14 replies to this topic

[Shifty]

Just came across this Swiss program.

http://worldradio.ch...s-f.shtml?28779

[grizewald]

Interesting. There's already a troll making some lovely apples and oranges
arguments in the comments section. Sounds like he works for a big pharma
company.

[Snow]

My word, that just got worse as it went! Some nice leading questions asked there. None of which were answered without the help of an opinion. Interesting find Shifty.

[flubaluba]

I like the way he bypasses the question about whether he would recommend ecigerrets to help people stop smoking and he says no there are some nrt products that you can get that have side effects but are regulated. Sorry but the only side effect i have at the moment is feeling healthier and smelling/tasting better than i ever did when i was smoking. My breathing is much improved and i have more energy than i ever had when i was smoking.
Oh yes if i vape too much i get a headache but if we drink too much water it can kill us.
Pity that ecigs were portrayed this way as many people who watch it will be put off.

[Snow]

I chuckled when she said "and some people are even tinkering with their ecigarettes at home". The 'Dr' replies with something like 'yes, mainly adding more battery power and using methods to create more vapour' which she just disregards and follows up with a mindless "yes, REALLY not recommended!"
How I did larf. And cringe. lol.

[StiG]

That's me out then

[Lyneside]

Notice how they found "traces" of (cant remember, one was toluene and others were mentioned too).

How many "traces" in tobacco smoke then ?

The guy from the anti tobacco lobby couldnt really reccomend anything other than prescription solutions , thats his job (and probably funding) after all

But there didn't really seem to be much comparison between smoking and vaping, and much more between non smoking and vaping.

Shame really , but in a debate with big tobacco on one side, big pharma on the other and faceless chinese web sales in the middle , pretty much what you would expect.

P.S. apologies to anyone who manufactures, that isnt meant to be rude to you guys

[Dragonmum]

Shifty, words fail me - no they don't, it's the usual load of manure, an overdressed yank bimbo saying what she's been told to, and a self-satisfied medico saying what he's very probably been paid to. All those "traces" - deary me! Compared with goddam fags? All hail to the Chinese - why do these nitwits refer to them in perjorative manner? They were inventing some of the worlds' wonders when some of us were running around painted blue!!!! Rant Over

[Dekzion]

Shifty, here's the link to The NYtimes in one of the comments without having to log in, http://www.nytimes.c...ly-critics.html

I like the journalists summing up. So True.

[Lyneside]

Great article there Dekzion. Thanks for posting that, a much more reasoned discussion than most in the media.

[Maff]

always count on the nytimes for for excellent journalism

what a great ending:

"No one knows exactly what long-term benefits they’d gain from e-cigarettes, but we can say one thing with confidence: Every time they light up a tobacco cigarette, they’d be better off vaping."

[Rojeans]

Seconded Scrimper. Well done NYT .............. As to the interview on this thread, what a load of bollox!.

[gazeddy]

Quote

“Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous,” the British medical society concluded in 2007. “If nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.”

surely this is our "silver bullet" against a ban

[Rojeans]

gazeddy, on 05 February 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Quote

“Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous,” the British medical society concluded in 2007. “If nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.”

surely this is our "silver bullet" against a ban

Last few paragraphs......................

The Royal College of Physicians takes no position on the morality
of smoking. However, since smoking is dangerous to health and is
hard to give up, the College wants to see a range of effective
methods to help smokers quit or to reduce the harm they sustain.
H The present status quo, in which cigarettes are freely available,
medicinal nicotine products are available but under regulations that
restrict availability and effectiveness, and some smokeless tobacco
products are prohibited, denies smokers the right to choose safer
nicotine products.
H Balancing the nicotine market, so that all nicotine products are
equally available and comparably priced, would provide smokers
with choice but would not encourage change from high-risk to
lower-risk products.
H Rebalancing the market in favour of the safest nicotine products
would provide choice, encourage safer nicotine use, and reduce
morbidity and mortality.
H The ethical aspects of regulating alternatives to smoking tobacco
are complex, and three positions can be defended: maintaining the
status quo; making alternatives to smoking tobacco as easily
available as smoking tobacco now is; and making alternatives
more easily available than smoking tobacco now is.
H Each approach represents a balance of consumer rights, consumer
protection, fairness and general policy considerations.
H The College favours an approach which would make smoking
easier to give up, while discouraging starting smoking in the first
place, through making alternatives to smoking tobacco more
widely available and through regulating smoking products more
tightly by pricing, marketing controls, and formal regulation of the
production and sale of tobacco products.
Implications for health policy and nicotine product regulation
H Most of the deaths and disease caused by smoking in the nearand
medium-term future will occur in people who are smoking now.
H Current conventional preventive measures focus entirely on
preventing uptake of smoking and helping smokers to quit
smoking.
240 Harm reduction in nicotine addiction
H This approach will be ineffective for the millions of smokers who,
despite best efforts to persuade and help them to quit, will carry on
smoking. Half of these smokers, representing millions in the UK
alone, will die as a result.
H This burden of mortality and morbidity will markedly exacerbate
social inequality in health.
H Tobacco control policy needs to be radically extended to address
the needs of these smokers with implementation of effective harm
reduction strategies.
H Harm reduction in smoking can be achieved by providing smokers
with safer sources of nicotine that are acceptable and effective
cigarette substitutes.
H There is a moral and ethical duty to provide these products to
addicted smokers.
H Current systems of regulation of nicotine products inhibit the
development of innovative medicinal nicotine substitutes for
cigarettes and perpetuate the use of the most dangerous nicotine
products. This is unjust, irrational and immoral.
H Nicotine product regulation must therefore be reformed.
H The unprecedented and unjustifiable market freedoms enjoyed by
manufacturers of cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products
must end.
H The development of new, more effective, more acceptable and
user-friendly medicinal nicotine substitutes for smoking needs to
be encouraged.
H A major step towards an effective harm reduction strategy could be
taken by the implementation of simple changes to the regulation,
promotion and taxation of medicinal nicotine.
H Low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products may have a positive
role to play in a coordinated and regulated harm reduction strategy
which maximises public health benefit and protects against
commercial market exploitation.
H The regulation of nicotine products, whether medicinal or tobaccobased,
thus needs radical reform to ensure that the market forces
of affordability, promotion and availability act in a strong and
directly inverse relation to the hazard of the nicotine product, and
that the marketing and use of nicotine products are carefully
monitored to maximise public health benefit.
13 Key conclusions and recommendations 241
H While it may be possible to achieve this reform and consistency by
more rational application of existing regulatory frameworks, our
conclusion is that the scale of the problem, and the difficulties of
achieving successful reform, are such that the problem will be best
addressed by the creation of a nicotine regulatory authority to take
control of all aspects of regulation of all nicotine products.

[capnhack]

gazeddy, on 05 February 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Quote

“Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous,” the British medical society concluded in 2007. “If nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.”

surely this is our "silver bullet" against a ban

I would be a little bit careful with that. The BMS never really should have said that nicotine itself is not hazardous, since it's one of the most deadly materials on the planet (in other words, relatively small amounts will kill you outright in a very short period of time). The important thing, and what makes it non hazardous in things like vaping, is the very low dosage and lack of long term ill effects from continuing to consume such very small amounts over time. Without a distinction that takes into account dosage, anyone saying nicotine is not hazardous would be ripped to shreds.
Sadly, that report is really about tobacco vs tobacco derivatives and doesn't seem to go into much detail on non tobacco stuff, but the general message does support vaping.