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This discussion has been archived.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: 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: "24 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: "24 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: "24 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.