Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrcoolbp on Tuesday March 25 2014, @08:01PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.