E-Cigarettes - are they damaging to your health?

MickelRants · 25-10-2013 3:05am

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 · 27-10-2013 2:15am

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 · 27-10-2013 11:18am

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 · 27-10-2013 1:06pm

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 · 27-10-2013 2:59pm

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 · 27-10-2013 8:03pm

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 · 27-10-2013 9:23pm

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 · 28-10-2013 12:13am

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 · 28-10-2013 1:23am

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 · 28-10-2013 1:49pm

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 · 29-10-2013 5:22am

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 · 29-10-2013 5:35am

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 · 29-10-2013 5:40am

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 · 29-10-2013 5:45am

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 · 29-10-2013 5:50am

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 · 29-10-2013 5:18pm

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 · 05-11-2013 4:53am

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 · 05-11-2013 5:15pm

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 · 05-11-2013 8:01pm

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 · 06-11-2013 12:24am

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.

rui1000 · 19-01-2014 5:01pm

i stopped smoking a year ago using ecigarettes. i went from 30 to a 100 laps in the pool, lost the wheese i had and dropped from 24 mg nicotine to 0 mil nicotine since 3 months ago... no withdrawal symptoms no side effects

ellavin · 04-03-2014 8:58pm

I bought one yesterday its pink and all lol.. no cigarettes since

lemonhead315 · 11-03-2014 2:42am

Used to be a 20 cigarettes a day person. Started smoking in early teens and am now 29. I have quit smoking and been using ecigs 2 months. Already I can see an improvement in my breathing, I no longer stink like the Marlboro man and am just generally in a better state of mind and well being. They work!

Champix on the other hand...I was given a prescription by my gp a few years back. It had very dangerous side effects for me. I was on it maybe a week or a little over when the side effects showed. I was manic. So so depressed and wept uncontrollably. Very negative thoughts. I went off it immediately. Definitely not for everyone.

Nothing is as "good" as the real thing, but ecigs are the next best thing and will improve your life.

Eff Four · 11-03-2014 11:03pm

lemonhead315 wrote: »

Used to be a 20 cigarettes a day person. Started smoking in early teens and am now 29. I have quit smoking and been using ecigs 2 months. Already I can see an improvement in my breathing, I no longer stink like the Marlboro man and am just generally in a better state of mind and well being. They work!

Champix on the other hand...I was given a prescription by my gp a few years back. It had very dangerous side effects for me. I was on it maybe a week or a little over when the side effects showed. I was manic. So so depressed and wept uncontrollably. Very negative thoughts. I went off it immediately. Definitely not for everyone.

Nothing is as "good" as the real thing, but ecigs are the next best thing and will improve your life.

I'm a month and a half off the cigarettes this week, using an ecig, couldn't be happier. Three days feeling a bit crap at the beginning, but nothing even close to cold turkey and certainly nothing like the severe depression and irrational thoughts I experienced taking Champix out of desperation over a year ago. Each to there own, but if not for ecigs I would still be smoking. I thought I would die a smoker, and that was terrifying.

Sam Kade · 27-04-2014 11:29pm

My wife believes e cigs are bad for your health and the pack and a half a day regular fags do no harm to her health :rolleyes: She says she will try e cigs but she cannot afford the €50 for the kit right now :mad: It's impossible to save it out of her €90/week habit :mad:

Mr. TTime · 27-05-2014 5:56pm

On the ecigs for two weeks now - former 20 a day man (Marlboro lights) - can honestly say that it has been the most stress-free "giving up" period I have had after numerous previous attempts.

Tried Champix on two different occasions - it worked well the first time and lasted about 3 months until some girl trouble set me back on the cigs. 2nd time it was different - after about a week I started feeling different and distant to everything going around me plus was putting too much pressure on myself to give up. I wanted to give up before my wedding in April earlier this year (different girl!). The Mrs noticed some differences and said that I should wait till after the wedding (wise woman) before giving up.

And here I am! Needless to say my wife is delighted with the lack of smokey smell - I still go outside to vape as some habits are hard to break

+ the dog wouldn't know what to do without me out there watching her pi55 on the grass every evening

Get a thrill of excitement when getting some "ninja" vapes inside of buildings and nobody the wiser. And vaping in my car - smoking in the car was outlawed in my house about 18 months ago.

All in all, so far so good and feel a lightness in my body which I find amazing. Best of luck everyone no matter which method works best for you to give up the demon fags.

driftkingire · 29-05-2014 12:09am

ive been off cigarettes for nearly 2 years now. for the 1st 2 months i used the nicorette patches which i found to be complete ####. i bought an ecigarette kit about 2 months after starting to give up after a friend of mine recommended them and found them to be brilliant. i had tried giving up cigarettes a good few times before i bought the ecig and i failed miserably every time. i know in my heart if i stayed on the patch i would have went back on the cigs!. electronic cigarettes are in my opinion by far the best and most effective way to give up smokeing. BUT i have never tried the champix approach and to be honest as a person that suffers from depression from time to time im certainly glad i didnt try it.

goz83 · 04-07-2014 7:23am

grindle wrote: »

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.

Not true. As a matter of fact, i used to provide the €50 kits at a cost of €15 (cost price) to partners of clients who did not want to stop smoking, but were willing to vape. Your assumption was incorrect. Vaping IS bad, but so are things I do. If someone wants to vape, i say it is much better than smoking, but there is still a very high risk of returning to smoking, as the behaviour has not changed in any real way. I don't offer hypnosis for cessation of vaping. I offer it for cessation of cigarettes.

I would add that my business does not depend on people believing anything about ecigs. You're an expert at throwing out falsified facts. My business does not need smokers, or vapers at all to keep me busy. I much prefer working on other issues, but if someone genuinely wishes to stop smoking, i will of course help.

jonski · 04-07-2014 11:38am

goz83 wrote: »

If someone wants to vape, i say it is much better than smoking, but there is still a very high risk of returning to smoking, as the behaviour has not changed in any real way.

After 35 years of smoking I decided to try Vaping to cut down on the cost , I am vaping for almost 7 weeks now and I can't imagine a reason to go back smoking again . I have my nicotine fix , I like my nicotine fix and I have absolutely no interest in smoking . To be fair to your point I know it's only 7 weeks and it's early days yet but I just can't see it .

grindle · 04-07-2014 12:02pm

goz83 wrote: »

...my business does not depend on people believing anything about ecigs.

goz83 wrote: »

Vaping IS bad

goz83 wrote: »

You're an expert at throwing out falsified facts.

Mmm.

I'm not sure what 'bad' means to you, but it carries a weight in my interpretation of the English language that would imply it's unjustifiable and without any merit or at the very least it's deleterious effects make it more bad than good. Otherwise you'd call it 'good'.
Vaping has the potential to save four times as many lives annually than a cure for HIV yet it's blithely written off as "bad" - can you see the damage writing it off does?

Given that we've already (9-10 months ago, what's kept you?) discussed your unusual redefining of words that need no redefining [re: use and abuse of drugs] I'll presume you still claim and hold authority on the definition of words filtered through the lens of your biased view.
Cool. Hope that keeps working for you.
I'll continue to use the word 'drug' as it's defined.
I'll continue to use drugs as accords that definition, even sugar.
And I'll continue to use knowledge rather than meditative reinforcement & repetition as a grounds for belief.
You won't because you believe differently, you have little time for facts or definitions or data.
Keep at that if it works for you but it's charlatanism in my eyes. Hopefully whomever you're helping and/or duping reacts positively to your particular brand of snake oil and keeps that mentally reinforced charade up, but if not they'll always have other options, some better, some worse.

E-Cigarettes - are they damaging to your health?

Comments