4 ms·

Not all opposition is collusion. In their fight against e-cigs, big tobacco has an unexpected (and unwitting) ally: anti smoking activists. Less unhealthy would

by usrusr 10y ago

Not all opposition is collusion. In their fight against e-cigs, big tobacco has an unexpected (and unwitting) ally: anti smoking activists. Less unhealthy would not be healthy enough for them and even if it was, it would literally threaten their cause. When an idea starts leaning towards ideology, anything that would deprive the idea of its base will be met with strong skepticism.

Freak_NL 10y ago
I don't think anti-smoking groups feel threatened in their existence by e-cigarettes. They actually seem to see them as a useful intermediate step for those who seek to stop smoking. The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. Secondly, there are concerns about the perceived harmlessness of the vapour exhaled. While certainly not as bad as second-hand smoke, the exhaled vapours are not free of unhealthy (even carcinogenic) substances, the effects of which are not fully known. In many parts of the world smoking is no longer accepted inside public buildings and the work place; a huge victory for public health! Quite rightly there is some fear that e-cigarettes are encroaching upon that domain.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. Reminds me of an event in Norway. There anything above 4.5% beer is only sold via vinmonopolet. Note that it says beer, and thus things like cider was vinmonopolet only. Except that after entering the EEA, various foreign breweries pressed for having anything 4.5% strength sold alongside beer. The response from the teetotalers was that those "tastier" options would attract kids to drinking. None of that happened. For the first year or so after ciders and such were allowed alongside beer, there was a small uptick in sales. But then it went back to the very same numbers as the years before. the most likely explanation is that adults picked up a couple of bottles to check it out, and that was it. No sudden epidemic of drunk kids in gutters ever materialized.
- mrfusion 10y ago
  That's always bothered me. Why can't they just leave unhealthy stuff out of the liquid? All you really need is water and nicotine right? (I have the same question about fracking too.)
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    Not water but it's essentially nicotine suspended in two types of glycerine (think: fog machines and inhalers). Additionally, most include some type of flavoring agents and I think this is where much of the questions come up. The "mainstream" of ecig liquid makers (and certainly all the DIY folks) have been at the forefront of testing these things for what they produce when heated, atomized, and inhaled. For the most part, all currently accepted flavoring agents produce negligible levels of anything carcinogenic or otherwise toxic as far as I've been able to find. The traces of potentially harmful compounds that do exist are at levels that are a small fraction of what's found in any combustible cigarette so for ex-smokers, it's the equivalent of getting the active drug (nicotine) while removing 99%+ of the harmful byproducts of smoking as a delivery method. The way I understand things, it's largely the combustion of tobacco and the tars and particulates deposited in your lungs that cause the health detriments associated with smoking. Without that stuff, your health issues are largely limited to your addiction to a mild stimulant drug.
    - jerkstate 10y ago
      From personal experience, I switched from smoking to vaping for a period of about 2 years, then quit vaping altogether. My cardiovascular health improved when I switched to vaping, but it really improved by what I felt was a much larger margin when I quit vaping. I'm not sure what to put it down to, but among other things, I believe that your lungs have to do extra work to clear out the PG/VG/flavorings, the nicotine contributes to arteriosclerosis, as well as the stimulant effects you mentioned. I get winded less easily and recover more quickly from being winded after quitting vaping. Towards the end of my vaping - the last couple of months - I was only vaping nicotine and PG, no flavorings, so I believe that the nicotine itself does have significant negative effects on your fitness. The really nice thing about vaping for cessation is that it allows you to drastically lower your nicotine intake without changing your physical addiction-sating behavior (i.e. you can still chain-vape for hours on end). My method was, a week before my quit date, I started stepping down my mix bottle by half (it was a 30ml bottle, so when it would get about halfway down, I would refill it with PG and no nicotine). I did this 3 or 4 times over the course of the week (I had a powerful mod and nice TC coil/tank so I went through a lot of juice) and when I hit my quit date, I threw everything away. I was surprised that I did not suffer significant physical withdrawal effects (I have quit smoking cigs a couple times before and there's always a lot of anxiety, restlessness, and discomfort for the first couple of days). So if you're a vaper and interested in quitting, I strongly recommend this step-down method.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. But why would they care if people take it up, if it's not particularly harmful? > While certainly not as bad as second-hand smoke … Since so-called 'second-hand smoke' is essentially harmless (it's less bad than wood smoke!), that means that they are safe enough. 'Second-hand smoke' is junk science propagated purely to advance bigotry. > In many parts of the world smoking is no longer accepted inside public buildings and the work place; a huge victory for public health! And, of course, a huge loss for freedom. It's no-one's business but mine if I choose to permit smoking in my spaces: the public are free to avoid them.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    > But why would they care if people take it up, if it's not particularly harmful? They don't care if adults do so; they do care about teenagers getting hooked, because it acts like a habit forming step up to tobacco smoking. This doesn't mean they seek to ban e-cigarettes; merely to limit its sale to adults, just like tobacco in most countries. > 'Second-hand smoke' is junk science propagated purely to advance bigotry. I'm surprised to find that sentiment on HN, even most smokers seem to agree that their smoke may harm others and are considerate about it. Ask any asthmatic over the age of 30 if they agree — we've seen the world shift from smoking everywhere to smoking only outside and in your own home. You have no idea how much of a difference that makes to us in our daily lives. > And, of course, a huge loss for freedom. Don't be silly. No one is forbidding you to smoke in your own home. Do you really want to go back to the fifties where smoking in the office, public transport, or in public buildings was commonplace? The reason smoking is banned in the workplace is simply because many workers do not have the luxury of simply quitting their job to work for an employer that doesn't allow smoking on the premises. Freedom is about the balance between one person's freedom to do something and another's not to be unduly burdened by it — unless you are an anarchist.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > I'm surprised to find that sentiment on HN, even most smokers seem to agree that their smoke may harm others and are considerate about it. The question is not whether people agree that something may be true; the question is whether it is. As it happens, it's not. > Do you really want to go back to the fifties where smoking in the office, public transport, or in public buildings was commonplace? Yes. When I was a boy I remember going to a hospital that had ashtrays next to the elevators. I remember loving it whenever we went (my parents & their friends didn't smoke, and smoking wasn't allowed in my school, so I could only smell tobacco rarely). > The reason smoking is banned in the workplace is simply because many workers do not have the luxury of simply quitting their job to work for an employer that doesn't allow smoking on the premises. That line of specious pseudo-reasoning could be used to justify just about anything, to include mandating smoking in places of employment. > Freedom is about the balance between one person's freedom to do something and another's not to be unduly burdened by it — unless you are an anarchist. No, freedom is about doing what one will, where one's will holds sway. My will should hold sway where I am the proprietor, to include my place of business.
douche 10y ago
Gwern's page on nicotine is interesting reading[1]. The upshot would appear to be that nicotine is not particularly actively bad for you, and has some useful positive effects. Inhaling burning plant matter is probably a thing to be avoided, though. [1] https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

by usrusr 10y ago

Freak_NL 10y ago

I don't think anti-smoking groups feel threatened in their existence by e-cigarettes. They actually seem to see them as a useful intermediate step for those who seek to stop smoking. The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. Secondly, there are concerns about the perceived harmlessness of the vapour exhaled. While certainly not as bad as second-hand smoke, the exhaled vapours are not free of unhealthy (even carcinogenic) substances, the effects of which are not fully known. In many parts of the world smoking is no longer accepted inside public buildings and the work place; a huge victory for public health! Quite rightly there is some fear that e-cigarettes are encroaching upon that domain.

digi_owl 10y ago
> The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. Reminds me of an event in Norway. There anything above 4.5% beer is only sold via vinmonopolet. Note that it says beer, and thus things like cider was vinmonopolet only. Except that after entering the EEA, various foreign breweries pressed for having anything 4.5% strength sold alongside beer. The response from the teetotalers was that those "tastier" options would attract kids to drinking. None of that happened. For the first year or so after ciders and such were allowed alongside beer, there was a small uptick in sales. But then it went back to the very same numbers as the years before. the most likely explanation is that adults picked up a couple of bottles to check it out, and that was it. No sudden epidemic of drunk kids in gutters ever materialized.
mrfusion 10y ago
That's always bothered me. Why can't they just leave unhealthy stuff out of the liquid? All you really need is water and nicotine right? (I have the same question about fracking too.)
- soylentcola 10y ago
  Not water but it's essentially nicotine suspended in two types of glycerine (think: fog machines and inhalers). Additionally, most include some type of flavoring agents and I think this is where much of the questions come up. The "mainstream" of ecig liquid makers (and certainly all the DIY folks) have been at the forefront of testing these things for what they produce when heated, atomized, and inhaled. For the most part, all currently accepted flavoring agents produce negligible levels of anything carcinogenic or otherwise toxic as far as I've been able to find. The traces of potentially harmful compounds that do exist are at levels that are a small fraction of what's found in any combustible cigarette so for ex-smokers, it's the equivalent of getting the active drug (nicotine) while removing 99%+ of the harmful byproducts of smoking as a delivery method. The way I understand things, it's largely the combustion of tobacco and the tars and particulates deposited in your lungs that cause the health detriments associated with smoking. Without that stuff, your health issues are largely limited to your addiction to a mild stimulant drug.
  - jerkstate 10y ago
    From personal experience, I switched from smoking to vaping for a period of about 2 years, then quit vaping altogether. My cardiovascular health improved when I switched to vaping, but it really improved by what I felt was a much larger margin when I quit vaping. I'm not sure what to put it down to, but among other things, I believe that your lungs have to do extra work to clear out the PG/VG/flavorings, the nicotine contributes to arteriosclerosis, as well as the stimulant effects you mentioned. I get winded less easily and recover more quickly from being winded after quitting vaping. Towards the end of my vaping - the last couple of months - I was only vaping nicotine and PG, no flavorings, so I believe that the nicotine itself does have significant negative effects on your fitness. The really nice thing about vaping for cessation is that it allows you to drastically lower your nicotine intake without changing your physical addiction-sating behavior (i.e. you can still chain-vape for hours on end). My method was, a week before my quit date, I started stepping down my mix bottle by half (it was a 30ml bottle, so when it would get about halfway down, I would refill it with PG and no nicotine). I did this 3 or 4 times over the course of the week (I had a powerful mod and nice TC coil/tank so I went through a lot of juice) and when I hit my quit date, I threw everything away. I was surprised that I did not suffer significant physical withdrawal effects (I have quit smoking cigs a couple times before and there's always a lot of anxiety, restlessness, and discomfort for the first couple of days). So if you're a vaper and interested in quitting, I strongly recommend this step-down method.
wtbob 10y ago
> The reason for their opposition is twofold; e-cigarettes appear to act as a gateway drug for people who don't smoke; teenagers in particular. colourful packaging, synthetic fruity flavours; the e-cigarette industry is well aware of this particular demographic. But why would they care if people take it up, if it's not particularly harmful? > While certainly not as bad as second-hand smoke … Since so-called 'second-hand smoke' is essentially harmless (it's less bad than wood smoke!), that means that they are safe enough. 'Second-hand smoke' is junk science propagated purely to advance bigotry. > In many parts of the world smoking is no longer accepted inside public buildings and the work place; a huge victory for public health! And, of course, a huge loss for freedom. It's no-one's business but mine if I choose to permit smoking in my spaces: the public are free to avoid them.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  > But why would they care if people take it up, if it's not particularly harmful? They don't care if adults do so; they do care about teenagers getting hooked, because it acts like a habit forming step up to tobacco smoking. This doesn't mean they seek to ban e-cigarettes; merely to limit its sale to adults, just like tobacco in most countries. > 'Second-hand smoke' is junk science propagated purely to advance bigotry. I'm surprised to find that sentiment on HN, even most smokers seem to agree that their smoke may harm others and are considerate about it. Ask any asthmatic over the age of 30 if they agree — we've seen the world shift from smoking everywhere to smoking only outside and in your own home. You have no idea how much of a difference that makes to us in our daily lives. > And, of course, a huge loss for freedom. Don't be silly. No one is forbidding you to smoke in your own home. Do you really want to go back to the fifties where smoking in the office, public transport, or in public buildings was commonplace? The reason smoking is banned in the workplace is simply because many workers do not have the luxury of simply quitting their job to work for an employer that doesn't allow smoking on the premises. Freedom is about the balance between one person's freedom to do something and another's not to be unduly burdened by it — unless you are an anarchist.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > I'm surprised to find that sentiment on HN, even most smokers seem to agree that their smoke may harm others and are considerate about it. The question is not whether people agree that something may be true; the question is whether it is. As it happens, it's not. > Do you really want to go back to the fifties where smoking in the office, public transport, or in public buildings was commonplace? Yes. When I was a boy I remember going to a hospital that had ashtrays next to the elevators. I remember loving it whenever we went (my parents & their friends didn't smoke, and smoking wasn't allowed in my school, so I could only smell tobacco rarely). > The reason smoking is banned in the workplace is simply because many workers do not have the luxury of simply quitting their job to work for an employer that doesn't allow smoking on the premises. That line of specious pseudo-reasoning could be used to justify just about anything, to include mandating smoking in places of employment. > Freedom is about the balance between one person's freedom to do something and another's not to be unduly burdened by it — unless you are an anarchist. No, freedom is about doing what one will, where one's will holds sway. My will should hold sway where I am the proprietor, to include my place of business.

douche 10y ago

Gwern's page on nicotine is interesting reading[1]. The upshot would appear to be that nicotine is not particularly actively bad for you, and has some useful positive effects. Inhaling burning plant matter is probably a thing to be avoided, though. [1] https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine