13 replies to this topic

[inijames]

This one completely misses the point...

http://www.guardian....ng-do-they-work

[easystreet]

gotta stop clicking these, a 23 year old shouldn't have blood pressure this high....

[Dugie]

Read this before and i totally agree.

What gets me all angry over the ecig / government battle is that they say the reason for banning is due to health risks and so on. BOOOOOOOOLOCKS

If the goverment just came out and said we are banning the ecig because we do not have our fingers in the pie (£££££'s) i would respect them more.

Politics really really annoys me.

Dug

[gotmoremilk]

what ever happened to the guardian tut tut tut shame to see the look alike being pushed as well if id have stuck with those id still be smoking

[andy2640]

All the positives of e cig use are staring the big money in there face and they do not like it mr mannering!

The big money (pharmo companies+government coffer collectors) have some whoooping clout! But the average joe who's tried the e cigs and loved em is whats important! The masses (if not put off by rubbish e cigs) will triamph on this im sure of it!

Money-hypocrisy- Political chumism is a cancer in western society, but by george we'll fight em.

Andy.

[sid]

I didn't find that article particularly vexing compared to some that have appeared. Yes, there are some inaccuracies but the basic gist of it is smokers saying that ecigs helped them quit. I think that piece would encourage would-be quitters to try e-cigs.

[Jaded]

I didn't think the article was that bad - I've certainly read worse! The comments below it are more depressing...

[cliffo]

all credit to estebanrey for fighting the cause in the comments section , taking flack from all directions and putting up very well written replies.

[capnhack]

Didn't expect to see this kind of thing from the Guardian, but that article is a blog post rather than a 'proper' journalistic piece so it should be taken with at least a pinch of salt anyway. What I find annoying about it is that these blog posts look practically the same as the journalistic articles, despite most of them being editorial pieces without any true weight of research behind them.

Perhaps we should all start writing similar blog posts for newspapers? At least it would make for an interesting experiment to see whether more bloggers pop up to have a go at e-cigs in response. I jest, of course; I'm far too jaded to try and convince droves of idiots who don't know me to believe something other than they've already been told is true by other people they also don't know. The best, and perhaps only, way people will understand the advantages of vaping is if they try it themselves, and this is perhaps the message we need to get out there rather than getting stuck in a rebuttal rut. It's easy as anything to make stuff up, and what people can make up is limited only by their imagination. Keep trying to defend against that and you get so mired that you never move forward at all, but sidestep it all and get more smokers on-side and the health benefits will (in time) become clear on their own. It'd be kinda hard to form a cogent argument against vaping when the only people still on that side have to admit to having no firsthand knowledge whatsoever.

[andy2640]

Wow! So true, had to read twice to digest it (bit simple in ways) but it makes complete sense. Take the fight to them, but channel our efforts on whats really important and the 100% honest truth regarding e cigs, ive always said that e cigs sell themselvs once shown to a prosective consumer, without silly claims of 1000+ puffs per cart and the like.

(IMO) Very in-depth and impressive clarity there capnhack.

[ethelking]

Hi Guys,

I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this one pass me by without a comment! As it turned out, it's more of an essay! Here's what I wrote in response:


When will people realise that e-cigarettes are NOT nicotine replacement therapy, they are the safer alternative to traditional smoking. Any company that markets e-cigarettes as NRT is misleading customers, and is breaking the law. These devices are not licenced as medicinal products. They are recreational products.

I use a personal vaporiser as a replacement for cigarettes as the purified e-juice contains nothing more than pharmaceutical and food grade liquids and flavourings with nicotine added to various levels. When you compare the three main ingredients vapourised - not burnt - and inhaled, the benefits are so obvious.

It is important to note that both liquid constituents of e-cigarette liquids are used as carriers for everyday medications - including inhaled medicines such as Salbutomol and Beclometasone.

Of course the big pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies will dismiss what I fpersonal eel is the most significant advance in tobacco use harm reduction in decades as dangerous, unproven etc., despite the research already carried out, as they have a lot to lose financially. Similarly, the government will want to make it a therapeutic device legally because then they can tax it to the hilt.

Since taking up "vaping", I have noticed a massive increase in my general health. I have not smoked a single cigarette since "crossing over" and I find the smell of traditional tobacco products quite offensive now! Without a doubt in my mind - the use of inhaled vapourised nicotine liquid is the lesser of two evils by a very long margin.

I also feel it important to state that, as a smoker, I fully agree with the anti-smoking legislation introduced by the government - I never smoked in a restaurant or other public areas because I fully understood the dangers of passive smoke inhalation, and also realised that my choice to smoke should be limited to myself and not forced on those around me who had made the much wiser decision not to smoke.

Similarly, I would not pull out my personal vaporiser in an enclosed public space purely out of respect for those around me - even though I know it will not affect them, I wouldn't want to cause any discomfort or alarm.

It's a respect thing, I suppose.

This whole issue is not about quitting smoking, it's purely about an arguably safer alternative to smoking traditional tobacco products and probably most importantly, personal choice.

I think I've got the majority of my facts right - it boils my blood when I KNOW that the choice to switch to vaping has made a massive difference to my personal wellbeing in such a short space of time.


Sorry, rant over.

Edited by ethelking, 10 January 2012 - 10:44 PM.

[andy2640]

HERE HERE ! A Very good rant may i add!

[inijames]

Ethelking, couldn't agree more with your sentiments. It's interesting that the article seems to have been placed by a vendor but takes a slightly negative approach - which as you pointed out misses the point, i.e. that e-cigs are not just about cessation.

[capnhack]

inijames, on 11 January 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Ethelking, couldn't agree more with your sentiments. It's interesting that the article seems to have been placed by a vendor but takes a slightly negative approach - which as you pointed out misses the point, i.e. that e-cigs are not just about cessation.

This is a large part of the problem (along with classification) I think. I don't think I've yet seen an article published in any established paper or magazine or journal or site that looks at more than a single angle. The majority discuss cig-alikes and link them to health risks or smoking cessation, but they ignore the nicotine management options that come from mixing your own liquids ("you're just replacing one habit for another"), they ignore the cost benefits (not even mentioned), they glaze over the ease at which people are able to switch away from smoking ("it may lead non-smokers to smoking cigarettes"), they fail to compare health risks of vaping with those of smoking (blah blah FDA report), nor do they compare the marketing to that of other recreational products such as flavoured alcoholic drinks ("the look of the product and the fruity flavours will appeal to children"). The outright lies I can live with since they're to be expected, but the rest of this stuff is just plain bad journalism.