Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrcoolbp on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:01PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the quitting-is-for-quitters dept.

GungnirSniper writes:

A small study done by The Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at The University of California, San Francisco, "suggests that e-cigarettes don't actually help people to quit smoking." However, of the 949 smokers in the study, only 88 used e-cigarettes, causing the study's researchers to "admit that their findings should be viewed with some caution."

World Science reports "They also found that e-cigarette use was more commmon among women, younger adults and people with less education." Last year, the US Centers for Disease Control reported e-cigarette use more than doubled among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. The lack of solid research, potential youth market, and abundance of caution have had anti-tobacco activists and researchers pushing for a ban on advertising of e-cigarettes.

NPR has a recently story about "vaping" (using e-cigarettes) indoors and in the workplace.

If you smoke, have you been able to cut back your smoking or quit thanks to electronic cigarettes? If you do not smoke, does it bother you that others use e-cigarettes indoors?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Buck Feta on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:11PM

    by Buck Feta (958) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:11PM (#21165) Journal

    My understanding is that while e-cigs are still harmful to one's health, they are substantially less harmful and less costly (in some cases) than traditional cigarettes. I don't think they are intended as a way to quit, but as a less harmful alternative.

    --
    - fractious political commentary goes here -
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by buswolley on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:00PM

      by buswolley (848) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:00PM (#21188)

      Yes, and I think this is a positive development, and I say this as someone that faced down that beast 7 years ago and won, and I do not intend to get started again, in any way, with nicotine.

      E-cigarettes should still be banned from public indoor areas. Outdoors however, it should not be restricted. There is less harm coming out of e-cigarettes than is escaping from all those vehicle tailpipes,and other pollutants.

      In general I'm libertarian when it comes to activities that can only harm one's self, and believe the state should step in when it harms others.

      --
      subicular junctures
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:01AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:01AM (#21280) Homepage

        Has the 'secondhand smoke' from these gadgets been evaluated?

        Regardless, it's got to be better for everyone than sucking in carbonized tobacco leaves.

        Agreed on the philosophy. Do whatever you want to yourself, so long as you don't also do it to me. In fact, I think that's the core of being a libertarian.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by buswolley on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:05AM

          by buswolley (848) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:05AM (#21298)

          Yes. There is some research that shows that 2nd hand smoke has detectable levels of nicotine, but not the usual carcinogens associated with cancer tubes. Sorry I don't have link right now. There needs to be an assessment of the potential for addiction via 2nd hand smoke administration.

          As to the other I agree.
          For example, I have no problem that the government says I must make my child wear a seat belt, but I don't want to be forced to wear a seat belt myself (even though I do, because duh, I've taken a physics class).
          Or
          There shouldn't be laws that makes drugs illegal, but as soon as someone steals something to support their habit, or puts a child in danger, then that person should be prosecuted.
          Or
          Gay marriage. A libertarian view should probably be, why the hell did the government make a special kind of contract called marriage? A legal contract should be a legal contract. X and X, Y and Y, or X and Y form a contract to share resources for a certain goal. Sounds like a business contract. In business contracts, we do not say men can't have a contract to form a business partnership. So the answer is simply, the government should get out of marriage all together except for notarizing, enforcing, and arbitrating contracts.

          --
          subicular junctures
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:19AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:19AM (#21303) Homepage

            I'd disagree on one point:

            "I have no problem that the government says I must make my child wear a seat belt"

            I used to think the same, but the only way to enforce such stuff is through invasive monitoring, and we already have too much power wielded by CPS and the like. I've reached the conclusion that it's better that a few children (and animals) suffer, than that all of us be subject to these little tin gods.

            • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:26AM

              by buswolley (848) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:26AM (#21306)

              Maybe in a few cases. However, we already enforce seat belt laws. Retracting the law to only apply to minors shouldn't have change how the it is enforced.

              --
              subicular junctures
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:40AM

              by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:40AM (#21349) Journal

              I am amazed today that they want 8 year olds in car seats. I remember growing up where the neighborhood kids would go to the matinee on Tuesdays. All of us in a hatchback with the hatch left open and strict instructions to never lean out of the car. Nobody thought anything of it. Of course, at that time seatbelts were the thing you shoved deep into the seat so they wouldn't poke you in the back.

              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:08PM

                by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:08PM (#21465) Homepage

                Hell, I first crossed a busy four-lane street (on a mission to buy cake flour) just before my 5th birthday. But that was in 1960. We've become such a risk-averse society that now ANY risk sounds disastrous, especially exceedingly rare risks (Bruce Schneier is right about that).... and along with the galloping regulatory expansion is causing crap like this (read the car-and-driver bit):

                http://www.troynovant.com/Farrell/Illuminants/Airb ags-and-Gun-Control.html [troynovant.com]

                See also
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How -children-lost-right-roam-generations.html [dailymail.co.uk]
                and here's a copy of the map, which didn't display in any of the article archives I found today:
                http://www.pinterest.com/pin/224687468879227327/ [pinterest.com]

                See http://www.freerangekids.com/ [freerangekids.com] for someone who is fighting this influence, which is raising a nation of incompetents and mental cripples unable to cope with even ordinary life, let alone risks (when and if they happen).

                The roots of this insanity are in the very economic prosperity that lets us enjoy a relatively risk-free society:

                Back before the industrial revolution, most new parents (still too young to be emotionally competent to raise kids) lived in an extended family of grandparents and maiden aunts and unmarried uncles, who were experienced enough to understand that every skinned knee isn't a pediatric emergency, and that you can't sanely prevent kids from getting those skinned knees. And mature opinion prevailed, preventing young parents from being full-time helicopterists. But the industrial revolution's increased money flow let young newlyweds move away from that influence, into a "home of our own" and today's largely-dysfunctional 'nuclear family' gradually became the norm. So effectively, we have children raising children, with a child's lack of perspective about ordinary childhood risks.

                This is also the origin of a great deal of the modern political-liberal's mindset that every ill can be fixed and every risk prevented, if only you sufficiently legislate, regulate, and fund against it.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:39PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:39PM (#22194) Journal

                  Some of all of this is the relative safety and prosperity, but some of it is also a matter of the two income family becoming the norm. When I roamed all around the neighborhood and the next growing up (in a nuclear family), it was a good bet that if there was a problem there would be a responsible adult at nearly every house. It helped that the nightly news wasn't at that time better titled 'the moral panic hour'. I don't advocate a return to women staying home, rather that pay grow to match the massive productivity gains in the last few decades and a move to two part time incomes as the norm.

                  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday March 28 2014, @01:07AM

                    by Reziac (2489) on Friday March 28 2014, @01:07AM (#22325) Homepage

                    The two-income family is just the latest incarnation. It takes two to three generations for a way of thinking to die out. We are now about a generation past that point. Many people don't even have a living grandparent who remembers the freedom kids used to have, and how no one (save a very few nutjobs) worried about 'em round the clock.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:06PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:06PM (#21601)

                Of course nobody thought anything of it, the people who died of it weren't around to have an opinion, and any survivors with first-hand experience are themselves a tiny minority.

                Part of the problem here is that humans suck at evaluating rare risks, the math is not intuitive, so we under-rate the ones we don't experience first hand and over-rate the ones we do.

                In this case it would be useful to track down the statistics behind the car-seat requirement instead of relying on personal anecdotes.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:08PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:08PM (#22233) Journal

                  If the survivors (That is, siblings and parents) are such a tiny minority, that must mean the risk of what was once a nearly ubiquitous practice must have been minuscule.

                  There have been a few reviews of the deeply flawed research on car seats and their effect on safety such as this one (PDF) [uchicago.edu]. Among it's findings, most of the studies compare children in car seats to completely unrestrained children. The case of a child using a seatbelt but no child seat is ignored. That considerably reduces the NHTSA of 6000 lives saved between 1975 and 2003.

                  That's often the problem, too many studies more or less designed so that they can't help but confirm the author's bias flood the field.

                  It reminds me of air bags and their many unintended consequences such as killing a child in what would otherwise be an injury free fender bender. That's how we reach the grim truth that airbags kill more children than school shootings.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:08AM (#21316)

            I like the cut of your jib.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:51AM

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:51AM (#21337)

            I disagree on the seat belt bit, but only because I have certain libertarian leanings.

            While I agree with the principles of freedom wholeheartedly, driving a vehicle is not one of them. Flying a plane is not one of them. Basically, operating any kind of machinery or technology in which there is a real risk of bodily harm or death towards another citizen unrelated to your activities should be inherently unlawful.

            You've taken physics and I think you have a grasp of just how stupid the 20-35 age demographic is in this country now. Most people have no clue about the real dangers of operating multi-ton machinery at high speed (45+).

            If there is anything I want heavily licensed and regulated it's other citizens operating motor vehicles and I would rather mandate proper safety than have some idiot fly through the front of his windshield and then expect me to pay for his family's welfare checks because his wife is equally stupid and their crotch fruit are hungry.

            As far as the future goes, as libertarian as I might be, we just might need to legislate rounded corners and helmets for the generations in front of us :)

            Yes, I do believe Idiocracy was a documentary.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by buswolley on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:58AM

              by buswolley (848) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:58AM (#21391)

              Freedom is not free. The secondary cost of an individual's loss (through death to his children) is a burden a democracy should bear.

              --
              subicular junctures
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:50PM (#24316)

        Fucking banning them indoors.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:12PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:12PM (#21166)

    I had a co-worker that switched to electronic cigarettes in order to help her "quit". What they actually accomplished were to allow her to puff away all day long, instead of having to take a break and step outside to smoke. Even if she had chosen a lower nicotine level I can't help but believe that her total intake of nicotine went up rather than down.
    I was also kind of concerned about their possible effect on others. Who out there was actually testing the "harmless water vapor" they emit?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by moylan on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:36PM

      by moylan (3063) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:36PM (#21176)

      and here in ireland they've started to ban them on public transport.

      http://www.herald.ie/news/ecigarettes-now-banned-o n-all-buses-30099335.html [herald.ie]

      they don't smell as foul as conventional smoking to my nose. but i still don't find them pleasant to be around.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:39AM (#21256)

        Public transit and waiting outdoors in lines are the cases that occurred to me where you can't escape smokers and their foul odors.
        Smokers just reek. If vapers stink too, I say treat this the same as cigarettes.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:46AM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:46AM (#21353) Journal

          Many vapers choose no tobacco flavors such as vanilla for their e-liquid. It smells like vanilla.

          I always ask before vaping in someone else's home or car. Nobody has yet found the vapor at all offensive and several quite like it.

          For those who choose tobacco flavors, it smells like un-burnt pipe tobacco.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dwmoody on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:33PM

      by dwmoody (1661) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:33PM (#21218) Homepage

      A guy in my office just started "vaping." He is rather proud of the fact that he can do it at his desk. I have to agree with you, he is getting a lot more nicotine than he would if he had to stop and go outside to smoke. I can definitely smell it and I don't find it pleasant, and it could be my imagination but my mouse and keyboard seem like they have gotten a bit sticky since he started. If he starts going at it heavily, it does seem to tickle my asthma a bit.

      On the other hand, my brother is using an e-cigarette to stop smoking. He's aggressively cutting the nicotine content of the "juice" stuff he uses, and he's also courteous enough not to start using it in front of others without their permission. I'll have to check in on him sometime and see how it's working.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:42AM

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:42AM (#21351) Journal

      Her nicotine intake might have gone up (or not), but her tar and carbon monoxide intake went to zero.

      Nicotine, divorced from the other contents of tobacco seems to be far less harmful, perhaps on-par with caffeine.

      • (Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:51AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:51AM (#21859)

        That makes some sense. She was always a high strung, very loud and very vocal person. My last few months there she got worse and worse, although the job situation deteriorated as well. She also drank coffee all day. It was difficult at times sharing the same office with her:)

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by BananaPhone on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:14PM

    by BananaPhone (2488) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:14PM (#21167)

    I can smell a regular cigarette burning from 30 feet away, OUTSIDE.

    I had to be within 5-10 feet indoors to smell it.

    E-cigs were not a horrible smell either. (could be the brand though)

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by weeds on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:17PM

    by weeds (611) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:17PM (#21168) Journal

    Electronic cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine without all of the other byproducts of burning the tobacco leaf.
    How delightful. A system to satisfy and maintain addicts (with minimal side effects.)
    Recent studies https://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/study-docum ents-secondhand-exposure-vapors-electronic-cigaret tes [roswellpark.org] show that electronic cigarettes do put "second hand" nicotine into the air.
    I do not want them in my workplace.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:57PM (#21187)

      How delightful. A system to satisfy and maintain addicts (with minimal side effects.)

      Quite. I suppose you're also against the availability of alcohol and caffiene, both of which have detrimental side effects?

      I do not want them in my workplace.

      Speaking as someone who's imbibing clouds of delicious mint via a Vivi Nova tank mounted to a Vamo right now...

      I agree entirely, and wish I could legally get away with punching the face of any idiot who repeats the bullshit of, "Hurr, it's just water vapor."

      No, it isn't, and yes, it should be banned at workplaces, et cetera.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:56AM (#21263)

        caffiene

        I've never heard about any effects of second-hand caffeine.
        (Note that the i before e rule doesn't work here; you're due for installing a spell checker.)
        Illuminate me about the dangers of being around coffee drinkers or I'm calling red herring.

        alcohol

        As long as they lock up the public drunks--especially the mean drunks who get violent--I'm fine with that easily-abused substance.

        If you're a drunk and you neglect your kids, I expect the system to take you in hand as well.

        .
        Now, if smokers could breath in every bit of their burning shit and never breath any of it back out, I'd be fine with that as well.
        That isn't what happens, however.
        The cigar/cigarette/pipe burns in the open air, smokers exhale their foul crap, and their clothes and persons stink of their habit for hours after they feed their addictions.

        I haven't encountered anyone vaping yet, but others in this thread have said that it stinks, so I'm going to cast my vote on the NO side.

        I note that the Los Angeles City Council has said NO.
        There are claims by nicotine addict Brad Friedman [google.com] that this is wrong-headed and that e-cigs help folks kick their addiction.
        Posts in this thread noting an INCREASED consumption have me on the skeptical side of his claims.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:58AM

          by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:58AM (#21276) Journal

          You're talking about second-hand effects but he said side effects. Therefore, although your points are interesting, they also comprise a non sequitur.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:22AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:22AM (#21284)

            Oops. There I go thinking about the effects that people's proclivities have on *others* when I should have been worried about those individuals' self-destructive tendencies.

            Even then, I'd like to see a link to harm done by caffeine or at least a mention of what that harm might be.
            ...and how many liters of Jolt it takes to get there.

            --gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:53AM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:53AM (#21355) Journal
          I've never heard about any effects of second-hand caffeine.

          That's becaue they're masked by the effects of first hand caffeine for the most part. If you are concerned about the second hand nicotine, you must be in an absolute panic over the much more harmful VOCs found in most offices.

          I would sooner have perfumes and colognes banned many of those are sickening (but less so than 'air fresheners').

        • (Score: 1) by Fry on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:20AM

          by Fry (642) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:20AM (#21381)

          caffiene

          (Note that the i before e rule doesn't work here; you're due for installing a spell checker.)

          Now, if smokers could breath in every bit of their burning shit and never breath any of it back out, I'd be fine with that as well.

          FYI, the word you're looking for (twice) is breathe, so I guess you're due for installing a grammar checker? :)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:53PM (#21456)

            breathe
            I knew that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law [wikipedia.org]

            twice
            Yeah. {sheepish look}

            -- gewg_

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:39AM (#21290)

      The research showed that being exposed to second hand vapor for 2 hours (not just some, but a lot) over two hours did cause the person to pick up some nicotine, though less than that same person would have gotten from eating a potato.

      Yes, a potato has nicotine in minute levels.

      Yes, this is a cultural fear thing rather than a science/safety thing in terms of second hand stuff right now.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:50AM

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:50AM (#21354) Journal

      But note that the harmful components of second hand smoke are the tars and combustion products that are entirely missing from vapor.

  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:24PM

    by Tork (3914) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:24PM (#21169)
    "If you do not smoke, does it bother you that others use e-cigarettes indoors?"

    Not really... but it is causing me a different form of annoyance: faulty rationalization. On our local radio station here a couple of personalities love to jump on the bandwagon of "we don't need a nanny state". Now I don't disagree with them on that philosophy, BUT they've repeatedly made an odd statement about it. They call e-cigs 'the safe cigarette' then go on to say that they shouldn't be banned from public places because: "... there hasn't been enough research done on the effects of second-hand-vaping." That's right, they bought the marketing of these products as-is and are totally okay with everybody being involuntarily exposed it UNTIL the research comes back on it.

    No, I don't get that reasoning. If you've got chemicals going into your lungs, some of those chemicals are gonna come flying out of your lungs. If you want to say "we don't need to ban these yet", hey, that's fine! But please don't say it's safe and then, in the next sentence, bring up the point that enough research hasn't been done yet. It undermines the point.

    --
    Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:22PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:22PM (#21195)

      "being involuntarily exposed it UNTIL the research comes back on it. "

      Should be fairly trivial to look at the OSHA regs for workplace safety for each component in the "juice". Or for that matter the MSDS for shipping the stuff in bulk.

      Its no different that someone at work deciding to use an alternative brake cleaner or whatever.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Absinth on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:24PM

    by Absinth (2711) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:24PM (#21170)

    Well considering the advantages to vaping, it's at least better to have someone vaping than smoking regular cancer sticks. They should however be compared to other nicotine delivery alternatives like gum, patches, etc when trying to discuss if they are better or worse than X. When trying to quit you apparently need 3 things : motivation, support and a chemical/psychological surrogate (patches, candy, gum, chew toy, etc). Considering the sole "gadget" part, they are better than having a cigarette in the way that they smell better, are less messy, can be used to dose partially and I could keep going. I personnaly think that this debate only adds more fuel to the tax paying tobacco lobby who can only benefit from e-cig regulation.

    Also, more FUD here [motherjones.com]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by shrub34 on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:27PM

    by shrub34 (3068) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:27PM (#21173) Homepage

    So I quit smoking 9 months ago and a friend also quit the same week. A major difference between how we quit was I used nicotine lozenges for 3 months, he used e-cigs and reduced the amount of nicotine. Today I'm still nicotine free while he started smoking regular cigarettes again.

    I'm guessing that part of the issues of trying to quit using e-cigs is that you never have to find a way to deal with the oral fixation that cigarettes provide.

    I did notice a couple of things about e-cigs though:
    1. Even when I was smoking, if someone had an e-cig inside, like a theater, then I would smell it.
    2. There is a smell, it's not as disgusting as cigarettes smell, but there is still a smell. Yes, I reeked while I smoked cigarettes and I knew it.
    3. There are "flavors" for e-cigs. This is just another way to hook people to nicotine.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:45AM (#21291)

      You totally lost it with your last comment, as I mean, most of the lozenges are flavored so your point just goes boom. Just to be clear, the flavors are not about hooking people on nicotine, that is just something people say and others pick up to instill fear (they are after your kids!). Nicotine straight can be bitter and peppery, not very tasty. The flavors are because it helps with variety and there's no reason not to have them. There is no "tobacco" flavor for ecigs that's real, they just try to create something close, and could make you wish you had the real thing. There is a whole ritual to lighting up a cig, watching it burn down, etc. You do still miss the whole lighting up for awhile, but variety can help keep you away from it.

      • (Score: 1) by shrub34 on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:59PM

        by shrub34 (3068) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:59PM (#21496) Homepage

        You're right on the lozenge flavor. Though I found the experience of having it on my tongue just horrible. I'm guessing but would think those trying to quit chew would not have the same issue I did with the lozenges.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:30PM

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:30PM (#21174) Journal

    Once upon a time I was restored from backup. Apparently a tiny amount of smoke was enough to knock my host offline FOREVER. I lost so many facts, for example I can't grep any good decision from the governments of past 130 years. Never ever ever smoke, ever.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by DECbot on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:02PM

      by DECbot (832) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:02PM (#21189) Journal

      I believe you are misinformed. All your components are filled with smoke. It is the releasing of smoke that is bad. Not only will it cause you to go offline, but it effects the systems around you and could possible send them offline.

      I was told that I had lost a brother due to smoking. My creator was not able to restore his backup.

      --
      cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
  • (Score: 1) by cloudtracer on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:44PM

    by cloudtracer (726) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:44PM (#21179)

    My personal experience with e-cigs has been positive. I've yoyo-ed with smoking, then smoking just social to back to smoking many times. I've found while using the e-cigs I'm less likely to smoke an actual cigarette because they are much harder on my throat.

    Even with my e-cig I'm careful not to smoke in public areas, while I realize there isn't a ban like there is on actual cigarettes, it still feels taboo.

  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:49PM (#21182)

    You guys realize this summary is ripped line-for-line from Pipedot, right?

    http://pipedot.org/story/2014-03-25/electronic-cig arettes-may-not-help-smokers-quit [pipedot.org]

    I mean, what the heck? Couldn't whomever put this summary up, you know, changed a word or two on the way to hitting submit? Is the only way the community can get new postings is to take them from other sites wholesale? What sort of site do we want to become, here? I am pretty grossed out by this.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by d on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:06PM

      by d (523) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:06PM (#21191)

      Perhaps the same person submitted it on both websites?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:21PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:21PM (#21193) Homepage

        As long as they didn't take it from Slashdot, who gives a fuck?

        That being said, Pipedot looks better than Soylent News in every way imaginable except that it's asking to be sued by Dice 'cuz 'dat name.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by verathejones on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:55PM

    by verathejones (3974) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:55PM (#21186)

    As a person who vapourizes I can share my experience.

    As a smoker, non smokers are often repelled.

    Smoking is an addiction, psychological and physical. I am not capable of breaking that cycle long enough for it to be worthwhile, I admit that.

    Vaping instead is: More affordable; Healthier; A more pleasant experience for me, and the people around me;

    I have some strong juices which are 12mg/ml for occasional use, I regularly vape 6mg/ml on a regular basis, and my cartridges have a measure on the side so I regulate how much nicotine I smoke. When I was a smoker, I also regulated how much I smoked (for budgeting pruposes).

    Not everyone is careful of this, not everyone wants to be disciplined about their usage. That's their choice.

    I would love to quit nicotine, but for now, this minimizes my major concerns about smoking.

    Here is a New Zealand Public Health Study with some more beautiful numbers to admire:
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/Portland2008ECIG.pdf [healthnz.co.nz]

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by lubricus on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:21PM

    by lubricus (232) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:21PM (#21194)

    I've tried to quit many times before, but the e-cig is the only thing that has allowed me to not smoke a real cigarette for 6 months.

    I've worked myself down to a low nicotine concentration, and I still miss smoking quite a bit and have been tempted about a dozen times, but the mechanical aspects of using the e-cigarette (puffing, blowing "smoke") are just enough to get me past the craving.

    I realize that the safety has not been sufficiently studied, but I can't see how it could be even *as* hazardous as smoking.

    In the end, I would recommend it to stop smoking cigarettes, but I agree that I don't think I could drop the e-cigarette, so it's more a replacement than a complete cessation tool. For me, that's enough.

    --
    ... sorry about the typos
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by archshade on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:56PM

      by archshade (3664) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:56PM (#21227)

      Just going to add my anecdotal experience to yours. I have been vaping for just shy of 2 months, I have broken down once but I'm hoping this is a singular blip.

      I had my first cigarette when I was 12, and occasionally/socially smoked until I got a job in a pub (UK before smoking ban). As I started working in the place I normally associated with smoking all the time I started really smoking. I was smoking around 50g of tobacco a week at the high point. That was 7 years ago. About 3 years ago I made my only serious attempt to quit and lasted about 3 month (first month on NRT including gum and pills). I then went though an extremely traumatic event which got me back smoking again. I really hated going though the quitting stage and honestly did not feel better for it (although maybe 3 months just isn't enough).

      I started vaping almost 2 months ago and I am finding the process much easier than quitting. There is a difference, I am going into the situation with a different mindset. This time I am transferring to a cheaper (primary concern) and healthier (not the objective but I do seem to be feeling a bit better, and have shaken my persistent cough).

      Since I started I have smoked ~15g of tobacco and a pack of 20 cigarettes (This was due to me messing up and running out of tabs the day before a tab delivery came). Even though I still prefer fags the pack lasted me almost a week(With vaping as well).

      One major difference between this transference and my previous attempts to quit. This time I am not filled with dread at the prospect of never having another rollie. Admittedly I now feel I need to vape or smoke but I have never tried an NRT that could be a real substitute before.

      At my current rate (which I hope will slow) I will break even at the beginning of next month as there was a start up cost involved (this includes the cost of my lapse). If I had been smoking straights the time would be about half (I have little data on how many straights I smoked over an extended period, so I can't make as good an estimate of cost). As the primary driver was to reduce cost vaping looks to be successful.

      As for the public aspect of vaping, I try to only vape in places I would smoke, the only exception is my room. I hated the smell of stale smoke in the morning and spending to long in a smokey room stopped me sleeping well. Vaping does not seem to have these issues. I guess any thing that is exhaled must settle/disperse to negligable concentration more quickly.

  • (Score: 1) by crAckZ on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:36PM

    by crAckZ (3501) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:36PM (#21197) Journal

    I vape all the time. I was a pack and a half smoker and I am sure I smelled to high Hell.
    I switch and it has been an e-cig only for the past 2 years. I don't smell and can breath better.
    I have not yet lowest my nic level but I am proud of myself so far. Baby steps.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fliptop on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:58PM

    by fliptop (1666) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @09:58PM (#21203) Journal

    If you smoke, have you been able to cut back your smoking or quit thanks to electronic cigarettes?

    Never tried 'em, last time I quit it lasted 2 years, currently it's over a month since I had a smoke. The only time I miss it is after a big meal.

    Some time ago a friend and I stepped outside to smoke, he lit his up, looked at it and asked me, "Don't you hate cigarettes?"

    I replied, "No. That's the problem."

    --
    It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zim on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:23PM

    by zim (1251) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:23PM (#21213)
    Quit nicotine? They're not very good for that. But they are better than every other alternative we have for getting off nicotine. And one of the cheapest.

    Quit SMOKING? They are the best tool ever for this.

    ecig now for 1 month. Still hooked hard on nicotine. But have no desire to go back to actual smoking. Good nuff solution. I can breathe. I'm saving a ton of money. And i got rid of all the other addictive crap in tobacco.

    Perfect? Nah. Good nuff? Hell yes. Wish i'd done it years ago.

    I'm starting to suspect big tobacco is gearing up the fight vs. the ecig. The number of pure bullshit articles i've seen about ecigs lately is way up. And no matter how they spin it. One fact is 100% true. ecigs are less harmful than tobacco products. And that's why big tobacco is right to fear the ecigs. That fact alone is going to be enough to turn the tide aginst them.
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:51AM

      by isostatic (365) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:51AM (#21261) Journal

      Sure, they're great for you

      The question is, should those of us that don't have a nicotine addiction suffer? At the moment smoking in workplaces, planes, bars, etc tends to be banned, but e-cigs aren't.

      • (Score: 2) by zim on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:02AM

        by zim (1251) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:02AM (#21265)
        I'll be behind a ban on nicotine dispensing devices like this.

        Right after we put out a ban on perfume, aftershave, bodysprays, and all the other millions of smelly chemicals (most of which we know exactly how toxic they are) people cover themselves in.

        Because so far... Nicotine hasn't caused me any physical harm. But i've encountered more than a few of the other things that will give an instant headache, and my eyes, nose, sinuses swell right up and cause physical pain.

        Why should i have to suffer because of what other people are doing.

        Of all the things in the air... Nicotine itself is pretty damm harmless. On par with caffiene.
      • (Score: 1) by SlySmiles on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:30AM

        by SlySmiles (3841) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:30AM (#21329)
        Seriously get off your high horse. You really think the water vapour is so bad? Why do I have to listen to your noise pollution or be polluted by your olfaction? And don't take me on a ride about living with the pollution you make with your decadent western lifestyle.
        The only reason why these are being banned anywhere is not health based it's because they might remind people of smoking. On a personal note I switched to ecigs last August and am impressed how well they work. I really enjoy mine, so it might not be an aid to quitting but a replacement.

        In fact let me emphasize this point: They work incredibly well because this still give you pleasure, unlike every other replacement solution. I've quit before by just stopping, but the real problem lies in actually liking to smoke. ECigs remove that obstacle.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Kalkin on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:09AM

          by Kalkin (2747) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:09AM (#21342)

          Well said. Even though it isn't purely water vapor, as said above, second hand vapor exposure might give you as much nicotine as a potato but probably not as much as an eggplant.

          The main ingredient in the vaping juice is the same OSHA approved ingredient in theater smoke and the vapor is also approved for sanitizing air handling equipment in institutional settings.
          So actually, the main constituents of the vapor have been extensively studied and approved for use in public spaces and the workplace.

          Nicotine is not the part of tobacco that kills you, it is the part that keeps you coming back. Nicotine addiction without the combustion products is comparable to caffeine addiction medically.

          Who cares if e-cigs help you quit nicotine? Quitting the highly dangerous habit of huffing combustion products is massive harm reduction.
          Is vaping good for you? Of course not. Is it killing you? Probably not.

          I have been vaping for over 3 years now. After the first 120 days, I tried to smoke a cigar and almost threw up after burning about half an inch. I had to throw it away and hurriedly brush my teeth and wash my hands to lose the nausea. I was disappointed at first but rapidly became very pleased that I am now incapable of smoking burning tobacco.
          I wish I could permanently give up nicotine but I appear to be closer to Mark Twain; "Quitting smoking is easy, I have done it a thousand times".
          In lieu of quitting nicotine, I will happily settle for massive harm reduction.

          As for people smelling it in public places, my experience says that this smell is psychosomatic. I vape on airplanes and the folks around me never even know. Just hold the vapor in for 5 seconds and hardly any visible vapor is exhaled. Direct that downward and nobody ever knows.
          If you can smell it without knowing it is there you are probably dealing with a broken ecig.
          Anyway, end rant.

          --
          Just say know
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:04AM

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:04AM (#21357) Journal

        Have you ever been around one when you didn't know it until later? They don't smell at all like cigarettes.

        If the person inhales and holds it, nothing much is exhaled at all.

        If e-cigs are to be banned, I would say perfumes and colognes should go with them.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:30PM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:30PM (#21217)

    E-Cigs represent the biggest threat to the tobacco industry to ever come along, even more so than the attempts to regulate them in western countries. Be suspicious of any legal moves to ban e-cigs and studies to back-stop the justification for bans as there is a good chance the tobacco lobby is behind them. E-cigs aren't harmless, but billions of dollars are at stake here so there is going to be a lot of half-truths and misleading going on.

  • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:38PM (#21222)

    tried to quit for years, could never do it, and just ended up paying more and more. i've now been smoke-free for 4 months, as are several in my family (two brothers). some are using it to cut back, some are using it to quit, some are using it as a less harmful alternative.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:05AM (#21267)

    So for me, the patch was what helped me to quit. Two years and happy as a clam. Then I met my future wife and she smoked. So I started again.

    After we got married, We agreed to quit for health reasons, so I went back to the patch. No problems. She tried the patch and it just didn't work for her. So we yo-yoed back and forth with quitting for half a year. I suggested she try an e-cig (vape for life super king if I remember correctly), and that did the trick. She (and her sister) both quit cigarettes almost over night. We had a raging liquid problem for a while as they tried out all the flavors. Eventually though, as they both started using them less and less. So now we have a drawer full of equipment we'll probably never use again, and we couldn't be happier.

    Of course they're now onto hookahs, and I've fallen into that as well. Now I need to figure a way to get us all to quit that!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:39AM (#21272)

    Smoking cigarettes=public - everyone sees you doing it
    Vaping/e-cigs=public - everyone sees you doing it
    Swedish snus=private - unless you tell others you are using, no one knows.

    Snus is for everywhere. Unlike e-cigs, it won't be banned because it 'looks like smoking.'

    • (Score: 1) by crAckZ on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:19AM

      by crAckZ (3501) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:19AM (#21283) Journal

      They shouldnt bann something because it "looks like" smoking. Drinking beer in public is illegal
      But they don't ban drinking an ale8 because it looks like you're drinking a beer.
      I have seen Excedrine migrane pills look like certain illegal club drugs and they are legal.
      at what point does the government cross the line with saying you can't do that because it looks wrong. Besides I am sure big tobacco companies are putting money into making them illegal because they are loosing money to something that is (and should stay) unregulated.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:22AM

        by Tork (3914) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:22AM (#21305)
        Why should e-cigs be unregulated?
        --
        Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:09AM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:09AM (#21362) Journal

          Why should they be regulated?

          If they are regulated, rest assured the tobacco companies will have a big part in writing the regulations in an attempt to drive people back to smoking.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:30AM

            by Tork (3914) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:30AM (#21407)
            They should be regulated for posing a health hazard to those who aren't volunteering to inhale it.
            --
            Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:41AM

              by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:41AM (#21411) Journal

              Which hazard is that?

              If you are arguing that none of the many thousand untested novel substances used in everything from perfumes and air fresheners to cleaning products and furniture finishes should be permitted without testing, that might make sense. Otherwise, it really doesn't.

              We know the ecig vapor when exhaled contains a trace of nicotine (in an amount less than you'll find in a baked potato), some glycerin (GRAS, already used in food) propylene glycol (Also GRAS and used in food), and water (fairly obvious).

              There is much better evidence that the BPA used in the office water cooler is harmful.

              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:45PM

                by Tork (3914) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:45PM (#21769)

                We know the ecig vapor when exhaled contains a trace of nicotine (in an amount less than you'll find in a baked potato)...

                This is still being investigated.

                --
                Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:14PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:14PM (#21801) Journal

                  Not really. It's mostly people who are apparently ticked off that someone might not have to suffer to avoid the bad effects of smoking doing the 'tests' over and over until they get the result they want.

                  As for why there are people who object so strenuously to e-cigs (even when used in one's own home), I don't know.

                  Here's a good comparison of various sources of nicotine (in non-smokers) See table 1. Quick summary, a good Italian meal can have days worth of second hand nicotine in it.

                  The part of cigarette smoke that causes the second-hand problems is the tars and particulates, both absent from e-cigs. It appears that those are the parts of cigarette smoking that cause the problems for the smoker as well. There is a possibility that the nitrosamines and other tobacco alkaloids may be a problem as well, but those are also absent from e-liquid (at least to the degree that they are absent from the FDA approved nicotine inhalers).

                  As for the propylene glycol, it is an approved food additive and in the UK they're considering introducing it as a mist in hospitals to cut down on hospital acquired infections.

                  Given that, there's really not much reason for concern. Especially compared to the entirely untested novel chemicals found in a typical office environment.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:46AM (#21334)

      Snus is very visible to other people unless you're using 1) very small pads or 2) have a huge upper lip, not to mention having to get rid of the nicotine-filled saliva that adds up in your mouth and then eventually getting rid of the pad.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:41PM

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:41PM (#21823) Journal

        Most people don't spit with snus. That's for chewing tobacco.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:46PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:46PM (#21618)

    I was just pointing out how the study in the article in question was full of crap in a different story, but I guess I'll do it again here...

    From http://www.nature.com/news/electronic-cigarettes-d on-t-aid-quitting-study-says-1.14918 [nature.com] comment section:

    The Rest of the Story I'm sad to say that this is complete garbage. It is truly an example of bogus, or junk science. Why? Because the study does not examine the rate of successful smoking cessation among electronic cigarette users who want to quit smoking or cut down substantially on the amount that they smoke and who are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to accomplish this. Instead, the study examines the percentage of quitting among allsmokers who have ever tried electronic cigarettes - for any reason - in the past month. A large proportion of the 88 smokers who had tried an e-cigarette may have simply been trying these products to see what they are like. It is plausible, in fact probable, that many of these 88 smokers were not actually interested in quitting or trying to quit with electronic cigarettes. These products have become very popular and have gained widespread media attention and it is entirely possible that many of these smokers simply wanted to see what the big fuss is all about. It is easy to see how this fatal flaw in the research destroys the validity of the authors' conclusion. But that isn't the end of the story. If this were simply a bogus conclusion, then we could simply evaluate the article as being junk science, dismiss it as bogus, and leave it there. But unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Why? Because it is quite apparent from the study itself that the authors knew that the overwhelming majority of the 88 electronic cigarettes "users" in their study had little or no interest in quitting and were not using these products as part of a quit attempt. How do we know this? Because the authors tell us! In the Table, the authors report that of the 88 e-cigarette "users," only 8.0% reported that they were trying to quit at that time (that is, within the next 30 days). And only 39.8% of the e-cigarette users had any intention of quitting in the next six months. This means that we actually know for a fact that the majority of e-cigarette users in this study were not using these products as part of a quit attempt. What this indicates is that this is not simply junk science. Rather, it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the investigators to misuse data. They are using these data to draw a conclusion about whether electronic cigarettes are effective in helping smokers quit, yet they are knowingly drawing upon data from smokers who are using e-cigarettes for other reasons, who may have simply tried an electronic cigarette once, and who most definitely were not using these products as part of a current quit attempt. In other words, 92% of the e-cigarette users in the study were not trying to quit. We know for a fact that 92% of the e-cigarette users were not making a quit attempt. And yet the study authors interpret the data as if these smokers were trying to quit using e-cigarettes, but failed! This is dishonesty in research. Unfortunately, it does not appear that these investigators are truly interested in whether e-cigarettes help many smokers quit or not. Instead, I believe that these researchers have a pre-determined conclusion that e-cigarettes are ineffective and that they are trying to manufacture results that support their pre-determined conclusion. It would be a tragedy if policy makers use the conclusions of this "study" to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation purposes. By Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:03AM

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:03AM (#21889) Journal

      The thing that's even more amazing is that I have never seen a single e-cig vendor claim that e-cigs were intended to help in quitting nicotine. So they cheated to 'debunk' a non-myth that nobody actually held much of an opinion on in the first place. Even the inventor never said it would help you quit nicotine. It has always been explicitly about being able to continue using nicotine without the harm of smoking. It's the makers of the patches, gum, and inhaler that are making the wild claims.

      I've seen a surprising array of organizations using similar tactics for inexplicable reasons, including the American Lung Association. The latter in spite of the very large number of people (some with medical tests to back it up) reporting breathing easier after switching.

      Then to top it off, all the anti crowd conflating smoking with non-smoking nicotine use. It's actually hard to find studies that examine the risks of just nicotine. Many many others claim to be about nicotine but are actually about smoking.

      Just to make it clear to everyone. I quit smoking years ago. I still use nicotine and have no intention of stopping at this time.

      I do notice that while craving still happens if I don't vape for a while, it's urgency is much less than when I smoked. I have no idea if that would continue if I decided to quit or not.