6 ms·

I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. When you say something to them they invariably try

by 300bps 13y ago

I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different. The problem is that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be safe. From the article: Most public health officials seem to agree that the levels of toxins in e-cigarettes are far lower than those in traditional cigarettes. But they also say that far too little is known, not just about potentially harmful aspects of particular brands of e-cigarettes, but also about whether there is harm from “secondhand vapor.” Dr. Glantz of U.C.S.F. says that in the absence of data, indoor smoking bans should also cover e-cigarettes. The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/aboutthecenterfortobaccoproducts/ucm361437.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeo... I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?

anextio 13y ago
> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes. > The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring. Adverse effects generally come from an allergic reaction to PG, which is uncommon but well known. Those who are allergic are advised to use 100% VG mixtures. Aside from that, PG is well known to be safe for human consumption as regulated by the FDA. It is an ingredient in inhalers for asthma and is used in smoke machines. It can cause a humidicant effect on the throat, which leaves it dry, but drinking liquids easily avoids this problem. No one is arguing that e-cigarette companies should not be regulated to make sure that the juice they produce is of a high quality, but arguments to regulate them heavily (or like regular cigarettes) is based mostly on FUD. > Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it? Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy. That's not something that's ever going to go away. While long term data on e-cigarettes is not yet available, most experts agree that even in the worst-case scenario, they are nowhere near as bad for you as regular cigarettes. The FUD that exists in the debate can mostly be traced back to groups that have a temperance movement-esque attitude toward nicotine habits. Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also. E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to get themselves off the dangers of regular cigarettes. That in itself is a public health miracle. The rates of cessation for cigarettes through traditional methods are frighteningly low, yet with the introduction of e-cigarettes, many people (including myself) will never touch a regular cigarette again after the first day. I have a more advanced device than the ones you pick up at a gas station. It has variable wattage, variable voltage, an ohm-meter, a puff counter, and I can charge my iPhone from it via USB. As well as getting me off tobacco, it's also given me something else to geek out over, and I really enjoy it and the community around it. Access to these devices must be made available widely and without encumbrance to as many people as possible. Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, not discouragement of purchase.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring. There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions. > Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, Yes.
  - anextio 13y ago
    > There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions. Then we're in agreement. I don't know of anyone (besides the usual anarcho-capitalists) who thinks that low quality ingredients should be used in any consumed product.
- 300bps 13y ago
  Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit. To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will: 1. Make you less healthy while you are alive 2. Will prematurely end your life 3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population 4. Will cost you a ridiculous amount of money 5. Will cost you a tremendous amount of time while you seek out cigarettes and smoke them ... there are many more negatives. What possible positives are there that outweigh these negatives? Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also. This is just so incredibly ridiculous. I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life. I've gone "cold turkey" several times and the only effect was a slight headache that was off and on for a week. I think it's actually pretty easy to quit caffeine but from what I hear, it's nearly impossible to quit smoking cigarettes. And if the effects of caffeine are similar to the effects of nicotine why not just use caffeine? It seems to have few of the negatives and all the positives (including the social impact of smoking which can be transferred to the social impact of getting coffee). I just don't get smoking at all. I don't see any benefits to it in a vein similar to I don't see a benefit of smacking myself in the head with a hammer. It's hard to explain away such things with, "Yeah, people aren't rational" because you don't see many people smacking themselves in the head with a hammer.
samatman 13y ago
You have the scientific method backwards. Things are not shown to be safe, ever. They are shown to be dangerous. For example, cannabis smoke. It has been shown to cause emphysema. Despite rather large and lengthy population studies, it has not been shown to cause lung cancer. That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that. E-liquid is hugely variable in quality because there's no regulation. While I happen to think quality e-liquid will be safe for say 98% of the population to inhale, and the rest will be just as easily sent into shock by, say, perfume (this allergy is quite common), it is only detailed study which can actually answer this question.
- anon1385 13y ago
  >That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that. http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.
  - samatman 13y ago
    What you are showing here is that we've moved on to the meta-analysis part of the scientific method. Basically, given many studies, featuring an unknown number of bad actors and poor methodologies, what conclusion can we draw from the numbers? There are 400 people enrolled in that study. British health services have conducted multiple longitudinal studies, on Jamaican, British and Indian populations, over more than 100 years, with larger sample sets. Different conclusions were drawn. Note: what I wrote is not a meta-analysis either. I don't have one in my back pocket. If you find one let's talk.
throwaway0094 13y ago
> The problem is that [we know nothing about the safety or lack thereof of] e-cigarettes > Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it? We don't know anything about it [e-cigarrettes]. There is no literature that suggests that nicotine alone causes cancer, and no research at all on the safety of the devices themselves. Should we do more research as they gain popular adoption? Definitely.
ahallock 13y ago
> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. Ad hominem. Plus, just because something resembles smoking does not mean you should conflate the two, "poisoning the well." > When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different Condescending and derisive. > The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty Finally we get to some actual evidence. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias. Did you find any opposing data?
- 300bps 13y ago
  Ad hominem Criticizing someone's behavior is not an ad-hominem. You really don't seem to know what ad-hominem means at all. This should help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem Condescending and derisive. Ironically, it is condescending and derisive that they are trying to educate me about e-cigarettes. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias Did you just read a Wikipedia article on logical fallacies and are trying to fit as many "big words" into your HN comments as you can?
  - ahelwer 13y ago
    I think you misunderstood his intentions. You see, fallacies are like Harry Potter spells except their Latin names produce crushing arguments instead of magical effects. You are now engaged in a duel and must respond with your own invocations. This is how debates are conducted.
nickdoesdesign 13y ago
Wow, looking through your citation, almost all of the reports are because the user had a lung condition prior, or an allergy to glycol. This is merely confirmation bias in a report, at best. This is why they SHOULD be regulated, so the adequate warnings can be expressed and the low quality one thrown out of the market, but it does not show that ALL should just be removed. We already see that your experience has shaped your worldview, but dont impose that on others.

by 300bps 13y ago

anextio 13y ago

> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes. > The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring. Adverse effects generally come from an allergic reaction to PG, which is uncommon but well known. Those who are allergic are advised to use 100% VG mixtures. Aside from that, PG is well known to be safe for human consumption as regulated by the FDA. It is an ingredient in inhalers for asthma and is used in smoke machines. It can cause a humidicant effect on the throat, which leaves it dry, but drinking liquids easily avoids this problem. No one is arguing that e-cigarette companies should not be regulated to make sure that the juice they produce is of a high quality, but arguments to regulate them heavily (or like regular cigarettes) is based mostly on FUD. > Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it? Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy. That's not something that's ever going to go away. While long term data on e-cigarettes is not yet available, most experts agree that even in the worst-case scenario, they are nowhere near as bad for you as regular cigarettes. The FUD that exists in the debate can mostly be traced back to groups that have a temperance movement-esque attitude toward nicotine habits. Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also. E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to get themselves off the dangers of regular cigarettes. That in itself is a public health miracle. The rates of cessation for cigarettes through traditional methods are frighteningly low, yet with the introduction of e-cigarettes, many people (including myself) will never touch a regular cigarette again after the first day. I have a more advanced device than the ones you pick up at a gas station. It has variable wattage, variable voltage, an ohm-meter, a puff counter, and I can charge my iPhone from it via USB. As well as getting me off tobacco, it's also given me something else to geek out over, and I really enjoy it and the community around it. Access to these devices must be made available widely and without encumbrance to as many people as possible. Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, not discouragement of purchase.

DanBC 13y ago
> There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring. There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions. > Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, Yes.
- anextio 13y ago
  > There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions. Then we're in agreement. I don't know of anyone (besides the usual anarcho-capitalists) who thinks that low quality ingredients should be used in any consumed product.
300bps 13y ago
Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit. To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will: 1. Make you less healthy while you are alive 2. Will prematurely end your life 3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population 4. Will cost you a ridiculous amount of money 5. Will cost you a tremendous amount of time while you seek out cigarettes and smoke them ... there are many more negatives. What possible positives are there that outweigh these negatives? Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also. This is just so incredibly ridiculous. I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life. I've gone "cold turkey" several times and the only effect was a slight headache that was off and on for a week. I think it's actually pretty easy to quit caffeine but from what I hear, it's nearly impossible to quit smoking cigarettes. And if the effects of caffeine are similar to the effects of nicotine why not just use caffeine? It seems to have few of the negatives and all the positives (including the social impact of smoking which can be transferred to the social impact of getting coffee). I just don't get smoking at all. I don't see any benefits to it in a vein similar to I don't see a benefit of smacking myself in the head with a hammer. It's hard to explain away such things with, "Yeah, people aren't rational" because you don't see many people smacking themselves in the head with a hammer.

samatman 13y ago

You have the scientific method backwards. Things are not shown to be safe, ever. They are shown to be dangerous. For example, cannabis smoke. It has been shown to cause emphysema. Despite rather large and lengthy population studies, it has not been shown to cause lung cancer. That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that. E-liquid is hugely variable in quality because there's no regulation. While I happen to think quality e-liquid will be safe for say 98% of the population to inhale, and the rest will be just as easily sent into shock by, say, perfume (this allergy is quite common), it is only detailed study which can actually answer this question.

anon1385 13y ago
>That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that. http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.
- samatman 13y ago
  What you are showing here is that we've moved on to the meta-analysis part of the scientific method. Basically, given many studies, featuring an unknown number of bad actors and poor methodologies, what conclusion can we draw from the numbers? There are 400 people enrolled in that study. British health services have conducted multiple longitudinal studies, on Jamaican, British and Indian populations, over more than 100 years, with larger sample sets. Different conclusions were drawn. Note: what I wrote is not a meta-analysis either. I don't have one in my back pocket. If you find one let's talk.

throwaway0094 13y ago

> The problem is that [we know nothing about the safety or lack thereof of] e-cigarettes > Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it? We don't know anything about it [e-cigarrettes]. There is no literature that suggests that nicotine alone causes cancer, and no research at all on the safety of the devices themselves. Should we do more research as they gain popular adoption? Definitely.

ahallock 13y ago

> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. Ad hominem. Plus, just because something resembles smoking does not mean you should conflate the two, "poisoning the well." > When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different Condescending and derisive. > The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty Finally we get to some actual evidence. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias. Did you find any opposing data?

300bps 13y ago
Ad hominem Criticizing someone's behavior is not an ad-hominem. You really don't seem to know what ad-hominem means at all. This should help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem Condescending and derisive. Ironically, it is condescending and derisive that they are trying to educate me about e-cigarettes. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias Did you just read a Wikipedia article on logical fallacies and are trying to fit as many "big words" into your HN comments as you can?
- ahelwer 13y ago
  I think you misunderstood his intentions. You see, fallacies are like Harry Potter spells except their Latin names produce crushing arguments instead of magical effects. You are now engaged in a duel and must respond with your own invocations. This is how debates are conducted.

nickdoesdesign 13y ago

Wow, looking through your citation, almost all of the reports are because the user had a lung condition prior, or an allergy to glycol. This is merely confirmation bias in a report, at best. This is why they SHOULD be regulated, so the adequate warnings can be expressed and the low quality one thrown out of the market, but it does not show that ALL should just be removed. We already see that your experience has shaped your worldview, but dont impose that on others.