those who want to quit nicotine altogether, I would recommend definitely switching to e-cigs in the short term.

Vape as much as you're comfortable with at say 16-24mg liquid for a week. Don't feel guilty about how much.

Then bring it down to 12 for two weeks, and eventually 5mg and 0mg for as long as you want,

What I found was, when smoking, I couldn't go without the smoke with friends, the smoke with a pint etc. Then with the e-cig it became purely about the nicotine. There wasn't really that desire to pull it out when others were smoking cigarettes. Then I stopped using it "at will" and just took a few drags when i had a craving.

Eventually, when on the lower nicotine levels, I realized "oh wait, i havent vaped all day...do i need to now?" and then it just fizzled out

MickelRants

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

MickelRants, so you have a vested interest in e-cigs?

No I have a vested interest in health... but unlike some other folk here I do not dispense medical advice over an open forum. NOT because its against the rules but rather because its just plain dangerous.

But that okay because e-cigs are not medication...and can't be because they contain the very substance a medication would NOT have to address the condition refereed to as nicotine addiction. And also don't fall under the IMB's definition of medication either... so theres no need for anyone to worry about them being classified as a medication.

However having said that I've personally used an ecig for more than a year now and researched precisely what I was doing because I smoked for 25 years.

I've now made 15 posts and you are the second person to imply I work for the electronic cigarette industry... Its probably likely that since I've read a lot of medical journals, papers and studies of e-cigs that I magically seem so educated on the matter... My vested interest in the e-cig business is making sure others don't make it the EX-E-cig business... because from what I see its a tobacco killer.

MickelRants

Get Real wrote: »

Vape as much as you're comfortable with at say 16-24mg liquid for a week. Don't feel guilty about how much.

Then bring it down to 12 for two weeks, and eventually 5mg and 0mg for as long as you want,

Eventually, when on the lower nicotine levels, I realized "oh wait, i haven't vaped all day...do i need to now?" and then it just fizzled out

Ohh look someone making actual sense... wow that's a first so far....

I wonder if I said anything here that will get yet another warning... cos you know I might not be allowed to state you made sense there... Two times pulled up in 16 posts and I've only made 16 in over a year... anyway on to number 17....where no doubt I'll have someone else accuse me of working for the e-cig industry or maybe a secret cabal of CIA operative or some other nonsense.

All because I just because I happen to be rather educated and read a lot...

Its a terrible thing education and making sense y'know... odds are if you agree with me the Boards.ie secret police will send a hit squad around to your house to gut your kittens and crap on your lawn in protest...

Maybe someone would be kind enough to pull this post up on a typo or something so that it can be investigated by a state tribunal or something.

MickelRants

dePeatrick wrote: »

I have no interest in smoking cigarettes again as they now taste and smell awful to me and am getting into the whole vaping thing and looking forward to trying new eliquids and better vaporisers. ..:)

Don't mention where or if you buy your e-liquid thats all I'll say... the stazi will be in like flynn to drag you off to the big house where the 'massa' will whoop your ass with a baseball bat!

MickelRants

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

youcancallmeal pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said worse than not smoking, better than smoking.
nicotine is a drug and like all drugs will have benefits and disadvantages to its use

Agreed... the first port of call in any worry about dangers would be the health issues reported by those that use e-cigs to their doctor... or in A&E departments in hospital...

I'm sure if someone looked long and hard enough there might be one or two worldwide when e-cig sales get to a few hundred million. But at that point It'd only be hypochondriacs doing the investigating.

I came across a guy in Florida that blew his bottom jaw off making a mod for his e-cig that overcharged... I suppose thats a health issue... and doubtless a few Chinese airport guys have had boxloads of e-cigs all ready for export fall on them in the departure lounge of Beijing airport too... but other than that never actually heard of any downsides... which in fairness is rather weird because even if this was something totally benign like say 'soup' or even 'printer paper' we could all find someone on-line that died from it in some weird freak accident...

Actually its a worthwhile cause...given the title of the thread, so I'm gonna go off and see if I can find some guy that killed himself with an e-cig...regardless of how bizarre... I'd be pretty sure some twat was stupid enough to shove one up his nose and brain himself.

EDIT:

lol... not quiet what I was expecting but I found this nonsense...

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/guns-n-roses-dj-ashba-near-death-experience/

I wonder exactly how much antifreeze was in there.. lol... yeah I can see all those polish guys dropping like flies from the antifreeze e-cigs... he obviously heard that MPG in e-cigs is also used in the manufacture of antifreeze (non toxic antifreeze btw) and then misunderstood that and went on about how there was antifreeze in the e-cig... stupidity knows no bounds clearly... but he's not dead (unfortunately) so that doesn't count!

200motels

MickelRants wrote: »

1. Champix now carries a warning due to the high incidence of suicide as it was not anticipated that a mood altering drug (and in fact an antidepressant) would result in suicidal feelings) Pfizer settled for 175m in lawsuits and costs. You might have noticed those mood changes whilst on champix.

2. No, antifreeze was never found in e-liquid you are either confusing this with the fact that one of the ingredients in e-liquid MPG or monopropolyene glycol is used in the manufacture of antifreeze... non toxic antifreeze I might add. Or you are deliberately attempting to deceive the person you are talking to...either way that makes you an idiot. Water is also used in the manufacture of antifreeze both toxic and non toxic varieties... that does not make drinking water dangerous. Stop spreading rumours and nonsense.

3. To date from 10 years of research and thousands of studies...more studies I might add than most products you buy and eat from any supermarket not a single toxin has been found in e-cigs... not one. Moreover its not like the tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies haven't done everything possible to try demonstrate such health risks since they pay for 'most' of the research. But thats pretty much obvious to everyone since million use them and nobody has yet presented themselves to a doctor suffering from any ill effect. You would imagine if there was antifreeze in it there would be at the very least someone sick...and likely a trail of bodies!

4. It is possible to buy e-liquid in reduction packs which reduce the nicotine level intake overtime. They are very cheap especially when compared to other NRT methods and champix (about 10% of the cost) and they also demonstrate efficacy above both pharmaceutical solutions AND other NRT method, which you would know had you looked into this at all but didn't.

I also notice in your other posts you seem to be specifically anti e-cigs and even refer to it at one point as smoking... didn't bother looking at all your posts ...but vaping is not smoking on account of there is no smoke... which you also know but don't seem to be able to reiterate.


So repeat after me 'vaping is safe (as demonstrated) champix is dangerous (as demonstrated and admitted by the manufacturers) gums and patches don't work (since if they did then they might have had at least some impact on the level of nicotine addiction) and you contradict yourself in some crazy holy war against e-cigs for what ever reasons known only to yourself at the moment... but I doubt it would take me too long to run a search and scrape for your posts across boards.ie and find out what you are up to???

I've tried champix and everything else to try and quit smoking and none have worked so far, champix made me feel very unstable and I wouldn't recommend anyone trying it, as for e-cigs I've tried a few but I keep going back to my good old friend Amber Leaf, I'll keep trying because one day they'll give me up.

grindle

200motels wrote: »

as for e-cigs I've tried a few but I keep going back to my good old friend Amber Leaf

Was it a small ecig?

scamalert

Some people cant put 2+2 together.
e cigs have 3-4 ingredients in the juice that are listed on the bottle,better quality juices have even more info like what nicotine was used % of all ingredients.
Now read up contents list and go to wikipedia or google them.
After this compare it to the list that goes into single cigarette 200 chemicals that cause cancer alone-used in $**8t loads of stuff to produce petrol,antifreeze,carcinogenic stuff,and another 600-800 ingredients that keeps cigarette to taste and keep burning,since tobbaco alone doesnt burn if no air circulation and heat/compression is present and tastes like $hit.
Now e-cigs aren't proven to be healthy nor harmless,as no one is bothering to fund any serious research.

But if person really wants to quit best way to go is cold turkey,if no will power to do that then e-cig is safer option considering that you dont inhale burnt stuff like tar and avoid another 896 chemicals.

Michael77

I agree. I stop smoking regular cig 3 weeks ago, start using e-cig and I am really happy. Feel much better.

cordni

I also changed to e-cigs over five months ago. I have gradually reduced the strength liquid I use and the frequency I use it. That to me is a win.

MickelRants

Well I suppose the only response is 'what can ya do?' , Now in fairness I use an e-cig...well truth be told I have 7 or 8 of them... but while I'm off the fags for 2 years I'm still using the ecig.

Now that said I couldn't care less... I like the ecig... there's lots of choice in eliquids some are really nice... the house of liquids stuff from the UK adds another dimension to the universe in my opinion... so I'm still addicted to nicotine...but what I decided to address was all the bad stuff about that and leave the good stuff where it was. Don't fix it if it isn't broken sort of methodology.

So I suppose you could say that ecigs are not something I used to give up nicotine... but I did use them as an alternative to smoking... personally I can't stand the smell of ciggies any more... but I won't rant about that any more because I was a smoker myself...and amber leaf was probably the best tasting of the lot of them...

But man its really expensive to smoke these days... its over a tenner for 20 smokes these days... and they'll do their best to make you a dead customer.

MickelRants

Cold turkey is grand if

A. you can hack it...and lets be honest very few can.
B. You want to give up for the right reasons.

If you want to give up cos it costs you money and you cough up three tadpoles and a frog every morning then eventually the cravings (IMO) will win.

If I was being sarcastic I'd say cold turkey works great... I used it 10 or 15 times in the past 25 years and it worked every time...up until I started smoking again.

I liked smoking... but I didn't like the empty pockets and a lung full of crap that would kill me... not to mention the damage I know I've done myself where its too late now even though I don't smoke any more.

But I get best of both worlds now... cheap nicotine habit... no crappy lung stuff, no known damage to my health...a more pleasurable experience in a flavour I can choose from thousands of flavours ... at something like €5 a bottle and rather weirdly (and I'm buggered if I know why) but the dose of flu I used to get once a year is gone...every year like clockwork in September I used to get a ose of the flu... not any more... and I also used to get repeating strep ...and I haven't seen that now in 2 years.

For me its vaping all the way...

now yeah I suppose you could argue it will be discovered in 40 years time that vaping leads to your balls dropping off and a dose of something or other... but I'll be an old man by then so I couldn't care less really, and being the academic and nosey sort I read up on these things too.. seems perfectly okay to me. I stil have a nicotine habit though... but I have no intention of addressing that.

MickelRants

grindle wrote: »

Was it a small ecig?

A mammy ecigs baby perhaps?

MickelRants

mewso wrote: »

Infracted for personal abuse. You make some good points Mickel but there is no need to abuse people while you do so.

Yeah back from exile.. although to be honest a further week long ban because I simply forgot boards.ie existed...

With reference to this it is extremely hard... one might even say near on impossible to see folks make a twit of themselves making silly points without pointing that out to them. Since clearly that's not allowed Mewso I'll just be sarcastic from here on in when I see misinformation or rubbish.

Reading some posts I'm seriously concerned at the level of education available to the Irish public. It actually scares me...you read more of this than I do....aren't you often worried at the level of misinformation, educational gaps and rubbish being spouted as if there is some authority behind it?

When I was a kid we didn't have the internet and if you need to know something it was a bus ride to the library.

Its absolutely infuriating when everyone has equal tools to find an answer to any question in ten seconds flat using the internet and the meat between their ears but wilfully choose to be ignorant and spread that ignorance to others at the drop of a hat as if they are an authority on the matter.

Especially on a subject where public health is concerned... that's what annoys me most ...this cigarette issue is a subject where folks health and in some cases (probably 25% of cases) their LIFE depends on the accurate information on smoking cessation. If you are tasked with policing those comments then by all means police it...but misinformation and dispensing medical advice should be you very first targets. Don't shoot at the grass...aim at the buffolo!

One can have an opinion on football or who the best looking supermodel might be or other subjective issues... but having an opinion and touting it as factual on axiomatic medical knowledge is downright bloody dangerous.

Yet I'm sanctioned for calling another user an idiot... (which in hindsight was stupid on my part, am I allowed to refer to myself as being stupid?) and yet the other party is allowed to dispense inaccurate medical advise... which is a banning offence even if the data is accurate!

I don't know to be honest... I often get the feeling I'm living in the movie idiocracy.

goz83

MickelRants wrote: »

But I get best of both worlds now... cheap nicotine habit... no crappy lung stuff, no known damage to my health...a more pleasurable experience in a flavour I can choose from thousands of flavours ... at something like €5 a bottle and rather weirdly (and I'm buggered if I know why) but the dose of flu I used to get once a year is gone...every year like clockwork in September I used to get a ose of the flu... not any more... and I also used to get repeating strep ...and I haven't seen that now in 2 years.

For me its vaping all the way...

now yeah I suppose you could argue it will be discovered in 40 years time that vaping leads to your balls dropping off and a dose of something or other... but I'll be an old man by then so I couldn't care less really, and being the academic and nosey sort I read up on these things too.. seems perfectly okay to me. I stil have a nicotine habit though... but I have no intention of addressing that.

Seriously? No known damage. The frequent release of adrenaline and a suppression of insulin, coupled with the heart rate and blood pressure spiking each time nicotine enters the body is a sure way to cause damage to the body. Don't get me started on the effects it has on the brain.

I'm not accusing you here, but I can certainly see why some would think you have a vested interest in e-cigs....going as far as to mention a specific place to buy all the wonderful flavours.

grindle

goz83 wrote: »

Seriously? No known damage. The frequent release of adrenaline and insulin, coupled with the heart rate and blood pressure spiking each time nicotine enters the body is a sure way to cause damage to the body. Don't get me started on the effects it has on the brain.

The tendency to soothe sufferers of depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's, Tourette's and Parkinson's? I know, terrible drug altogether, no benefits at all.

I thought it suppressed insulin?
Can't say the tiny release of a controllable amount of adrenaline is either physically damaging or anybody's business but the body's owner - the spikes are certainly far smaller than the spikes anxiety sufferers feel and they don't get given out to for having attacks. Usually. Maybe we could start that trend?
As a sufferer of anxiety attacks, a bag of Taytos or a coffee has much more of an effect on my health, yet I don't bother pissing, moaning or crusading against those things. Because they shouldn't be crusaded against. They can either be avoided or taken in moderation. Like nicotine.

I'm not sure why you think heart-rate/blood pressure being raised slightly is damaging in the long-term...there's an equal case for the opposite. Some people's body could do with an engine-rev every now and again.
Not great for people with already-high blood pressure, but they've probably got another habit screwing them up if their BP has stayed high because lower BP is one of the first things doctors congratulate vapers for. This constant spiking (possibly over-dramatised?) of blood pressure doesn't sound so bad when a doctor says "Your blood pressure is ideal, well done!"

Oh, and no vested interest in ecigs here though I suspect you may like to classify being healthier as a form of vested interest? Maybe, sorry if not but it would be the usual sort of doublethink from people who use major arguments against minor-if-at-all troubles.

goz83

grindle wrote: »

The tendency to soothe sufferers of depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's, Tourette's and Parkinson's? I know, terrible drug altogether, no benefits at all.

I thought it suppressed insulin?
Can't say the tiny release of a controllable amount of adrenaline is either physically damaging or anybody's business but the body's owner - the spikes are certainly far smaller than the spikes anxiety sufferers feel and they don't get given out to for having attacks. Usually. Maybe we could start that trend?
As a sufferer of anxiety attacks, a bag of Taytos or a coffee has much more of an effect on my health, yet I don't bother pissing, moaning or crusading against those things. Because they shouldn't be crusaded against. They can either be avoided or taken in moderation. Like nicotine.

I'm not sure why you think heart-rate/blood pressure being raised slightly is damaging in the long-term...there's an equal case for the opposite. Some people's body could do with an engine-rev every now and again.
Not great for people with already-high blood pressure, but they've probably got another habit screwing them up if their BP has stayed high because lower BP is one of the first things doctors congratulate vapers for. This constant spiking (possibly over-dramatised?) of blood pressure doesn't sound so bad when a doctor says "Your blood pressure is ideal, well done!"

Oh, and no vested interest in ecigs here though I suspect you may like to classify being healthier as a form of vested interest? Maybe, sorry if not but it would be the usual sort of doublethink from people who use major arguments against minor-if-at-all troubles.

Every drug has possible positives if used for that specific reason. So for those who suffer with depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's, Tourette's and Parkinson's; if an e-cig, or use of nicotine is going to be positive, then ahead. Radiation can be lethal, but is used in cancer treatment. The way I see it is like this; if the use of a drug is not necessary, then that use is abuse. I'm an offender here too. I sometimes drink alcohol

And yes, i missed the word suppression when mentioning insulin. I corrected that, thanks.

The main issue I have, which imo is also the main benefit and reason for success is just how similar it is to smoking. It does not change smoking behaviour in any significant way and most people (in my experience) do not stick withe-cigs, returning to cigarettes and only using the e-cig where they cannot smoke, if at all.

grindle

goz83 wrote: »

if the use of a drug is not necessary, then that use is abuse. I'm an offender here too. I sometimes drink alcohol

I'd definitely disagree with that definition. Use is just use. Otherwise every intake of every food type is a form of abuse as we're bound to take in more than is necessary of certain things, even with vegetables.

goz83 wrote: »

The main issue I have, which imo is also the main benefit and reason for success is just how similar it is to smoking. It does not change smoking behaviour in any significant way and most people (in my experience) do not stick withe-cigs, returning to cigarettes and only using the e-cig where they cannot smoke, if at all.

Most people I've 'switched' have switched fully, and this is covered across the internet - people who don't or can't make the full switch either haven't used a good device or they never actually wanted to quit cigs.
Not sure why anybody thinks it's their right to change the smoking behaviour any more than it'd be my right to disparage, tax, or de facto ban people who don't shower daily or miss a toothbrushing every once in a while. It isn't and should be a right of mine to do that however much those things cause me to become irrationally annoyed.
If if somebody's habits annoy me but cause no harm to my being they can do what they like and I can remain annoyed if I want or I can stop being a twonk a let people live.

goz83

grindle wrote: »

I'd definitely disagree with that definition. Use is just use. Otherwise every intake of every food type is a form of abuse as we're bound to take in more than is necessary of certain things, even with vegetables.

Food is something we need to survive. Drugs are something that are sometimes needed to get, or keep well. Your comparison is poor at best.

grindle

goz83 wrote: »

Food is something we need to survive. Drugs are something that are sometimes needed to get, or keep well. Your comparison is poor at best.

We need certain constituent parts of foods to survive, everything else is an excess, especially in anything rich/luxurious. You were the one who said anything unnecessary was abuse. From obesity levels we already know a huge amount of abuse is going on, but your poor definition of abuse would have even the poorest non-starving Westerner within it's lines.
Much like I can choose to eat cake (an abuse based on your terms, not mine) I can choose to use drugs moderately, whether alcohol, nicotine or other magical things.
Defining anything that isn't necessary as an abuse is one of the strangest things I've ever read. Posting to forums isn't necessary - is your brain being abused? Your fingers?
Again, you set those terms. I'm just following them to their [il]logical conclusion.

Seems like a very restrictive way to think.

goz83

grindle wrote: »

We need certain constituent parts of foods to survive, everything else is an excess, especially in anything rich/luxurious. You were the one who said anything unnecessary was abuse. From obesity levels we already know a huge amount of abuse is going on, but your poor definition of abuse would have even the poorest non-starving Westerner within it's lines.
Much like I can choose to eat cake (an abuse based on your terms, not mine) I can choose to use drugs moderately, whether alcohol, nicotine or other magical things.
Defining anything that isn't necessary as an abuse is one of the strangest things I've ever read. Posting to forums isn't necessary - is your brain being abused? Your fingers?
Again, you set those terms. I'm just following them to their [il]logical conclusion.

Seems like a very restrictive way to think.

You seem to be quite restrictive in what you are taking from my posts. You're also cherry picking my comments to fit what you're trying to say, but my posts do not say what you are answering to. Is it possible you are responding to a different poster on another thread? You have gone so far off my meaning, I certainly think it's a possibility. I specifically mentioned drugs when I spoke about abuse. You were he one who brought "anything" into it, so don't be trying to skew my meaning into something it clearly is not. By that definition, you could define watching TV as an abuse and even an academic education as an abuse, because lets face it, they aren't necessary if we're talking about survival, which I am not.

grindle

goz83 wrote: »

I specifically mentioned drugs when I spoke about abuse. You were he one who brought "anything" into it, so don't be trying to skew my meaning into something it clearly is not.

The point of an analogy is to compare with other things, recognise similarities and possibly expose faults in logic and/or predisposed bias. That's what analogies are for.

Specifically mentioning drugs doesn't magically bequeath your argument with an 'Analogies Not Allowed' sign and it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be a valid analogy my example also has to be a drug...that would defeat the point since you already have an irrational bias formed against any use of drugs (even the one you use), how could I possibly use an analogy of drugs to drugs to show how narrowly you view drugs? That wouldn't make sense, although the fact that you think analogies work this way cements my position.

Something that is unneccessarily used is abuse. This was your point. Making it specifically about drugs (oh no, taboo!) doesn't change the meaning of what you said despite your implication that it does. And this:

Drugs are something that are sometimes needed to get, or keep well.

...just isn't true. Recreational drug use isn't an aftereffect of irresponsible medicinal drug use, it's the other way around. Recreational drugs were found to have medicinal effects.
Drug use ≠ abuse. Supremely easy concept to grasp.

goz83

grindle wrote: »

The point of an analogy is to compare with other things, recognise similarities and possibly expose faults in logic and/or predisposed bias. That's what analogies are for.

I understand what an analogy is of course and of course you know this, but once again, rather than challenge, or concede my point, you attempt to turn my points into something they are not, or to belittle me personally. It shows you don't have, or choose not give a valid argument, which, in the former is a concession.

grindle wrote: »

Specifically mentioning drugs doesn't magically bequeath your argument with an 'Analogies Not Allowed' sign and it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be a valid analogy my example also has to be a drug...that would defeat the point since you already have an irrational bias formed against any use of drugs (even the one you use), how could I possibly use an analogy of drugs to drugs to show how narrowly you view drugs? That wouldn't make sense, although the fact that you think analogies work this way cements my position.

You are correct. Specifically mentioning drugs does not magically do anything. It means I am speaking about a specific thing. Coming out with a too much of anything argument is a farcical argument, which I cemented when I pointed out that we actually don't need much to survive, so in that sense, everything is abuse, according to you. This would include pro-creation too, because that's not necessary for the individual to survive. Your analogy is an attempt to turn my point into a joke. If making one, at least try to make a comparable one that I can take seriously and possibly even agree with.

grindle wrote: »

Something that is unneccessarily used is abuse. This was your point. Making it specifically about drugs (oh no, taboo!) doesn't change the meaning of what you said despite your implication that it does.

No it wasn't my meaning. I am unnecessarily using my ipad right now. I am unnecessarily sitting on a chair right now. I am unnecessarily wearing a blue shirt right now i am etc etc etc. come on buddy, get real. My point was on drugs. Nothing else. They are supposed to be used for pain and illness and other medical use. Anything outside of this ( and sometimes within ) is abuse.

grindle wrote: »

And this:

...just isn't true. Recreational drug use isn't an aftereffect of irresponsible medicinal drug use, it's the other way around. Recreational drugs were found to have medicinal effects.
Drug use ≠ abuse. Supremely easy concept to grasp.

I believe it is abuse and is irresponsible. Medicinal drugs were also found to have effects desired by those who might abuse the drugs. Do you agree with the recreational use of cocaine and ecstasy for example?

MickelRants

goz83 wrote: »

I'm not accusing you here, but I can certainly see why some would think you have a vested interest in e-cigs....going as far as to mention a specific place to buy all the wonderful flavours.

I clearly have a vested interest in house of liquid.... some other site random website I once bought eliquid from....(the last time I was accused of this) and perhaps three others because that's the third time (and the third company) I've now been accused of having an interest in... its not a wonder I'm not commenting on boards.ie too often...with all those business interests I clearly haven't got the time. [rolls eyes]

You forgot to mention nicotine has an adverse effect on ADHD sufferers too...it decreases concentration there...

Anyway your research related to the increase in adrenaline (rather short lived I might add) is a direct result of a fast infusion of nicotine into blood plasma via combustion delivery... ie. Smoking...

Since I'm not smoking It doesn't relate to me. The 'spiking' from vaping, gum, patches etc. is non existent... unlike smoking where there is a pronounced spike. In the case of insulin the level of nicotine is 5 times less ... the inhibitor factor is not a health issue.(see below)


Maybe your picking this up wrong... it took me 20 years and 50 attempts to finally pack in the cigarettes. In that time I can guarantee you I've read more about the dangers of addiction, nicotine, smoking and efficacy of different methods than you can shake a one ended stick at. I am fully aware of the incredible dangers I am putting myself in...its almost as bad as drinking a cappuccino on the way to work. Except obviously I reduce the risk of scalding myself.

Please see attached graph

http://snusauthority.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/F1.large_.jpg

and also

http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/57/1/79.full

DISCLAIMER: I have no connection with the team who studied the release of nicotine and blood plasma absorption of cigarettes v's e-cigs or the website I'm posting here either. (just in case I'm now elevated from shrill for the e-cig industry to internationally renowned chemist)

goz83 wrote: »

Seriously? No known damage. The frequent release of adrenaline and a suppression of insulin, coupled with the heart rate and blood pressure spiking each time nicotine enters the body is a sure way to cause damage to the body. Don't get me started on the effects it has on the brain.

How come everyone else on this page and other threads gets away with posting links but 'ONLY I' end up being accused each time of having a vested interest in each of the link I post... is this some sort of strange boards.ie initiation joke I'm not aware of? In future I'll search boards.ie for someone else's link that matches my point and use theirs... heres one here -> http://www.juicycigs.co.uk/halo-purity-e-liquid.html

I've even tried that juice... but it came directly from a thread on boards.ie...and nobody questioned that poster... weird that... Is there some rule I'm failing to pay heed to... do I need to include the above disclaimer?

If we wait a little while though someone will point out I work for Halo eliquids... or juicy cigs which would be great to be honest...free eliquid.

hey if I post this link...

https://www.cia.gov/index.html

...does that make me a spy?

Maybe if I give Angela Merckel a call we can sort it out ....now where did I put that list of EU leaders mobile numbers....???

Anyway coffee perhaps? (ohh better not...it'll inhibit insulin production, eurohormone, noradrenaline, production reduces the calming neurotransmitter, serotonin, increases both norepinephrine and adrenaline and increases production of ATP...wouldn't want that, best to stick with tepid water, assuming we can avoid all the bacteria...) :eek:

MickelRants

grindle wrote: »

Something that is unneccessarily used is abuse. This was your point. Making it specifically about drugs (oh no, taboo!) doesn't change the meaning of what you said despite your implication that it does.

That both true...and accounts for everything from rock climbing and surfing through nicotine use and alcohol to coffee and computer games... anything that releases dopamine whether by chemical interaction or naturally by stimulating the neocortex could essentially be attributed the word 'drug'...and if done unnecessarily is personal abuse of that drug...

But I really don't see armys of folks placarding the local rock climbing, or sky diving club...even if they could get past all the ambulances....

Also I seriously, seriously, do not see any issue with anyone using whatever chemical or natural activity they want to increase dopamine...even to the point of addiction if they want to...so long as its not doing anyone any harm...not even the person engaged in that activity. Thats why we have very few folks marching up and down outside the Dowe Egberts factory!

The funny thing is when we look at sky divers (who increase dopamine by flinging themselves from an aircraft and per capita kill themselves as a result more often than nicotine users (as opposed to smokers) ...then everyone looks in awe and says 'hey that looks really cool...I'd love to do that.... I really don't see the good/bad either way... it not immoral or moral...but rather a benign amoral activity.

No harm...with the obvious caveat that it makes dopamine production increasingly hard over their lifetime...which will auto correct if they cease doing it.

Sponge25

Most are made in China and it's safe to assume anything made in China isn't trustworthy (Babies dying from adulterated baby formula)

Nicotine may also have carcinogenic properties. Also, inhaling anything is very unhealthy. (With the exception of Earth's athmosphere)

ardle1

Off all the 'research' and Googling I've done about Electronic Cigarettes, I have not come across anywhere that says they are harmful, and Europe(if I'm not mistaken)has decided against it being classed as a medicine and so will not be prescribed.... So if your boyfriend decides to go down that road, it seems he can do so, quite safe in the knowledge that he is not damaging his health....that's unless he doesn't feel safe consuming the likes of eh, butter, sugar, white bread, and all those unmedicated consumables:) oh and he'll smell a lot nicer(for you off course)....

MickelRants

grindle wrote: »

The tendency to soothe sufferers of depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's, Tourette's and Parkinson's? I know, terrible drug altogether, no benefits at all.

Its also a pesticide...so everyone consuimes it since tobacco and nicotine absorb and bond to anything going... and even available from Apache pizza since its available in tomato purée... along with a heap load of MSG.

DISCLAMER: I DO NOT WORK FOR APACHE PIZZA.

grindle wrote: »

Oh, and no vested interest in ecigs here though I suspect you may like to classify being healthier as a form of vested interest?

Jaysus we're all at it now... I see a T-shirt in the offing...

Relax
and
Vape
...but don't work for Totally Wicked

Perhaps?

Do you also get accused every time you use boards.ie of having a vested interest in the e-cig industry?.... I've only made a handful of posts here in 18 months and now three times accused about e-cigs... thats averaging one accusation per 10 posts... even YouTube isn't that bad for paranoia.

goz83

And now were comparing what naturally occurs in the body to taking drugs that are not necessary? Holy Jaysus! I'll get my coat.

MickelRants

goz83 wrote: »

Food is something we need to survive. Drugs are something that are sometimes needed to get, or keep well. Your comparison is poor at best.

Last time I looked fructose, MSG's and copius amounts of suger along with caffeine, alcohol and carbon monoxide are neither naturally produced in the body...nor a requirement in nay way.

Ecigs are used recreationally. In fact as far as I'm aware vendors selling them aren't allowed to say otherwisee unless they can demonstrate it...and obviously they can't.

So they are used just like MSG's caffeine and all the other things I mentioned above... with the added advantage that e-cigs contain no calories whatsoever.

But even so... addictive or not.... so what, they harm to benefit ratio is astoundingly in the ecig users favour. The argument that I am abusing an addictive substance might carry some actual weight if there was any demonstrable downside.

But apart from putting my heart through he same stress it would receive by me simply standing up I really can't see a problem. I'm hardly walking the streets robbing ladies handbags fo r my next fix of eliquid... and last time I looked the nations hospital A&E departments were not full of e-cig users on trolley beds... quiet the opposite is occurring in fact. Ex-smokers who are now vapers are relieving pressure on the health services...you'd imagine that's a plus for everyone.

grindle

goz83 is a hypnotherapist who helps people quit addictions, including smoking/vaping. Any appeal to logic is lost to someone whose business depends on people believing ecigs are a bad thing in general.

scamalert

this topics went of the rails.
e cigs maybe be not healthy,but compared to normal cigarettes its -999% chemicals less and healthier option.
e-cigs should be seen as an option for those who are unable to quit normal ones,or at least reduce harm to oneself by not ingesting all the crap and minimizing it to getting nicotine fix in all most the same matter,throat hit, clouds etc
as using it as an alternative it depends,if person is unable to quit,or at least try to do it and last like 3-4 weeks without cigs,then e cig,might be just better option in long term.But if one has will power and succeeded quitting before then by using e-cig person can eventually reduce intake of nicotine drastically in matter of weeks,but no matter how low on nic level one is cravings still exist even if one vapes once a day,but as said before if one doesn't have will power to drop cigs and be nicotine free,then nothing can really help them as its only brains and thinking that makes one crave for nicotine as we are not speaking of some sort of class a drug where people cant function and go into withdrawals :pac:

Dubhlinner

I would say e-cigs are far better that cigarettes and if you can stick to them power to ya.

Comepletely harmless? I doubt it. When I tried them I got a lot of flatulence initially, also a bit of dizziness, so I suspect they increase blood pressure.

Again cigarettes do this anyway and have all the other nonsense in them so not having a go. E-cigs are clearly an excellent tool for many.

Just to throw my oar in on the champix vs vaping debate. I think some posters are coming from this at the wrong angle.

I accept champix is linked to depression and suicide, but to be honest I think its a risk worth taking for a lot of people. I was aware of the depression risk when I started taking them, and when I started feeling depressed I stopped taking them. Thankfully it had gotten me through the initial nicotine withdrawal phase and here I am six months later smoke free. I think it would be terrible if doctors stopped prescribing them.

I had previously tried e-cigarettes and for me they were never better than 80% as good as a cigarette. They seemed amazing at the start but I always ended up wanting the full cigarette hit.

So people like me there's no point saying e-cigarettes are better than champix. If they work for you I am delighted and wouldn't try and suggest anything else. Just as I wouldn't begrudge anyone using hypnotherapy or praying, even though I don't think they'd work for me.

Addiction is a complicated topic and different methods of beating or managing it can work better for each of us depending on many different factors.