Regulation of e-cigarettes

Pat Mustard

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well what the CDC didn't say was that they asked about ever use not regular use. Also as they conducted the survay on Middle and high school students a lot of the second year data included people from the first year so some double counting was going on. They didn't exactly spell out the fact that a lot of the ecig use was among current smokers or that ever use of tobacco products was higher that ever use of ecigs in the same cohort.
Nor did they compair it to the use of alcholl in the same group.
Cherry picking describes the 'findings' best.
The difference was ASH UK wanted ecigs as licensed products and the CDC want them as tobacco products. Both sides presented their results as would best serve their end goals.

The CDC quoted this towards the end of the article:

Alternate Text: The figure above shows ever electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among middle and high school students, by year, in the United States during 2011-2012. During 2011-2012, among all students in grades 6-12, ever e-cigarette use increased from 3.3% to 6.8% (p<0.05); current e-cigarette use increased from 1.1% to 2.1% (p<0.05), and current use of both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes increased from 0.8% to 1.6% (p<0.05).

Down to the exact same spelling of the word 'every'.

Also, your writing style seems to have changed distinctly from one post to the next, as if two separate people were typing.

Are you up to some sort of weird prank?

tommy2bad

The Mustard wrote: »

The CDC quoted this towards the end of the article:


Down to the exact same spelling of the word 'every'.

Also, your writing style seems to have changed distinctly from one post to the next, as if two separate people were typing.

Are you up to some sort of weird prank?

No prank. just pointing out that similar data ended up being presented as different results.

The word actually is 'ever' not every, duno what your on about tbh! but ever use as in 'did you ever use' makes more sense than 'did you every use'?
Ah
My writing style? OK, thanks, I didn't know I had one, let alone two.

hullaballoo

drkpower wrote: »

The dose makes the poison, as they say. The risks posed by nicotine are not zero but they are very small. And in the context of this discussion, they are negligible.

Yes, that's true. I just wouldn't be comfortable stating as an absolute that nicotine is harmless. I agree that the doses in question are relatively safe.

drkpower

tommy2bad wrote: »

Broad claim, can you elaborate on the harm they cause and define harm, paper cut level or chainsaw to the groin level?
Yes I'm being facetious but this use of words like harm and addict and safe without any accurate context is bedeviling discussions about e cigerettes.

I think it is accepted that nicotine even at lower doses has a mild effect on blood pressure. There are also some other minor risks (mind you, there are benefits also, a lower risk of ulcerative colitis being one!). And any addiction would have to be considered harmful to a degree. But ultimately my own view is that the harm is quite low, and as I said before, in the context of how cigs are used, the harm is negligible.

My main concern with cigs is the prospect that they may actually act as an introduction to nicotine addiction. I have certainly heard anecdotal stories about young adults who have never smoked before using cigs. If that translates into more smokers I would certainly be worried. But the jury is out on that one, and even if that proves to be a problem I don't think they should be banned just because of that issue.

Pat Mustard

tommy2bad wrote: »

No prank. just pointing out that similar data ended up being presented as different results.

The word actually is 'ever' not every, duno what your on about tbh! but ever use as in 'did you ever use' makes more sense than 'did you every use'?
Ah
My writing style? OK, thanks, I didn't know I had one, let alone two.

Fair enough, and apologies: no offence meant.

grindle

drkpower wrote: »

If that translates into more smokers I would certainly be worried.

I'm not grasping how or why that could or would happen even though I see it said in almost every discussion about ecigs - it's a bit of a red herring.

When people started with cigarettes it was generally due do either peer-pressure or they inadvertently became addicted to tobacco by smoking something else with it.
If ecigs start getting used because of peer pressure I'm not seeing how or why someone's gonna go "Yeah, this is pretty tasty and I like the effect - but does it come in a more revolting form? I feel this is missing some coughing, spluttering and high risk of disease."

They can even give into the pressure but use zero nic if they just want the taste, but this idea of moving seems implausible to me, like a vegetarian eating a steak because eating steak also reduces hunger and mimics the action of eating vegetables.

drkpower

grindle wrote: »

I'm not grasping how or why that could or would happen even though I see it said in almost every discussion about ecigs - it's a bit of a red herring.

When people started with cigarettes it was generally due do either peer-pressure or they inadvertently became addicted to tobacco by smoking something else with it.
If ecigs start getting used because of peer pressure I'm not seeing how or why someone's gonna go "Yeah, this is pretty tasty and I like the effect - but does it come in a more revolting form? I feel this is missing some coughing, spluttering and high risk of disease."

They can even give into the pressure but use zero nic if they just want the taste, but this idea of moving seems implausible to me, like a vegetarian eating a steak because eating steak also reduces hunger and mimics the action of eating vegetables.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. But I suppose if you are addicted to something there is always a risk you might want to try other delivery devices for that addiction. At the end of the day, the revolting form in which cigarettes come didn't stop any of us (even before we had any addiction to it) from giving it a go.

Again, I would simply flag it as something to keep an eye on rather than a strong argument against ecigs.

tommy2bad

The problem would be new users of recreational nicotine more than that these new users would transfer to smoking especially with the restrictions that smoking is allow under. The fact that anti tobacco campaigners want to apply the same restrictions to ecigs is as much a cause to worry about gateways as the nicotine.
Genuinely I think there missing a trick here. The oportunity to bypass smoking completely is huge.

P_1

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem would be new users of recreational nicotine more than that these new users would transfer to smoking especially with the restrictions that smoking is allow under. The fact that anti tobacco campaigners want to apply the same restrictions to ecigs is as much a cause to worry about gateways as the nicotine.
Genuinely I think there missing a trick here. The oportunity to bypass smoking completely is huge.

Well seeing as they have spent so long demonising and 'denormalising' smoking it is understandable that they would have such an attitude towards vaping. They really can't afford to be seen to lose any face so to speak.

tommy2bad

P_1 wrote: »

Well seeing as they have spent so long demonising and 'denormalising' smoking it is understandable that they would have such an attitude towards vaping. They really can't afford to be seen to lose any face so to speak.

Nail and head! All the groups opposing ecigs have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It wasn't even aware of ecigs at the time and is such a global policy that any deviation from the plan is unthinkable.
The who rank country's according to how much of the framework is implemented not by reduction is tobacco consumption, which is why Sweden with a 12 to 14% smoking prevalence is ranked lower than Ireland with a 26 to 29% smoking prevalence.

When ENDS are used as cessations aids, they are intended to deliver nicotine directly to the lungs. None of the approved, regulated cessation aids, such as nicotine patches and chewing-gum, delivers nicotine to the lungs.

Thats from the WHO itself, I'll just leave it their with this;