Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm amazed the CDC comes out and proposes a ban on vaping with six deaths while being silent on guns.

When I stopped drinking, most of my friends were supportive.  Turns out the few who weren't were wondering about their own habits.  Maybe they didn't want to look into it. I left them behind and

another one. The ONLY place I smoke is in the privacy of my own outside balcony. so fuck off. Most people at work are surprised when I tell them I'm a smoker, so obviously I don't smell of smoke,

And Jerry Brown Jr., Governor Gruesome Newsom:

Newsom vowed to work with California lawmakers to craft a “strong tobacco reform package” when legislators return in 2020.

The governor’s action came a few days after the Legislature adjourned for the year without acting on a bill by Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced) that would have increased fines for anyone selling tobacco products, including those for electronic cigarettes, to people under age 21. Gray decided to delay action on his measure until next year so he can explore adding a tax to the bill, a spokesman said.

 

They don't really want to FIX the problem, only find another way to TAX it!  This will just lead to more Black Market product!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 3:42 PM, silent bob said:

They don't really want to FIX the problem, only find another way to TAX it!  This will just lead to more Black Market product!

And the problem appears to be mostly, if not exclusively, with black market products. Surprise, they're worse.

But that's not headline material.
 

Quote

 

...the Times finally offers this clarification: "Though the specific substance or product causing the vaping illnesses remains unclear, the New York State Department of Health has linked many cases of the illness to cannabis products that contain high levels of vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent for vaping liquid. Vitamin E acetate is now a key focus of the department's inquiry." (Emphasis added.) What does banning flavored e-cigarettes have to do with symptoms that seem to be caused by additives in black-market cannabis products? Absolutely nothing, but that is not the impression readers will get from this story.

Cuomo says he will continue to allow the sale of tobacco- and menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, because (as the Times puts it) "some data suggests that those menthol products could assist in helping people to stop smoking traditional cigarettes." The data actually indicate that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as alternatives such as nicotine gum and patches. The data also show that the flavors Cuomo plans to ban, which he portrays as part of an insidious plot to hook "children and underage youth" on nicotine, are the ones favored by the vast majority of adults who used to smoke and are now vaping instead.

The FDA, the agency that is now planning to ban the vast majority of nicotine vaping products, has itself acknowledged the enormous harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes. Former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb, whose concerns about underage vaping led the agency down this road, described e-cigarettes as a "tremendous public health opportunity." In its haste to deter teenagers from using e-cigarettes, the government is on the verge of squandering that opportunity.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in Unitary Executive news...

E-Cigarette Restrictions Raise a Question: Can Governors Unilaterally Ban Products They Don't Like?
 

Quote

 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) this week announced that he plans to impose an "emergency" ban on e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco and menthol. Like the recent decision by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to impose a similar ban in her state, Cuomo's move is based on an alarmingly broad understanding of a governor's authority to prohibit products in the name of "public health" without new legislation.

Cuomo's plan involves convening the New York State Public Health and Health Planning Council, which has the power to "amend and repeal sanitary regulations" with the approval of the health commissioner, who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Those sanitary regulations may "deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York."

That is a potentially sweeping mandate, encompassing not just traditional public health threats such as pollution and communicable diseases but anything people do that may affect their "life or health." In this case, Cuomo is asserting the authority to ban the vast majority of vaping products. But he could just as easily (and more plausibly) decide that conventional cigarettes, which are far more dangerous than e-cigarettes, should be banned. And under his reasoning, that move would not require legislative approval. Likewise with alcoholic beverages, highly caloric food, big sodas, fast cars, fireworks, guns, or any other product that may cause disease or injury.

 

Kite boards, for example...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger with smoking is the smoke. The danger with vaping is the vapor.

With a vape, a food grade glycerine and/or glycol is boiled off the surface as mostly sub-micron particles that penetrate into the deepest parts of the alveolar region due to their small size. Unlike smoke, these have sufficiently low surface tension that they spread over the alveoli and then act as a barrier to water evaporation and oxygen absorption.

The result can be a condition that resembles pneumonia, but without the infection

I had a kid who vaped a relatively small amount, a few hits a day. She developed pneumonia-like symptoms that didn't respond to antibiotics or steroids. I urged her to stop. She resisted, because she smoked so little of the stuff compared to her friends. Her illness remained, she eventually quit, and her symptoms disappeared.

Some kids are more sensitive than others.

But the lungs emit a lot of water, it's how they keep an efficient oxygen transfer between the air and the blood barrier. When the oxygen is barricaded from getting in by a thin sheen of dried glycol and glycerine, the one quick fix is for the vape victim to double the amount of water that he or she drinks, to allow for increased water transpiration at the alveoli, which can help the oxygen transfer.

The second trick is to quit vaping, and switch to something less harmful.

The psychology of vape is dangerous. Kids who would never smoke perceive vape as less harmful, so they become addicted fast. Unlike tobacco, the nicotine isn't the main addictive agent, it's also the water in the vape juice. The kid feels the need to vape because the water temporarily relieves the oxygen deficiency. Nicotine-free vape juice is apparently addictive too because of the temporary fix that the water has over the glycol and/or glycerine. But the correct way is to ingest the water and hydrate from within.

The fundamental bait-and-switch with vape when they first hit the market is that the glycerine and glycol were sold as "food grade", which they were and are. But just because they are safe to ingest (which they are) doesn't mean that they are safe to inhale. The lungs are not a digestive organ.

I am quite sure that the vape industry knows the damage that their product does, and like the tobacco industry of yore, they are blinded by profits. One vape company is even pushing 21 year old minimum legislation, aware that it will likely make kids want it more, and also aware that their product is proven dangerous with younger users.

As a user, it's a weird feeling when your chest feels tight, you take a hit of vape and you suddenly feel better. Regardless the warnings, you get this undeniable feeling that the vape is healthy, because it relieves that tension. The tension is a byproduct of the delivery system, and yet, it FEELS right.

How can logic, science and legislation compete against a feeling?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

And the problem appears to be mostly, if not exclusively, with black market products. Surprise, they're worse.

But that's not headline material.
 

 

Here, in the state of the Jerry Brown Bear (Kaliffuckistan), marijuana was legalized for recreational use.  Jerry, and his minions, placed high taxes on it.  The result is that legal weed is expensive, so few are buying it, so the tax revenue on it is a small fraction of what was expected.  Illegal weed is being grown and being smuggled into the state at record amounts.  Remember ‘Tax Stamps’ for weed?!  I think my father bought one, as a novelty.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibitionists want to censor truthful political speech. Again.

Quote

 

San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton, co-author of that city's pending ban on the sale of e-cigarettes, is complaining that the campaign for Proposition C, a Juul-backed 2019 ballot initiative that would overturn his ordinance, violates federal restrictions on commercial statements about vaping products. Walton's claim vividly shows how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suppresses truthful, nonmisleading statements about the nicotine products it regulates. He wants to take that censorship a step further, arguing that it should also apply to political speech that is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.

...

The first thing to note about the statements to which Walton objects is that they happen to be true. In a recent interview with CBS News, David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at NYU, explained that studies of biomarkers in smokers who have switched to vaping find that they are exposed to far fewer hazardous substances, at far lower levels, than people who continue to smoke. "E-cigarettes are way less harmful than cigarettes," he said, "and they can and do help smokers switch if they can't quit."

Abrams also noted a randomized clinical study that found e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement products. Vaping "delivers nicotine in a very satisfying way without the major harms of burning tobacco," he said. "If we lose this opportunity, I think we will have blown the single biggest public health opportunity we've ever had in 120 years to get rid of cigarettes and replace them with a much safer form of nicotine."

The second thing to note about the statements Walton wants to suppress is that they are part of a political campaign, not commercial advertisements for Juul or any other specific product. While the FDA has scolded Juul for statements about the relative hazards of smoking and vaping in the context of presentations to high school students by company representatives, trying to restrict political speech is another matter.

 

Non-readers may have missed it, but as I said early in this thread, vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

The objectionable ads that must be censored are just people relating their life experiences that support that point of view.

A better answer than censorship would be discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

More unintended consequences from a hastily-declared "emergency"
 

Quote

 

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

If you ignore the enormous difference between the health risks posed by smoking and the health risks posed by vaping, it is easier to rationalize a policy that will deprive current and former smokers of an alternative that could save their lives. Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders implicitly acknowledges the impact the vaping ban will have on smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes or might be interested in doing so. "As a result of the public health emergency," she says, "the Commonwealth is implementing a statewide standing order for nicotine replacement products, like gum and patches, which will allow people to access these products as a covered benefit through their insurance without requiring an individual prescription."

 

As David Abrams noted in his CBS News interview, research indicates that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as those "nicotine replacement products." Many smokers who did not manage to quit with "gum and patches" were able to do so with e-cigarettes. By ignoring that reality, Massachusetts pretends that its vaping ban will improve public health when in fact it is apt to result in more smoking-related diseases and deaths as former smokers return to a much more hazardous habit and current smokers are deterred from quitting.

"Massachusetts has made significant progress over the past two decades in curbing youth and adult tobacco use," the governor's press release notes. "In 1996, the youth smoking rate was 36.7%. Today, the youth smoking rate is 6.4%. The adult smoking rate is also low, with just under 14% of adults using combustible tobacco products." These downward trends not only continued as vaping became more common; they accelerated, suggesting that e-cigarettes are replacing a far more dangerous source of nicotine.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 4:21 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Prohibitionists want to censor truthful political speech. Again.

Non-readers may have missed it, but as I said early in this thread, vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

The objectionable ads that must be censored are just people relating their life experiences that support that point of view.

A better answer than censorship would be discussion.

And you know that how, Normy? The same type of 1950s profit-motivated junk science that said smoking was safe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Is that how you view the American Cancer Society?

The American Cancer Society isn't a human doing research, it's a nonprofit corporation.

So, in your own, link-free words, how do you know that vape is safer than smoke?

We have some sixty years of research and thousands of clinical studies that link smoke and air pollution to cardiovascular disease, how many years and studies do you know that establish the relative safety of inhaling glycerine and propylene glycol?

And before this scientific issue becomes political, I am not in favor of banning vape, nor smoke, nor raising the age of consumption of these products. I am interested in the perception of vapor being a less harmful alternative to smoke. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The consumption of vape is different than smoke, kids charge up their Juul et al., with the USB port on their computer, hey, it's a USB device, how dangerous could that be? And then they vape indoors, in bed, in school, often without detection by teachers and parents, it's mostly odorless.

Unlike tobacco, they can hit their vape whenever they get that little tickle in their lungs, no need to head outside, or to a designated spot, or even open the window. Some experts can even just "tap" the Juul so that there is no visible vapor, and then do it in planes, classrooms and elevators where tobacco has been banned for over thirty years.

It's remarkable to see the ingenuity and resourcefulness of an addict.

And while all of this happens, the vape industry played us all like a skilled magician, by distracting us to look at what the vapor contains, the nicotine and the relative purity of the concentrate compared to tobacco. But we didn't think to look at the actual vape carrier itself, the food-grade glycerine and glycol that users inhale into their lungs.

But wait, the glycerine and glycol is food grade, FDA approved, what danger is that?

The glycerine and glycol is food grade when INGESTED, but I challenge anyone to cite a study that shows the relative safety of INHALING a vaporized Twinkie and a bag a Cheetos, let alone glycerine and glycol that are expertly vaporized into a cloud of monomodal accumulation mode particulates easily capable of penetrating the alveolar region and even the blood barrier itself.

But vape must be safer than smoke because someone on the internet told us that vape is safer than smoke. So yeah, how could we not trust that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tommays said:

Pretty sure its so uncontrolled and with so much bootleg off brand stuff showing up nobody has any idea what there vaping ?

If vape was literally just the carrier, only glycol, glycerine and water, with 99.999% purity, I think it would still be just as harmful. Smoke particles sit on lung tissue, because they have high surface tension. But the vape carrier is the opposite, at body temperatures it has a low enough surface tension that it can spread over the alveoli and prevent oxygen and water transfer.

One really neat magic trick of the industry was in equating vape with medical inhalation from metered dose inhalers and nebulizers. That bamboozled us long enough, before we woke up and said, "uh, MDIs use CFCs as a carrier for the micronized powder, and nebulizers use water as the carrier, but vapes use ... WHAT THE FUCK, propylene glycol and glycerine?!?"

I have no idea how the FDA ever approved vaporized food additives for inhalation. The vape industry slid in under the wire before we knew what they were actually selling. And now the cat is out of the bag and there are some 50,000,000 vape addicts, the chance of science influencing policy is now mostly gone.

 

If someone wants to vape, they should vape. It's a cost to public health, but so is refined sugar. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of them thinking that it's safer than smoke with barely any data to support that. The official view of vape needs to immediately change to "we don't know yet, we need more time to discern the relative safety for people who have lung sensitivity."

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:
15 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Is that how you view the American Cancer Society?

The American Cancer Society isn't a human doing research, it's a nonprofit corporation.

So, in your own, link-free words, how do you know that vape is safer than smoke?

So is it a non-profit corporation that is emitting profit-motivated junk science in your view?

I'm not a doctor nor a public health professional but can consider their opinions and...

Quote

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

Why are all those people trying to fool us and where's your evidence that they're motivated by profit and talking junk science? Where's the good science that's not motivated by profit on this? I mean in your own link-filled words, preferably edited for brevity in the link-free parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 12:27 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

More unintended consequences from a hastily-declared "emergency"
 

There's actually one overriding issue and a convenient excuse.

1)  https://www.wcvb.com/article/teen-vaping-epidemic-is-newest-battlefield-in-war-against-nicotine-addiction/26186728#  

"Nearly half of Massachusetts high school students are vaping, more than three times the number of adults using e-cigarettes."

For whatever reason, Mass kids seem to like the vape and don't seem to have any problems getting the product, despite laws against selling to them.  And it's profitable:

The vape product market is estimated to be worth $22.6 billion, up from $4 billion just five years ago, Euromonitor International says.

I'll try and see if I can dig out the reference but NPR reported on Friday that the one commonality was that all of the people suffering lung illness had used products that they either didn't know or wouldn't admit where they got it (i.e, got it from a friend).  To use a drinking analogy, the current belief is that there's a bad batch of hootch out there that was made using some sketchy chemistry that's making its way around the country.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There's actually one overriding issue and a convenient excuse.

1)  https://www.wcvb.com/article/teen-vaping-epidemic-is-newest-battlefield-in-war-against-nicotine-addiction/26186728#  

"Nearly half of Massachusetts high school students are vaping, more than three times the number of adults using e-cigarettes."

Yes, people will react to protect the cheeruns.

On 9/20/2019 at 4:43 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb, whose concerns about underage vaping led the agency down this road, described e-cigarettes as a "tremendous public health opportunity." In its haste to deter teenagers from using e-cigarettes, the government is on the verge of squandering that opportunity.

With little effect and many unintended consequences. It's a prohibition tradition.

8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I'll try and see if I can dig out the reference but NPR reported on Friday that the one commonality was that all of the people suffering lung illness had used products that they either didn't know or wouldn't admit where they got it (i.e, got it from a friend).  To use a drinking analogy, the current belief is that there's a bad batch of hootch out there that was made using some sketchy chemistry that's making its way around the country.

You won't have to try too hard if you just dig around in my posts in this thread. The vast majority of those (and maybe all, but prohibition makes getting people to tell the truth hard) with lung problems had been vaping "THC" products. Who knows what was in them but THC isn't water soluble and they have lung problems indicative of using oils as the carrying agent.

More unintended consequences from our stupid war on drugs

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

So is it a non-profit corporation that is emitting profit-motivated junk science in your view?

I'm not a doctor nor a public health professional but can consider their opinions and...

Why are all those people trying to fool us and where's your evidence that they're motivated by profit and talking junk science? Where's the good science that's not motivated by profit on this? I mean in your own link-filled words, preferably edited for brevity in the link-free parts.

Normy, the problem is in the name itself. The ACS evaluated vape for its cancer-causing effects, and they decided that as a smoking cessation tool, that e-cigarettes will save lives lost to cancer from smoke.

They then urged all the non-smokers to not start smoking vape. Back when they got this data, e-cigarettes looked like cigarettes, right down to the fake paper color, the little light up LED end "ember" and the filter paper.

And then suddenly, when nobody was paying attention, e-cigarettes became vape. In some cases, huge clouds of vapor from each hit.

They were no longer primarily marketed as a smoking cessation tool, but rather a stylish, flavored vapor emitter, charged up by the user's USB phone charger. Whoops, suddenly there are tens of millions of people who vape who didn't smoke in the first place. So much for the ACS's plea, huh?

And yes, vape DOESN'T appear to cause cancer, it seems to cause pneumonia-like illnesses, apparently because the user's lungs become glazed with food-grade glycerine and glycol, without any of the digestive properties of the digestive system to remove these food-grade chemicals ... because lungs aren't digestive organs, duh.

Golly, thanks American Cancer Society, you are now saving lives from cancer by trading them for cardiovascular disease. But as these new victims struggle for breath with something that resembles pneumonia but won't respond to antibiotics, at least they are dying of something other than cancer.

 

And now we see the truth, it's not a harm reduction product at all, it's a more profitable replacement to tobacco grown from the ground and packaged in paper rolls. The tobacco industry has grown this industry to tens of millions of users who never smoked in the first place.

Whoops, ACS fucked up, now they have to evaluate "e-cigarettes" as vape, which means not a replacement to tobacco, but a stand-alone product. And how long will it take to get that data? About the same amount of time that it took last time, about twenty years from the beginning of the product's market saturation, so about another twenty years. And really, as long as vape kills its users with something other than cancer, then the ACS's mission is a raging success.

 

So, Normy, I urge you to look at the actual studies that the ACS used to determine the safety of "e-cigarettes" so that you'll know what has actually changed. You would do it for guns, please do it for vape.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Yes, people will react to protect the cheeruns.

With little effect and many unintended consequences. It's a prohibition tradition.

You won't have to try too hard if you just dig around in my posts in this thread. The vast majority of those (and maybe all, but prohibition makes getting people to tell the truth hard) with lung problems had been vaping "THC" products. Who knows what was in them but THC isn't water soluble and they have lung problems indicative of using oils as the carrying agent.

More unintended consequences from our stupid war on drugs

The "bad hooch" analogy is a market outlier.

The developing problem is with the tens of millions of teenagers who suck down the vapor of the mass market vapor from Juul, et al..

Maybe get your mind off of "prohibition" and start to look at the danger of "junk science" instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Normy, oils are not the only carrying agent in the THC vapes just as oil isn't the only carrying agent with tobacco derived nicotine vapes. The carrying agent with both of them is glycerine and glycol. They have the right surface tension to vaporize and carry the nicotine/cannabis oils into the lungs.

The cannabis vapes are more viscous, but the heating element is similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:

And now we see the truth, it's not a harm reduction product at all, it's a more profitable replacement to tobacco grown from the ground and packaged in paper rolls. The tobacco industry has grown this industry to tens of millions of users who never smoked in the first place.

Whoops, ACS fucked up, now they have to evaluate "e-cigarettes" as vape, which means not a replacement to tobacco, but a stand-alone product.

Changing habits and fads doesn't change whether vapor or smoke is more harmful to inhale.

People do use vapes to quit smoking and have a better success rate than things like nicotine gum.

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

The ACS evaluated vape for its cancer-causing effects, and they decided that as a smoking cessation tool, that e-cigarettes will save lives lost to cancer from smoke.

They're still right, still not profit-motivated, and that's still not junk science, so your original claim is 100% BS.

 

16 hours ago, mikewof said:

The "bad hooch" analogy is a market outlier.

The developing problem is with the tens of millions of teenagers who suck down the vapor of the mass market vapor from Juul, et al..

85% of the users with problems admitted to using black market THC vape products. I suspect most of the remaining 15% didn't admit it because of prohibition but also used it. So the developing problem seems to me to be people like yourself conflating black market products with legal ones.

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

So, Normy, I urge you to look at the actual studies that the ACS used to determine the safety of "e-cigarettes" so that you'll know what has actually changed.

So Cliffy, I ask you once again for links. And brevity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Changing habits and fads doesn't change whether vapor or smoke is more harmful to inhale.

People do use vapes to quit smoking and have a better success rate than things like nicotine gum.

They're still right, still not profit-motivated, and that's still not junk science, so your original claim is 100% BS.

 

85% of the users with problems admitted to using black market THC vape products. I suspect most of the remaining 15% didn't admit it because of prohibition but also used it. So the developing problem seems to me to be people like yourself conflating black market products with legal ones.

So Cliffy, I ask you once again for links. And brevity.

Brevity? From the guy who runs an encyclopedia of gun links? Whatever, I'll give you brevity, but this isn't a gun debate, the research is peer-reviewed. And when I start giving you research that screws with your view on this, you're going to have to actually look at the actual research that the ACS used to make their determination. You're not going to like it.

This isn't a gun debate Normy. So here goes ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6011163/

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/73/12/1161

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166079

There are three. And there is an ocean more of this stuff in review and being published as this thread continues. So yeah Normy, you want to turn vape into a gun debate, have at it. You'll lose, because the research continues to point to both the addictive qualities of vape and the danger of the carrier.

Your bolded bit up there is demonstrably wrong. If you really want to paint yourself into the same corner that junk science did when they were trying to tout the health benefits of tobacco back in the 1950s, please be my guest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Quote

We report a case of diffuse alveolar hemorrhage that we believe was caused by aggressive use of personalized vaporizer. This aims to site the serious complication of vaping despite being marketed as a safe substitute to conventional smoking.

I wonder if they've decided on a site yet?

Quote

While vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents, we are still uncertain on the health hazards of the reduced toxins.

So they're saying my statement that triggered you so much is likely correct? Also,

Quote

Prussian blue iron staining was also noted which reflects old hemorrhage

That sounds like it might be gun related and triggering you appears to be gun related judging by how many times you've mentioned guns so far. I know that my opposition to TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs is reprehensible but can you somehow relax, untrigger (gun word!) yourself and leave that for another thread? (Just trying to see if I can say "gun" as many times as you.)

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

Your bolded bit up there is demonstrably wrong. If you really want to paint yourself into the same corner that junk science did when they were trying to tout the health benefits of tobacco back in the 1950s, please be my guest.

Your effort to demonstrate how wrong the American Cancer Society and I are on this point instead yielded another bolded statement from your own source saying I'm likely right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

 

I wonder if they've decided on a site yet?

So they're saying my statement that triggered you so much is likely correct? Also,

That sounds like it might be gun related and triggering you appears to be gun related judging by how many times you've mentioned guns so far. I know that my opposition to TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs is reprehensible but can you somehow relax, untrigger (gun word!) yourself and leave that for another thread? (Just trying to see if I can say "gun" as many times as you.)

Your effort to demonstrate how wrong the American Cancer Society and I are on this point instead yielded another bolded statement from your own source saying I'm likely right.

I spent all of ten minutes of looking through my notes to find three distinct research projects that found three distinct cardiovascular threats, that aren't cancer related.

And on the face of this, you're able to ignore actual data and zero in on one person's opinion that wasn't data-driven, because it agrees with you? Do you do that with your gun arguments too?

And this data and that opinion are on a vaping technology that is how old Normy?

About 12 years old. Yeah. And sufficient market saturation to get decent epidemiological samples? About five years.

If you are actually that confident to the relative safety of vape, with those numbers, then you're a fool. You also successfully ignored actual market data that shows the vape community growing faster than tobacco ever did, and not as a cessation tool like you and the ACS have hitched their wagon ... It's definitely NOT safer than smoke when the industry has created tens of millions of new users who never smoked in the first place. But again, you manage to ignore that.

Now, Step 2, Normy. Are you going to look at the study that the ACS used to make their determination? Or do you not like to risk your ideological position?

Link to post
Share on other sites

cliffsignal.jpg

Also, guns.

But I still think your first source is right in saying that

5 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

cliffsignal.jpg

Also, guns.

But I still think your first source is right in saying that

 

Okay. Again, that's an opinion, it isn't data driven like the actual research. Are you ready to hang your hat on an opinion that isn't data-driven? And if so, are you willing to do that with guns along with biology?

Again, have you actually read the research from which the ACS based their finding.

 

As an aside, think about "combustion products." Animals (and humans even more so, due to our half-million-year old ability to build and contain fire) have lived and evolved around smoke (i.e. "combustion byproducts") for a long, long time. It's likely that our alveolar region has developed some level of evolutionary adaption to the bimodal particulates of smoke.

But vaporized glycerine and propylene glycol? How long have humans been inhaling that? Twelve years since the market introduction, and about five years since any level of market saturation. (And I think we are still a long way from market saturation in most vape markets, btw.)

So ... wouldn't it be kind of critical to actually read the research from which these opinions are based? You feel comfortable enough with the ACS's finding that vape is safer than smoke, but you haven't actually read the research, have you?

Honestly Normy, I don't expect you to put forth any real level of effort here, since it isn't dogballs. And inthefuture.com when vaporized propylene glycol and glycerine successfully kills tens of thousands, and we successfully identify the actual non-cancer danger of the stuff, you might remember this conversation. But this little discourse has demonstrated something interesting to me about your opinion on guns if they hold similarity to biology; you have your opinion, it's dogma, and facts are selectively pulled to bolster your existing opinion rather than guide your knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

You feel comfortable enough with the ACS's finding that vape is safer than smoke, but you haven't actually read the research, have you?

I read and quoted your linked research. It said this:

Quote

vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents

So why are you posting opinions like that that aren't based on any research?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

I read and quoted your linked research. It said this:

So why are you posting opinions like that that aren't based on any research?

Journal articles are written by humans who have opinions. The bolded bit you posted above was the opinion of a researcher, and that opinion -- unlike the actual research from that author -- was not data-driven, it was an opinion that happened to coincide with your own. The data-driven work pointed to one particular danger from vape in the lungs. I posted two other articles, each identified a distinct danger. You managed to ignore those because they didn't reinforce your existing opinion.

Now, are we done with that?

Have you read the research that the ACS used to base their finding?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Now, are we done with that?

Not really. I still might want to poke a bit more fun at the fact that your cite spelled it "site." Engrish, muthafucka.

6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Have you read the research that the ACS used to base their finding?

Still waiting for someone who has read it to provide a link to it. You've read it, right?

6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Journal articles are written by humans who have opinions. The bolded bit you posted above was the opinion of a researcher, and that opinion -- unlike the actual research from that author -- was not data-driven,

Was his opinion formed from thin air? Or was it junk science? Profit motivated? Ignorant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez Normy, you'll come up with every excuse you can to avoid actually reading the study that ACS used for the finding. In this case, you seem to think that I won't notice that you keep returning to the recent deaths. Once again Normy, the recent vape deaths have little to nothing to do with why vape is gradually being discovered as worse than smoke. But to understand that means you probably need to let go of your shitfight here. Since that won't likely happen, you will continue to pick data to support your position.

Normy, now channeling Bull Gator and Random. Adorable. But ultimately it weakens your gun argument, if you even use half of these tactics with guns. I wasn't really paying attention in the gun debates, but I guess this is what Jocal meant; you do a good job of hiding your lack of effort inside of something that resembles intelligence, as long as nobody looks too carefully.

Please Normy, vape 'em.If you gots 'em. This isn't gun politics, you dipshit, it's science. This argument isn't won or lost with the sample being all of about five years old. This argument is examined, the answer will come in about ten years. Even if you vape, you will probably still be alive then, and as you puff on your steroid metered dose inhalers to manage your VI-COPD, maybe you can revisit this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 2:58 PM, mikewof said:

That one attempted to simulate acute exposure, which reminds me of the "studies" in which chimps were practically choked to death on cannabis smoke to show that it's harmful. Umm... especially if you practically choke yourself on an overdose that doesn't resemble what people actually do.

They kinda lost me by saying this twice:

Quote

we caution against the widely held opinion that e-cigarettes are safe.

Widely held? Is anyone actually saying that? I don't think methadone is safe, just that it's a useful tool for heroin addicts and heroin is less safe. That's why I asked Bus Driver about it, but if you ask a gossip about an issue you'll get gossip back. As Eva Dent.

59 minutes ago, mikewof said:

why vape is gradually being discovered as worse than smoke.

Is that opinion fact-driven or is it just junk like the opinion of your previous source?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Please Normy, vape 'em.If you gots 'em.

Echos of drug warrior nonsense. I don't vape or use methadone. I just don't like misguided prohibition programs.

People will vape the black market products that the CDC says are causing the current spate of problems if banning vaping spreads and people who want to quit smoking will have one less avenue. Both shitty, if unintended, consequences of a nanny state ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Echos of drug warrior nonsense. I don't vape or use methadone. I just don't like misguided prohibition programs.

People will vape the black market products that the CDC says are causing the current spate of problems if banning vaping spreads and people who want to quit smoking will have one less avenue. Both shitty, if unintended, consequences of a nanny state ban.

Your straw man is still made of straw, I was clear that I don't want vape banned. Your politics have nothing to do with this.

And I can see that you have no intention of being scientific about this, but in fairness, you seem to not grasp the scientific process, you seem to think it's based on opinion rather than a buildup of tests over time. So two questions ...

1. Approximately what is the current public health cost in the USA for lung cancer other than radon?

2. Approximately what is the current public health cost in the USA for non-cancer lung and lung-related cardiovascular disease like asthma, pneumonia and COPD?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Never heard of Snus before but always glad to see censorship reduced
 

Quote

 

This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally granted a snus manufacturer permission to tell the truth about this Swedish version of oral snuff, which is far less hazardous than cigarettes and contains lower levels of carcinogens than other forms of smokeless tobacco. The Stockholm-based company Swedish Match will henceforth be allowed to display the following statement on packages of its General brand snus sold in the United States: "Using General Snus instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis."

In the decade since Congress gave the FDA authority over tobacco, this is the first time the agency has allowed such a "modified risk" claim for any product. The FDA says its approval of Swedish Match's claim "demonstrates the viability of the pathway for companies to market specific tobacco products as less harmful to consumers." But the arduous process leading to that decision also demonstrates the potentially deadly consequences of the FDA's censorship.

"Adult smokers deserve the full truth about these products and other reduced-risk tobacco and nicotine products," says Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. "The FDA's claim that this pathway is viable should come with a giant asterisk explaining just how much time and how many millions of dollars Swedish Match had to spend to get permission to tell the truth to consumers."...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Some public health scientists weigh in

Quote

In the case of adult smokers, there is solid scientific evidence that vaping nicotine is much safer than smoking. In a 2018 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), commissioned by the FDA, an expert panel systematically reviewed the scientific evidence. It determined, “There is conclusive evidence that completely substituting vaping nicotine for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes” (10), consistent with other major evidence and systematic reviews (4, 6, 12).

...

Although it may be decades before we fully understand the long-term consequences of vaping nicotine without smoke, many argue that we know enough and stress that too many smokers die every day we delay tak-ing reasonable and rational action based on the science to date. Evidence from multiple strong observational studies and random-ized trials suggests that vaping nicotine is more appealing and more effective than NRT at displacing smoking (4, 6, 8, 13).... Evidence suggests that the vast majority of smokers who suc-cessfully switch completely from smoking combustible products to vaping do so—after weeks, months, or years of dual use—by tran-sitioning from vaping tobacco, or menthol-flavored liquids, to other flavors and often to lower nicotine concentrations or even to no nicotine in order to reduce the triggers that remind them of their prior smoking product (4, 6, 13, 14)

(NRT refers to nicotine patches and nicotine gum).

They appear to have noticed that the recent PANIC over vaping is mostly, if not entirely, related to vitamin E acetate found in black market THC vapes.

Quote

The mounting numbers of acute lung injuries and deaths linked to vaping illicit THC cartridges have understandably fueled a policy impulse to do something. Although blanket bans on all devices, all types of liquids (with or without nicotine or THC), or flavors other than tobacco may provide immediate relief to our collective sense of urgency when it comes to protecting youth, the landscape has changed over the past decade. The calculus is no longer limited to nicotine vaping. Proposed solutions that conflate vaping THC oils with nicotine or with flavors, and that may lose sight of population-wide issues while focusing on subsets of the population (4, 6, 8, 9), may do more harm than goo

That's a nice way of saying that more prohibition is a ridiculous answer to problems brought on by prohibition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/3/2019 at 3:07 AM, animeproblem said:

Only read page two of this bound to be tedious "Tom heavy" thread, so glad drawing anything into my lungs has always given me the creeps.

A few years back, there were stories of kids huffing from paper sacks filled with feces.  There is literally no limit to what some humans will do to try and get a buzz.

Most of the 'Tom heavy' threads are reference based updates - like the above - where he'll attach an article on an ongoing topic rather than create a new one.  I actually like them - sort of like a news feed from YouTube without Google trying to per-decide what I want to see.  But, since there ISN'T Google per-deciding what I want to see, that means there's also a lot of topics that get bumped up and wander down quickly.

Tom, having a libertarian bend (of which I approve!) is also thematically consistent in that most of these threads involve some sort of "call to government action" based on sensationalized or an exaggerated incident.  As Rahm Emanual so eloquently noted "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

So, lung damage caused by illicit THC products becomes a ban on flavored tobacco.  That is the creeping nature of authoritarian governance.  Utilitarians - for whom 'the greater good' is always the most important moral justification - thrive under such systems.  The bigger the crisis, the more powerful the 'justified' response.

The rate with which people 'take up vaping' is a testament to how powerful the nicotine fueled stimulus/response really is.  Decades of beating down smoking addiction are being unwound in a few years.

On a side note, I'm still waiting for some bright scientist to come up with nicotine laced broccoli or kale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

As Rahm Emanual so eloquently noted "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

So, lung damage caused by illicit THC products becomes a ban on flavored tobacco.  That is the creeping nature of authoritarian governance.  Utilitarians - for whom 'the greater good' is always the most important moral justification - thrive under such systems.  The bigger the crisis, the more powerful the 'justified' response.

Yes, the Power of PANIC is attractive because scaring people works.

This Was the Decade When Politicians Stopped Panicking About Marijuana and Started Panicking About Nicotine
 

Quote

 

...The shift from demonizing cannabis to demonizing nicotine is not a good sign for anyone who hoped that recognizing the folly of marijuana prohibition would lead to a broader understanding of the costs inflicted by attempts to forcibly prevent people from consuming psychoactive substances. By and large, neither legislators nor the voters they represent think about this subject in a principled way. If they did, the repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition in 1933 would not have been followed four years later by the Marihuana Tax Act, a federal ban disguised as a revenue measure. When it comes to ending the war on drugs, the same arguments have to be deployed anew for every intoxicant.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

8 Months Later, This Journal Still Hasn't Corrected Its Study Implying That E-Cigarettes Magically Cause Heart Attacks Before People Use Them

Quote

E-cigarettes are so dangerous, according to a study published by the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), that they can reach back in time to cause heart attacks before people use them. It has been eight months since the study appeared and seven months since critics identified the crucial error underlying that logically impossible conclusion. So far, the journal's public response has consisted of nothing but boilerplate promises of scientific integrity.

I guess it needs to stay tacked up over a urinal so peers can review it for a while more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 4:21 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

Non-readers may have missed it, but as I said early in this thread, vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

 

Politics isn't science. You don't know that vape is safer than smoke. Alveoli don't give a rat's ass about your politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JAHA finally admits vaping can't cause a heart attack in people who have not vaped.
 

Quote

 

Eight months after the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study implying that e-cigarettes magically cause heart attacks before people even try them, it has retracted the article. "The editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable," JAHA says in a notice posted today.

Based on data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH), Dharma Bhatta and Stanton Glantz claimed to find that "e-cigarette use is an independent risk factor for having had a myocardial infarction." Glantz, a longtime anti-smoking activist and e-cigarette opponent who directs the Center for Tobacco Research Control and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, said the results provided "more evidence that e-cigs cause heart attacks." Notwithstanding the evidence that vaping is much less hazardous than smoking, Glantz and Bhatta, an epidemiologist at the center, concluded that "e‐cigarettes should not be promoted or prescribed as a less risky alternative to combustible cigarettes and should not be recommended for smoking cessation among people with or at risk of myocardial infarction."

But as University of Louisville tobacco researcher Brad Rodu pointed out last July, the analysis that Bhatta and Glantz ran included former smokers who had heart attacks before they started vaping. Once those subjects were excluded, Rodu and University of Louisville economist Nantaporn Plurphanswat found, the association described by Bhatta and Glantz disappeared.

 

 

On 2/11/2020 at 12:58 PM, mikewof said:

Politics isn't science. You don't know that vape is safer than smoke. Alveoli don't give a rat's ass about your politics.

Do you think vaping can cause a heart attack in a person who has never vaped?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

JAHA finally admits vaping can't cause a heart attack in people who have not vaped.
 

 

Do you think vaping can cause a heart attack in a person who has never vaped?

The major danger of vape is in its aggregation on the alveoli. That presents a barrier for oxygen interchange. Unlike actual smoke, which can and does stay submicron which can then pass through the blood barrier.

So this research you have cited is a non-issue for me. The danger of vape is with breathing, not so much a cardiovascular danger like regular (filtered) smoke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

The danger of vape is with breathing, not so much a cardiovascular danger like regular (filtered) smoke.

Hmm... so if you've never breathed vape, can it still cause a heart attack?

If you read the article, JAHA actually asked that question, didn't get a satisfactory answer, and published the "research" anyway.

Then took 8 months to finally state the obvious: the answer to the question I just asked is no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Hmm... so if you've never breathed vape, can it still cause a heart attack?

If you read the article, JAHA actually asked that question, didn't get a satisfactory answer, and published the "research" anyway.

Then took 8 months to finally state the obvious: the answer to the question I just asked is no.

I read it before I posted.

If you're using that result to suggest that vaping is in fact harmless, then you are on the wrong path, in my opinion.

Evidence so far suggests that vape causes problems in lungs. Again, this is not really a political discussion. And given my knowledge of vape, I think that everyone who vapes should increase their water intake to increase transpiration in the alveoli.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/19/2020 at 11:27 PM, mikewof said:

If you're using that result to suggest that vaping is in fact harmless, then you are on the wrong path, in my opinion.

Evidence so far suggests that vape causes problems in lungs.

I haven't ever suggested that harm reduction = harm elimination, so you're wrong about the nature of the path.

Evidence so far suggests that black markets are dangerous. Again.
 

Quote

 

A new study of vaping-related lung injuries in California reinforces the evidence implicating black-market cannabis products, even in states that have legalized the production and distribution of marijuana for recreational use. In a sample of 160 patients, just 9 percent reported vaping only nicotine—a claim that is doubtful in the absence of blood or urine testing. Just 1 percent of the patients who reported vaping THC identified a state-licensed retailer as the source of the products they used.

In this study, which was published last Friday in JAMA Internal Medicine, 75 percent of the admitted THC vapers said they obtained the products from informal sources. Among the 25 percent who initially said they had bought vapes from legal sources, just one patient named a licensed retailer. The rest either could not name their sources or said they bought cannabis products from pop-up shops, other individuals, or from a storefront that was not listed in the Bureau of Cannabis Control's database of licensees.

Although licensed retailers have been selling marijuana to recreational consumers in California since the beginning of 2018, illegal dealers still account for about three-quarters of sales, largely because high taxes, burdensome regulations, licensing delays, and local bans have made it difficult for legal merchants to compete with the black market. This study suggests that the black market also accounts for nearly all of the products used by people with vaping-related lung illnesses.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I haven't ever suggested that harm reduction = harm elimination, so you're wrong about the nature of the path.

Evidence so far suggests that black markets are dangerous. Again.
 

 

Black markets are easy targets because they don't fight back, and the regular market wants them gone.

But the fundamental danger of that kind of vapor is with black market and regular market, because both have essentially the same delivery mechanism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

But the fundamental danger of that kind of vapor is with black market and regular market, because both have essentially the same delivery mechanism.

Odd that this danger manifests itself in actual patients so much more in users of black market products, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
4 hours ago, LeoO. said:

I know that vaping isn't a good habit, but I don't think it's a good idea to ban vaping. I am sure people won't quit vaping.

We shouldn't ban it, but we should have better communication to the consumers that it likely is not at all safer than smoke, and may be worse.

It has a convenient format, some people will always prefer it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 6:57 PM, Steganographic Tom said:

Odd that this danger manifests itself in actual patients so much more in users of black market products, isn't it?

You don't know that.

Some of the black market products have a clear flaw, the vitamin cut they use changes properties at high temperatures.

But even high quality vapes without cheap cutting agents may have the two fundamental flaws of vapes; the damage to natural antimicrobial surfaces in the lungs, and the low surface tension that damages alveolar surfaces.

That you don't see those as a danger may just be that there haven't been enough people using them long enough yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever asked anyone who formerly smoked and now vapes

if they found any health differences between the two times

cause i can answer you

and your whole premise is wrong

sorry you can read that again

wrong

the differences between when i smoked and when i vape is considerable at minimum

range before puffing during running exercises .. increased markedly

time and amount  of breath hold

same

any number of other day to day activities seem easier and better

you are right on minor points

is it good for you ...  that answer is a no

is it even in the same ballpark in comparison to the negative effects of smoking .. that's also a no

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 8:20 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Should we ban vaping, why or why not?

Because death is awful, costly ... did I say it was deadly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

have you ever asked anyone who formerly smoked and now vapes

if they found any health differences between the two times

cause i can answer you

and your whole premise is wrong

sorry you can read that again

wrong

the differences between when i smoked and when i vape is considerable at minimum

range before puffing during running exercises .. increased markedly

time and amount  of breath hold

same

any number of other day to day activities seem easier and better

you are right on minor points

is it good for you ...  that answer is a no

is it even in the same ballpark in comparison to the negative effects of smoking .. that's also a no

 

Thanks, that's an interesting answer.

As a former smoker who has never vaped, but been around it a lot, I find your answer puzzling and counter-intuitive. The smoke seems a LOT more dense. I wonder if the people I know do it the same way, or with the same product, that you do.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

my normal use equipment would be the same as theirs .. or better / capable of higher wattage's ( with very few exceptions as most of my vapes are capable of 200watts + )


i normally vape at very low wattage ( `20 watts )  ,, the big cloud producers have the same equipment but turn it up higher, hence get thicker and larger clouds

 

the amount isn't as important as the composition

a cloud of green leaf smoke v a thin almost invisible cloud of chlorine gas .. as a stupid but acceptable comparison

 

According to the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals.  Out of these substances, approximately 70 are considered carcinogenic, including cyanide, benzyne and ammonia.  Nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide are two poisonous gases that are also in traditional cigarette smoke, as well as tar.

 

normal vape 'smoke'  consists of VG PG and steam .. with a trace of nicotine and flavour oils

it also disappears a lot faster than cig smoke

and doesn't yellow the ceiling and walls

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phill_nz said:

have you ever asked anyone who formerly smoked and now vapes

if they found any health differences between the two times

cause i can answer you

and your whole premise is wrong

sorry you can read that again

wrong

the differences between when i smoked and when i vape is considerable at minimum

range before puffing during running exercises .. increased markedly

time and amount  of breath hold

same

any number of other day to day activities seem easier and better

you are right on minor points

is it good for you ...  that answer is a no

is it even in the same ballpark in comparison to the negative effects of smoking .. that's also a no

It impacts different people in different ways.

Someone who smoked for 25 years and then switches to vape is in no real position to judge the relative impact of vape until he or she then vapes for 25 years. Vape is easier on you than smoke? Okay, it might stay that way for the rest of your life, or it might not. To your question, I know younger people who started on vape, and then switched to smoke and found that they could breathe easier.

There were pack-a-day smokers back when I was a kid who are still alive. The only thing we know for certain is that the healthiest is to neither smoke nor vape. But to the rest, it's up to the patient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

my normal use equipment would be the same as theirs .. or better / capable of higher wattage's ( with very few exceptions as most of my vapes are capable of 200watts + )


i normally vape at very low wattage ( `20 watts )  ,, the big cloud producers have the same equipment but turn it up higher, hence get thicker and larger clouds

 

the amount isn't as important as the composition

a cloud of green leaf smoke v a thin almost invisible cloud of chlorine gas .. as a stupid but acceptable comparison

 

According to the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals.  Out of these substances, approximately 70 are considered carcinogenic, including cyanide, benzyne and ammonia.  Nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide are two poisonous gases that are also in traditional cigarette smoke, as well as tar.

 

normal vape 'smoke'  consists of VG PG and steam .. with a trace of nicotine and flavour oils

it also disappears a lot faster than cig smoke

and doesn't yellow the ceiling and walls

 

Yup to the first, but to the second, you have no idea how long it takes to "disappear" in the lungs.

And to the first, propylene glycol and glycerine used in vapes are food grade and safe to ingest. But your lungs are not a digestive organ, they're an air-interchange organ. And how propylene glycol deposition impacts those alveoli is something that researchers have barely had a chance to study. They also don't know about the interface of the deposition as the water transpires from the lungs.

And yes, it doesn't yellow the ceilings and walls like smoke, because Propylene glycol is mostly colorless and odorless when vaporized. It's like saying that beets stain the tongue red and grain alcohol does not, therefore grain alcohol is safer.

If vape works for you, enjoy it, but please don't assume that any of us know a whole lot about its long-term impacts. We don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Thanks, that's an interesting answer.

As a former smoker who has never vaped, but been around it a lot, I find your answer puzzling and counter-intuitive. The smoke seems a LOT more dense. I wonder if the people I know do it the same way, or with the same product, that you do.

- DSK

There is no smoke in vape. It's a colloid made of water, air, propylene glycol, glycerine and some other trace ingredients.

And unlike smoke, it feels very soothing on the lungs, it's cool, and it's full of moisture, like breathing in the steam from one of those cool mist humidifiers. But just because it feels great doesn't mean our alveoli feel great when they're deposited with molecular layers of the stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you are saying is

 

i dont know the difference in my breathing and general health

because i have only vaped for <4 years and not 20

 

it doesn't take than long to notice the differences

is it bad for you ... yes

is it anywhere near as bad as cig smoking  ... no

 

please don't try to make out like it is or might be

or that no one knows what it does long term  .. but you are an expert

just for interest there is a chat site for vapers .... e-cig .. some have been vaping for around 15 years

are you going to move the 20 year goalpost in 5 years

 

ps as a side note .. i worked in chem R&D labs most of my life ... i couldn't keep myself from constantly analyzing the effects that vaping ( and indeed things in general ) have on me

 

consider ...  your  passionate arguing may lead some to stay smoking and prematurely end their lives because of it ..

vaping is not worse than smoking

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

You don't know that.

Some of the black market products have a clear flaw, the vitamin cut they use changes properties at high temperatures.

But even high quality vapes without cheap cutting agents may have the two fundamental flaws of vapes; the damage to natural antimicrobial surfaces in the lungs, and the low surface tension that damages alveolar surfaces.

That you don't see those as a danger may just be that there haven't been enough people using them long enough yet.

How long do you think vape products have been around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phill_nz said:

...   ...

it also disappears a lot faster than cig smoke

and doesn't yellow the ceiling and walls

 

Not wanting to argue, but you may be fooling yourself. I have been in the cars and homes of friends who vape.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

How long do you think vape products have been around?

As a consumer item, about twenty years or so since the FDA e-cigarette decision . As a popular consumer item with millions of devoted millennials, about five to ten or so, Juul changed the game on that. As a technology, I guess about fifty..I remember microns nicotine ultrasonic nebulizer from a long time ago. But it didn't use glycol, it used a spinning disc.

Of course, anyone who ever had their car radiator boil into a cloud of steam had seen the basic principle but with ethylene glycol and water rather than propylene glycol and water.

Am i close?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not wanting to argue, but you may be fooling yourself. I have been in the cars and homes of friends who vape.

- DSK

 

It leaves a sticky residue, but it's not a sooty residiue like smoke. A fresh coat of paint seems to hate both of them.

 

10 hours ago, phill_nz said:

what you are saying is

 

i dont know the difference in my breathing and general health

because i have only vaped for <4 years and not 20

 

it doesn't take than long to notice the differences

is it bad for you ... yes

is it anywhere near as bad as cig smoking  ... no

 

please don't try to make out like it is or might be

or that no one knows what it does long term  .. but you are an expert

just for interest there is a chat site for vapers .... e-cig .. some have been vaping for around 15 years

are you going to move the 20 year goalpost in 5 years

 

ps as a side note .. i worked in chem R&D labs most of my life ... i couldn't keep myself from constantly analyzing the effects that vaping ( and indeed things in general ) have on me

 

consider ...  your  passionate arguing may lead some to stay smoking and prematurely end their lives because of it ..

vaping is not worse than smoking

It's definitely newer than smoke, and some people tolerate it really well, others don't. You obviously tolerate it well.

But also remember ... you're a former smoker. Millions of these new users have never smoked in their lives. That could be a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaping/ smoking? Potato/ Potahto. You are choosing to be an addict for life and probably encouraging your family to do the same regardless of potential health and life quality risks. And for what benefit? Not even a good buzz. Just satisfying your jones.

 

Smart choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Massachusetts Regulators Knowingly Drive Vapers to the Black Market
 

Quote

 

It's not often that a government agency admits that its mission is doomed, but that's what the Massachusetts Department of Revenue's Illegal Tobacco Task Force is doing with regard to the state's new ban on flavored tobacco products. As a consequence of severely restricting flavored vaping products, flavored smokeless tobacco, and menthol cigarettes, "the Task Force expects there will be an increase in smuggling activity and black market sales," it admits in its latest report.

...

Even before the new law, which went into effect on June 1, Massachusetts officials had done their best to make sure the state was a lucrative market for black market suppliers of regular smokes, as well as menthol cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and vaping products collectively known to regulators as "other tobacco products" (OTP).

"The Commonwealth's high tax rates on OTP relative to other states provide smugglers a strong incentive to import such products from other low-tax states and sell them to in-state buyers willing to illegally evade payment of the applicable Massachusetts tobacco excise," the Illegal Tobacco Task Force's February report conceded.

...

In fact, as of 2017, 21.52 percent of all of the cigarettes consumed in Massachusetts had been smuggled to evade taxes and restrictions, according to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. That gives us an idea of the size of the illegal market for other tobacco products. State officials have a good handle on the likely results of restrictions, too.

...

Massachusetts officials openly admit that the higher taxes and near-ban on flavored tobacco products will result in "an increase in smuggling activity and black market sales." There's no pretense here that the restrictive new laws will succeed where every preceding prohibition, tax, and restriction in history has failed to deter people from buying and selling goods that government types don't want them to have.

 

Well, that's not quite true. "The Task Force is considering the need for increased enforcement efforts concerning flavored smokeless tobacco," the February report says because, apparently, nobody ever before thought of prohibiting harder.

...

 

Over 20% of their market was already illegal in 2017? That's an astonishingly high failure rate.

The need for increased enforcement efforts has been apparent in the stupid drug war for decades. The failures have been too. Doubling down with things like "stop and frisk" and mandatory minimum sentences has gone so poorly that even former advocates have slowly begun to see the light.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an article that seems to be saying that Nicotine may help treat CV19.

I sincerely hope it's unfounded.

Are these people loonies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Evidence-Based_Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/nicotine-replacement-therapy/

There is mixed evidence on the role of smoking in COVID-19 infection and associated outcomes. Whereas the expectation is that smoking would predispose to worse outcomes from COVID-19, as is the case in other acute respiratory infections, some (but not all) studies of COVID-19 have detected fewer people who smoke than would be expected in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. It is unclear whether this is due to biases, confounding, misreporting, or a potential protective effect of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes. Irrespective of COVID-19, smoking is uniquely deadly. However, nicotine, the addictive component of cigarettes, can be safe when used in other forms, and there is some biological plausibility regarding a possible role of nicotine in COVID-19 infection. Below we briefly review evidence to date on the role of nicotine in COVID-19. This is important to people who smoke, but it could also be of general relevance, as some have hypothesised nicotine may be a potential treatment for COVID-19.

 

Commentaries regarding nicotine and COVID-19 all agree nicotine potentially has a role to play based on its role in the renin-angiotensin system. In particular, nicotine can impact the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2, which is relevant because coronaviruses bind to ACE2. However, some authors interpret this as suggesting nicotine is likely to be harmful in the context of COVID-19, and others suggest the opposite.

It is extremely difficult to synthesise evidence on nicotine and COVID-19 as much of the literature is inconsistent. Below we highlight pathways/hypothetical mechanisms through which at least one paper has speculated nicotine might impact SARS-Cov-2:

France has had to place restrictions on sales of nicotine replacement therapy because of fears it may start to be stockpiled for inappropriate use relating to COVID-19. Studies are underway testing nicotine replacement therapy in COVID-19 patients, and until results are available from those, there is no evidence to support the general public’s use of nicotine replacement therapy for COVID-19 infection. Nicotine replacement therapy is a mainstay of smoking cessation treatment and is safe and effective in this capacity. 

CONCLUSIONS

  • There are biologically plausible pathways through which nicotine may impact SARS-CoV-2, but the clinical significance of these is entirely unclear
  • Early studies are underway regarding the role of nicotine replacement therapy as a therapeutic aid for COVID-19
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I just read an article that seems to be saying that Nicotine may help treat CV19.

I sincerely hope it's unfounded.

Are these people loonies?

Well it's looking like lungs are not the only target of COVID-19.

So smoking might not affect chances of survival necessarily.  Nicotine dilates blood vessels, so given that the linings of blood vessels are affected and clotting results, unfortunately it is plausible that nicotine could have some impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I just read an article that seems to be saying that Nicotine may help treat CV19.

I sincerely hope it's unfounded.

Are these people loonies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Evidence-Based_Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/nicotine-replacement-therapy/

There is mixed evidence on the role of smoking in COVID-19 infection and associated outcomes. .....

 

 

It's unfounded.

North Carolina has a LOT of tobacco money, I know a bunch of people who did "research" at the state universities trying find some medical benefit of smoking or some way to prove it doesn't cause cancer. This looks like more of the same. If they HAD any actual evidence, they'd present it, instead of saying "it's plausible" and "Early studies are underway."

It's plausible that if I wish really really hard, and blink my eyes three times, I'll get a free flying sparkle pony.There is mixed evidence to support this, and studies are underway.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 4:38 AM, Steam Flyer said:

 

It's unfounded.

North Carolina has a LOT of tobacco money, I know a bunch of people who did "research" at the state universities trying find some medical benefit of smoking or some way to prove it doesn't cause cancer. This looks like more of the same. If they HAD any actual evidence, they'd present it, instead of saying "it's plausible" and "Early studies are underway."

It's plausible that if I wish really really hard, and blink my eyes three times, I'll get a free flying sparkle pony.There is mixed evidence to support this, and studies are underway.

- DSK

Tobacco contains nicotine but all research related to nicotine is not funded by tobacco money, nor is it all "garbage science".  Much isn't.

Search for "nAChR" which stands for "nicotinic acetylcholine receptor".

  Acetycholine is an important and ubiquitous neurotransmitter molecule,  Acetylcholine receptors occur in several variants and are a fundamental part of nerve function. Nicotine mimics acetylcholine in one family of receptors, hence the name. ( Muscarine, present in the Amanita mushroom has a similar effect upon the similarly named muscarinic acetylcholine receptors). Other naturally occurring substances besides nicotine can affect these nAChRs, notably the toxins of some frogs, as well as the venom of some snakes. The preparation of plant-derived substances known as curare inhibits the action of peripheral nervous system  nAchRs present in the neuromuscular junction leading to paralysis. Some types of nAChR are known to contribute to regulation of immune response, which suggests  relevance to covid therapy.

"The nAChRs and 5-HT3 receptors are expressed throughout the central nervous system (CNS)[5, 6] and peripheral nervous system (PNS)[7] and mediate a variety of physiological functions. The nAChRs are potential therapeutic targets for multiple central nervous system disorders such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson’s disease and nicotine addiction[8-11]" ....As such, both nAChRs and 5-HT3Rs have been the targets of drug discovery efforts for many years. Some of these efforts have gone beyond clinical evaluation and led to marketed drugs[16]"  (https://www.nature.com/articles/aps201566.pdf?origin=ppub)

"‘Cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway’ response plays a role in the immune response and inflammatory cascade. The non-neuronal cholinergic system affects also immune cell proliferation, T helper differentiation, antigen presentation and cytokine production. The α-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7-nAChR), a part of the non-neuronal cholinergic system, plays a specific role in the immune response. It is localized in various immune cells, i.e. macrophages, dendritic cells, T and B lymphocytes, mast cells, or basophils [14, 1921]." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655390/)

The search for molecules that "act like nicotine without the bad effects", or are specific to one of the many subtypes in the nAChR family is serious and ongoing, as is the effort to better understand the role of nAChRs in normal and pathological conditions.  It is a quite complex topic.  Proposals to administer nicotine to patients are an admission that the area is not well understood, and highlight the degree of desperation to find a treatment.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PHIRKIN said:

Tobacco contains nicotine but all research related to nicotine is not funded by tobacco money, nor is it all "garbage science".  Much isn't.

Search for "nAChR" which stands for "nicotinic acetylcholine receptor".

  Acetycholine is an important and ubiquitous neurotransmitter molecule,  Acetylcholine receptors occur in several variants and are a fundamental part of nerve function. Nicotine mimics acetylcholine in one family of receptors, hence the name. ( Muscarine, present in the Amanita mushroom has a similar effect upon the similarly named muscarinic acetylcholine receptors). Other naturally occurring substances besides nicotine can affect these nAChRs, notably the toxins of some frogs, as well as the venom of some snakes. The preparation of plant-derived substances known as curare inhibits the action of peripheral nervous system  nAchRs present in the neuromuscular junction leading to paralysis. Some types of nAChR are known to contribute to regulation of immune response, which suggests  relevance to covid therapy.

"The nAChRs and 5-HT3 receptors are expressed throughout the central nervous system (CNS)[5, 6] and peripheral nervous system (PNS)[7] and mediate a variety of physiological functions. The nAChRs are potential therapeutic targets for multiple central nervous system disorders such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson’s disease and nicotine addiction[8-11]" ....As such, both nAChRs and 5-HT3Rs have been the targets of drug discovery efforts for many years. Some of these efforts have gone beyond clinical evaluation and led to marketed drugs[16]"  (https://www.nature.com/articles/aps201566.pdf?origin=ppub)

"‘Cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway’ response plays a role in the immune response and inflammatory cascade. The non-neuronal cholinergic system affects also immune cell proliferation, T helper differentiation, antigen presentation and cytokine production. The α-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7-nAChR), a part of the non-neuronal cholinergic system, plays a specific role in the immune response. It is localized in various immune cells, i.e. macrophages, dendritic cells, T and B lymphocytes, mast cells, or basophils [14, 1921]." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655390/)

The search for molecules that "act like nicotine without the bad effects", or are specific to one of the many subtypes in the nAChR family is serious and ongoing, as is the effort to better understand the role of nAChRs in normal and pathological conditions.  It is a quite complex topic.  Proposals to administer nicotine to patients are an admission that the area is not well understood, and highlight the degree of desperation to find a treatment.

 

 

Good stuff, thanks for the further info... I should not have implied that the whole field was garbage science, and I apologize for that

Given the the observed effects of clotting and increased heart attack & stroke with CoviD-19 infection, using nicotine does seem like a risky treatment!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites