A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Now that really is a breath of fresh air.
E-cigarettes help save lives, says Royal College of Physicians
The Royal College of Physicians has issued a report strongly critical of “public health” scolds, such as GPs and EU officials, who want the use of e-cigarettes of restricted. These anti-vaping crusaders are costing lives, the venerable institution warns, as encouraging e-cigarettes is the most effective tobacco control …
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 13:25 GMT Lusty
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
I'm not convinced it is. Have they done a thorough long term health study on the effects of the various chemicals in the goop which goes through these things? As a non smoker who used to smoke, I'm just as worried about inhaling that crap as I am second hand smoke. What's more worrying is that most "vapers" think it's just water vapour they are breathing and when I tell them it's not they are quite often surprised.
Yes, maybe I am overreacting but no, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect someone to actually test the new version of smoking after what happened with the old version of smoking which also used to be considered safe.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 13:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
> Have they done a thorough long term health study on the effects of the various chemicals in the goop which goes through these things?
Yes, the have. It's propylene glycol plus some flavourings. All of which are "food safe" and have been around for a very long time.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 13:57 GMT Lusty
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
"All of which are "food safe" and have been around for a very long time."
Hotdogs are food safe, but breathing them in is not advisable. Eating and breathing are different things. I expect that raw tobacco leaves are safe to eat too, but setting fire to them and breathing in the smoke is apparently bad for us. Capsaicin is good to eat, but when vapourised and sprayed in your face is much less fun and actually used as a weapon. Use-case is everything...
I was asking for a long term study into the specific safety of breathing in these chemicals when they have been rapidly heated in an e-cigarette and inhaled hot.
I am not interested in a study saying that it would be safe if I crack open the device and drink the liquid within.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Lusty - Here's some light reading for you
http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:42 GMT Richard 81
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
"I expect that raw tobacco leaves are safe to eat too"
You'd be wrong. Chewing tobacco gives you mouth cancer: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/smokeless-fact-sheet Tobacco is dangerous even if it isn't burned, since it contains nitrosamines which are powerful carcinogens. Nicotine is not the most dangerous chemical in tobacco. Not by a long shot.
-
-
Monday 2nd May 2016 05:36 GMT entropyk48
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
As a boy living in Maryland (my father was in the Navy, we lived in a lot of different places), we resided on a still partially working farm where the main house was converted to a duplex for rent. The caretaker of the property still ran small, mostly subsistence crops for his family. One of these was tobacco for him self. He simply cured (aged) hanging it in a small barn, and simply tore some raw tobacco leaf off these for chewing, and possibly smoking, as he also smoked a pipe. Years later when in the Army I tried commercial chewing tobacco, as I recall it was simply tobacco leaf and sweet flavorings, mainly licorice and sugar. As a smoker for over 50 years who is partially bed-ridden (not because of smoking related), I am trying desperately to quit and have tried all the current replacement and drug cessation adjuncts to no avail. I am planning to this week try ecigs hoping that they will work, as I and my doc think that boredom of sitting around is mt biggest enemy and ecigs give me hope for a form of success, anyhow.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:57 GMT Palpy
Re: Effects of inhaling propylene glycol.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. I love eating capsaicin (in proper dilutions, ie, hot sauce) but my lungs clench up if I breathe vapors whilst dicing hot peppers.
That said, a quick Goggle on the Online reveals that at least some studies show inhaling PG to be harmless.
Journal of Pharmacology abstract
Here's the public health statement from the ATSDR:
Oddly enough, a very dated study suggests that PG may be a germicidal and inhaling the vapors may be protective against some infections. Use that information with proper mental protection in place, please.
"Propylene glycol, the primary ingredient in the electronic cigarette cartridge, may be a powerful deterrent against pneumonia, influenza, and other respiratory diseases when vaporized and inhaled according to a study by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson. Decades before the e cigarette was invented, a study was conducted by Dr. Robertson of the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital in 1942 on inhalation of vaporized propylene glycol in laboratory mice.... [Time magazine stated,] 'Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.'"
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 15:29 GMT TRT
Re: Effects of inhaling propylene glycol.
I'm less concerned about the chemical goop than the heating element itself. The most obvious choice for a heating coil is nichrome. The rapid heating and cooling of the coil will cause the surface of the coil to slough off nano-particulates of nickel and chromium. Some coils I know are made of an aluminium alloy which is just as bad. A study into the contents of the vapour - and this stuff is sucked straight into your lungs with the aim of getting as deep in there as possible - showed that these metallic nano-particles were present in the vapour, especially from cheap Chinese elements. Another study (unrelated to the e-cig one) showed that nano-particulate nickel and chromium, when inhaled, can trigger neurone death and start the cascade of cell death that leads to Alzheimer's disease. These metallic nano-particles are already present in the atmosphere as the result of car exhaust, mainly aluminium, copper, iron, zinc, manganese, magnesium, and vanadium - Nickel was found only in Marine Diesel fumes.
Anyway, the whole business of getting campaigns together to lobby legislators or convince the masses that this is safe or this is dangerous etc etc smacks to me of the whole Ad Men thing, with the smoking during pregnancy is good for you and the asbestos - wonder material! cover up and the thalidomide cover-up. Rather than anyone getting any decisive empirical evidence together, people just throw money out to try and secure more money. Damn the health of people, damn the future, money money money NOW! It will come clear in time, and certainly traditional tobacco products are an evil burden, I just say more research, please.
Of course, you could encapsulate the heating element in, say, glass.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 20:58 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Effects of inhaling propylene glycol.
this stuff is sucked straight into your lungs with the aim of getting as deep in there as possible
I do no such thing! The water particles are at least an order of magnitude larger than smoke particles and thus too big to enter the alveoli. Like many vapers, I don't inhale at all. The nicotine is absorbed via the mucosa in my mouth and sinuses.
-
Friday 29th April 2016 08:23 GMT TRT
Re: Effects of inhaling propylene glycol.
@Pompous git. The absorption is the crucial bit. It matters not where it gets in - if nano particulate (~5nM dia) nickel, aluminium or chromium gets into your body, into your cells, nucleic acids may wrap around them and if this happens in neurones, it may accelerate cell death by displacing linker histones which may disrupt mitochondrial function (neurones are very susceptible to mitochondrial failure). I'm saying may, it's all conjecture based on some studies and some as yet unpublished results from colleagues here where I work. I know down votes follow me whenever I point this out to people; I regard that as ostrich behaviour. Vaping is better than smoking, I *think*, because there is not sufficient research evidence one way or the other yet, but it is not risk free and there may be further effects - Alzheimer's is a very slow disease in general; a generational disease, and one with huge financial implications for society as it is structured today. If one wants an analogy, asbestos was hailed as a wonder substance, would save countless lives by slowing or containing a fire, looked harmless, far from it - I lost relatives due to that substance some 40 years after exposure.
So, I'm saying look carefully at the design you use - silver wire is probably better than nichrome or aluminium for elements, better still don't let the element come into contact with the vapour at all. Just to be on the safe (er) side.
-
Friday 29th April 2016 17:10 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Effects of inhaling propylene glycol.
if nano particulate (~5nM dia) nickel, aluminium or chromium gets into your body, into your cells, nucleic acids may wrap around them and if this happens in neurones, it may accelerate cell death by displacing linker histones which may disrupt mitochondrial function (neurones are very susceptible to mitochondrial failure). I'm saying may, it's all conjecture based on some studies and some as yet unpublished results from colleagues here where I work. I know down votes follow me whenever I point this out to people
Well that should please the dentists! Having made a small fortune replacing mercury fillings with nichrome, they can replace nichrome with, oh I dunno, platinum say. And presumably some study will find platinum to be potentially unsafe...
No downvotes from me BTW. I tend to prefer upvoting.
Apropos asbestos, the first report to government on its dangers I read (back in 1969) was dated to the first decade of the 20th C. I suspect that governments are more of a health risk than the many things we are supposed to be alarmed by. Sorry about your relatives dying from mesothelioma -- nasty. Quite a few of mine died in Mr Hitler's Hoilday Camps. Also not particularly relevant to effective NRT.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 21:09 GMT goldcd
The point is the difference between smoking and vaping.
Smoking burns the tobacco - what is in the cigarette is chemically altered by combustion (into a bazillion different things, plenty of which are harmful).
Vaping just heats the 'gloop' to a vapour, that then condenses in your lungs.
It's PG, VG, nicotine and flavouring.
There are some concerns though. Diacetyl gives a butter flavour and was used to microwave popcorn. Some workers in the factory exposed to it, screwed their lungs - so when it was found in some gloop there was a minor panic.
Main issue was that nobody has worked out how much is too much.
I'm all for safety guidelines - but what we're clearly seeing now is a concerted effort to ban the greatest prevention of smoking we've ever seen. Not even subtle.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:39 GMT 8Ace
propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
Well yes but what happens to them when they are vaporised along with nicotine at the very high temps used here. Food additives have only been tested for safety in a cooking/food environment.
What are the by-products for example. If it's safe fine, but let's find out by testing, not spouting "it's food stuff so it must be ok" nonsense. Vegetable oil is safe to eat and cook but at temperatures just beyond those used for normal cooking it produces aldehydes which are linked to cancer.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:52 GMT Richard 81
Re: propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
@8Ace: but we're not talking about very high temps. Unless the thing is faulty, the mixture should not be reacting in any way that might make it dangerous. To reiterate, the chemicals will have been tested for their behaviour at the temperatures used by an e-cigg.
Honestly, people's fear of these things is as silly thinking WiFi signals will give you cancer.
-
Monday 2nd May 2016 17:02 GMT Fibbles
Re: propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
I'm fine with vaping but the flavour additives definitely need to be regulated.
There were stories last year of e-cig liquids containing Diacetyl. It's an artificial flavouring added to 'butter' popcorn and is safe to eat. Inhaling it however will seriously mess up your lungs.
-
Monday 2nd May 2016 22:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
« There were stories last year of e-cig liquids containing Diacetyl. It's an artificial flavouring added to 'butter' popcorn and is safe to eat. Inhaling it however will seriously mess up your lungs. »
Smoking has never been associated, directly or indirectly, with diacetyl-induced pathologies. And yet tobacco smoke contains way more diacetyl than even the worst eliquids.
So while I agree with you that eliquid flavourings should be regulated in order to avoid dangerous chemicals (including diacetyl), let's be honest and stop the paranoia: it's highly unlikely that the levels of diacetyl present in some shoddy eliquids have any measurable effect at all.
-
Tuesday 3rd May 2016 01:26 GMT TRT
Re: propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
@Pompous Git.
Monique Williams, Amanda Villarreal, Krassimir Bozhilov, Sabrina Lin, Prue Talbot. Plos One (2013). This was a somewhat controversial paper; caused quite a stir on the vaping forums at the time.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 20:51 GMT Pompous Git
Re: propylene glycol plus some flavourings ?
Food additives have only been tested for safety in a cooking/food environment.
No, they haven't. They are GRAS (generally regarded as safe) because they are substances that have been consumed by people for very long periods of time with no apparent ill-effects. As for the carrier, it's used for stage smoke and we don't hear of any moves to ban its use at rock concerts, stage plays, military displays, movie sets etc. Exposure is less than 1% of the safe industrial limit in workplaces.
As for the "link to cancer", Bruce Ames work indicated that just about everything we consume is linked to cancer. You'll starve to death if you avoid eating anything!
-
-
-
Friday 29th April 2016 17:22 GMT Pompous Git
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
How many 'food safe' items have been breathed rather than consumed in the past?
All of them. Most of what we describe as flavour is detected by the olfactory nerves in our nasal cavity. It's also one of the reasons warm food is tastier than food that's very cold. The volatiles we are smelling when we eat are emitted in greater quantities at higher temperatures.
-
Saturday 30th April 2016 00:58 GMT TRT
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Nickel and Chromium per se are not dangerous. It's the particulate size as well. The study linking inhaled nickel nanoparticles and Alzheimer's was someone who worked in a car spray booth re-chroming classic American car parts. He got ill within 6 months of them changing the spray process - the new machinery made smaller particles.
-
Saturday 30th April 2016 23:09 GMT Pompous Git
@ TRT
I haven't been able to find any evidence that nichrome wires generate nickel nanoparticles, but thanks for your heads up on the potential. I have put an immediate ban in place on the use of the toaster, electric sandwich press, washing machine, hair dryer and fan heater in my household. This will of course not eliminate the exposure due to the extensive use of integrated circuits in the TV, Hi-fi amp, computers etc, but will go some small way toward mitigating the risk.
The doctors tell me I should be good to eat solid food again in about 6 weeks time, Mrs Git having taken somewhat unkindly to the new regime.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 13:39 GMT Rich 11
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Have they done a thorough long term health study on the effects of the various chemicals in the goop which goes through these things?
Glycerine and propylene glycol ('goop', as you put it) are both food additives with a long history of use.
Now let's see how many people are scared of anything with an E number.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 20:02 GMT Chemical Bob
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
While propylene glycol is considerably less dangerous than ethylene glycol, the MSDS lists skin, liver and kidney damage as possible effects from exposure and it has been forbidden to use in cat food due to it causing Heinz Body Anemia. Some individuals are apparently bothered by propylene glycol vapors as well.
So is it safe? Who knows. Wouldn't surprise me if the FDA does an about-face on this stuff in a few years, they spent over 5 decades telling us that chicken eggs would kill us only to finally realize they were shitheads.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 15:26 GMT streaky
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Have they done a thorough long term health study on the effects of the various chemicals in the goop which goes through these things? As a non smoker who used to smoke, I'm just as worried about inhaling that crap as I am second hand smoke. What's more worrying is that most "vapers" think it's just water vapour they are breathing and when I tell them it's not they are quite often surprised
<- Ex-smoker who now vapes.
The simple answer to your question is yes.
The base liquids like PG/VG/Nicotine are very well understood no issues there. The risk comes from flavourings that are varying degrees of well understood - why? Because most of them are used in industrial settings where they're heated and atomised into much higher concentrations than you'd ever see from vaping over longer periods you'd ever be exposed from vaping.
Most of them are just plain safe to breathe in, some have varying degrees of issues - some could outright dangerous if you use enough. Thing is this information is available freely.
Couple of things: even the worst stuff you could put in juice is orders of magnitude safer than smoking itself. Most people don't put these chemicals in their ejuice anyway and those that do tend to use them at levels where they're likely to be almost completely safe.
You have to weigh these things on risk. If you're going to weigh this stuff up and say which is safer: smoking or vaping then the simple answer is it's going to be vaping every time. Once you find a flavour you like (which for most adults is going to be the fruity flavours that are *allegedly* aimed at children) and a tank that works for you you can just stop smoking - it's really like flipping a switch.
If you're gonna make assumptions because you don't understand something that a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time researching (including many scientists and many in the medical profession) then you should just keep it to yourself - because you're not helping, you're impeding the fight against smoking and you're helping tobacco corps in doing what they're doing. You're actively supporting them because they're going around buying up all the ecig companies that are compliant with the EU regs but are also really terrible at getting people away from smoking - and many have said (and this is completely believable given the evidence) that they essentially wrote the new EU legislation.
This stuff can be a global health panacea if it's allowed to be and people getting in the way should be fought wherever they show up (and they should be fought with evidence and facts because there's plenty of both).
How do you keep millions on millions of people smoking when they don't have to? Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. And bullshit regulations with no basis in reality.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 15:41 GMT Lusty
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
"You have to weigh these things on risk. If you're going to weigh this stuff up and say which is safer: smoking or vaping then the simple answer is it's going to be vaping every time.
If you're gonna make assumptions because you don't understand something that a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time researching (including many scientists and many in the medical profession)"
I agree, if YOU are going to choose between vaping and smoking you probably are better off vaping. If I am choosing between clean air and the shit you just breathed out in my face, I'll choose to be annoyed. I also choose to believe that it's a bad thing that young people are taking up this habit because they too believe it's safe. Most of the information available about this subject, along with most of the studies carried out are extremely biased at this point so just because you've read it somewhere doesn't make it so.
On the second part....links please! This is all very very new so clever people have not been thoroughly testing for long enough to prove anything. In 5 years starting with completely healthy adults you couldn't even prove tobacco smoking isn't safe so I don't know why you believe someone has done long term testing of these devices and chemicals in these scenarios.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 18:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
This is all very very new so ....
...somebody should have to walk in front of vaping pedestrians with a red flag. And pedestrians using phones. Or thinking..that's particularly dangerous - who knows what they might invent? And what about electric cars? The only long term evidence base is milk floats, so we'd better restrict Teslas (again, walking pace, man with red flag). Ebola drugs! They've not been tested, we'd better have twenty long term randomised large scale tests.....
Lusty, man, GET A GRIP!
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 19:34 GMT Captain DaFt
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
And now, a ray of sunshine, illuminating where people'd rather not look.
If you're one of the 2% with lucky genes, you'll cruise through life fairly comfortably, barring accidents, to 90+ years, then drop dead overnight simply because your body says, "Game Over".
About 15% will make it to 70+, with gradually increasing health problems, until your heart quits, cancer or your doctor* kills you.
About 35% to 40% will make it to 70+ but will have started slipping into senescence somewhere from 40 to 60 years of age and require constant care for their final years**.
About 25% will die anywhere from birth on due to accident, war, murder, or some other traumatic event.
The remaining will die from diseases ranging from Ebola to measles.***
Everybody dies, everybody suffers at some point in their life, and generally, the better you take care of yourself now, the longer you wind up suffering later.
So chill, enjoy your family and friends while you can, help out others when they need help, and enjoy your life while you can.
*Deaths by medical mistakes are the third leading cause of Death in America, and gaining.
** The percentage of people suffering senescence is uncertain, but it's generally acknowledged that the rate is increasing alarmingly.
*** Since this is about mortality, I've omitted the bit about how many go through all or part of their life suffering and needing constant care due to accident, disease, or bad genes.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 22:38 GMT streaky
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Most of the information available about this subject, along with most of the studies carried out are extremely biased at this point so just because you've read it somewhere doesn't make it so
There's NO evidence young people who aren't already smoking are choosing to take up vaping. None at all. There's evidence that young people are vaping but if you pay attention they were smoking anyways so it's still positive.
Also not for nothing I've stated why this information exists.
As for you as a non-smoker taking up vaping: don't - it's not for you and the industry doesn't need you as a customer, there's plenty of smokers that will keep them in business for decades.
Final note: vaping is an opportunity for a total ban on smoking because, simply, there's an alternative that fills the market that smoking currently sits in but people need to be able to buy the equipment that allows them to stop smoking comfortably so we can avoid massive backlash. The new EU regs make all the gear I own illegal to sell (and therefore buy) within the EU when they take effect and as somebody who doesn't want to smoke the situation with juices is frightening to me. There's people on the ejuice subreddits stockpiling litres of nicotine base (highly concentrated nicotine in PG or VG) from fear they won't be able to buy it any more. Situation is extremely unhealthy and the UK government needs to make it clear to the public that they will under no circumstances seek to or allow public bodies to enforce the EU regs.
Main issue was that nobody has worked out how much is too much
Yep, they have.
-
Saturday 30th April 2016 01:12 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
"I also choose to believe that it's a bad thing that young people are taking up this habit because they too believe it's safe."
All the evidence seems to point to the vast majority of vapers being people shifting from tobaco. Very very few people are *starting* vaping from being a non-smoker. There are many more young people starting on tobaco than are stating vaping.
I'm pretty sure El Reg covered this with links in the past.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 14:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Haters gotta hate
Regulators gotta regulate
and vapers wanna vape.
whilst smokers gasp for oxygen
and the tobacco pushers expand into new markets
Apologies for the spontaneous doggerel, but the conflict of interests outlined by AO's article is nothing short of shocking. The Reg needs to give him extra brownie points for understatement.
The merchants of death known as "Big Tobacco" struck a relative truce with state regulatory agencies by agreeing to levy big tax hikes whenever consumers buy their freely available poison. The theory is that smokers can pay for their own health care. In other words, f*k 'em. Government-sanctioned collusion to commit mass murder, of a sort.
In a saner universe, tobacco would be considered a poisonous weed and completely banned from public consumption whereas heroin and marijuana would be legal.
But meanwhile, back in the real world:
- Big Tobacco continues to kill people (about 100,000 p.a in the UK) and serve as a tax collector (currently 2.6 billion quid p.a in the UK).
That means that every dead smoker brings in 26,000 quid to the exchequer.
- Big Pharma makes big money selling NPT solutions (like nicotine patches).
- Public health services dispense their cut of the pusher's profit on NPT solutions.
- Big Pharma win-win
- Big Tobacco win-win
- Health services and general public win-lose
Whereas vaping is a relatively harmless, innocuous, and cost-effective way to eliminate the horrible effects of passive and active smoking.
- Not to mention that it makes quitting easier.
- Not to mention that it could reduce overall health care costs if widely adopted, etc.....
So why would ANYONE want to prevent vaping from taking hold?
Because it directly threatens 3 separate but complicit, well-funded interest groups (i.e. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Gov't) ?
Surely not.
I think GM had a similar dilemma when the Wankel engine was first conceived.
If we follow their lobbying strategy, than millions more die of smoking related illnesses, before people get a clue.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 19:39 GMT PNGuinn
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ? @ AC
"In a saner universe, tobacco would be considered a poisonous weed and completely banned from public consumption whereas heroin and marijuana would be legal."
One is tempted to equate your definition of sanity with significant consumption of heroin and marijuana.
Both these substances have devastating effects on the user and are rightly controlled substances.
The damaging effects on the brain of marijuana are well established, and I suggest to you that smoking weed rolled up in a bit of paper will have similar effects on the lungs and heart as tobacco rolled up in a bit of paper.
Heroin isn't exactly benign either.
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 21:03 GMT Pompous Git
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ? @ AC
The damaging effects on the brain of marijuana are well established, and I suggest to you that smoking weed rolled up in a bit of paper will have similar effects on the lungs and heart as tobacco rolled up in a bit of paper.
Er, some us vape our Mary Jane too. Of course anti-inflammatory drugs like Vioxx are much safer than high cannabinoid MJ. Where's that sarc tag when you need it!
-
Monday 2nd May 2016 15:10 GMT Bob Rocket
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ? @ AC
'One is tempted to equate your definition of sanity with significant consumption of heroin and marijuana.
Both these substances have devastating effects on the user and are rightly controlled substances.
The damaging effects on the brain of marijuana are well established, and I suggest to you that smoking weed rolled up in a bit of paper will have similar effects on the lungs and heart as tobacco rolled up in a bit of paper.'
Hold your horses there PNGuin.
The 'damaging effects on the brain of marijuana' are not well established, I assume you refer to the Dunedin study, the effects are better correlized with lead poisoning.
MJ has a reputed (not proven) mediation on myelin sheath damage (both lead poisoning and MS exhibit the same damage) it is not unlikely as the cannabinoids being imbibed are those that are missing from sufferers
The effects on the lungs are probably the same or worse than tobacco (MJ burns hotter) however MJ has proven antiviral properties and that the lungs are a vector of large numbers of viral infection is not disputed (people who smoke large amounts of pot are less likely to suffer viral infection)
'Heroin isn't exactly benign either.'
As for the opiods in their pure forms they are non-toxic, they are of course narcotic in their effects which can depress the CNS so that autonomic functions shut down, they are of course highly addictive (a feature that has allowed the plant to propagate across the globe) but an 'addict' can be fully functional as long as easy access to the clean substance is allowed.
Should these substances be regulated ? Hell yes, people will be ingesting them, they have a right to know exactly what is (and in what doseage) being supplied, that it has not been adulterated with 'other' substances. These benefits are afforded to almost all legal substances from foodstuffs to weedkillers, petrochemicals to paint.
Almost all the harms from illegitimate substances arises from their legal status and not from the substances themselves.
The same fuckwits that want 'vaping' outlawed are the same people that express moral outrage about anything that is done for pleasure. (as demonstrated by the National Socialist Party of Wales)
These people have a disproportionate power over the general population as opposed to their actual numbers (it is all about control), they are over represented in the media due to their unmitigated belief that they are right despite any evidence in their favour or to the contrary.
Vested interests leveraging small-mindedness (no matter how damaging in the long run) is nothing new but this day and age of easy access to evidence allows even the most uninterested of bystanders to call them out for what they are.
WitchFinders, racists and xenophobes with personal gain being their overriding motivation.
#JustStop
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th April 2016 13:23 GMT SolidSquid
I'd like it if they showed the studies backing what they've said, but it does seem a fairly sensible stance for them to take. Primary risk with vaping seems to be contaminated nicotine vials, which I don't see any issue with regulating (random checks on batches for purity etc), but it shouldn't be difficult to set something like that up and certainly shouldn't involve a 6 month approval process
-
Friday 29th April 2016 13:14 GMT Jimmy2Cows
2nd hand vape...?
Just wondering how much nicotine remains in the exhalation, which may be inhaled by those around the ... umm... vaper?
It's another, different risk profile.
Depending on concentration, seems at least possible others who've never smoked or vaped themselves could end up nicotine addicts too.
Which the e-cig biz will just hate, of course.
-
Friday 29th April 2016 16:26 GMT Pompous Git
Re: 2nd hand vape...?
Depending on concentration, seems at least possible others who've never smoked or vaped themselves could end up nicotine addicts too.
I take it you are already avoiding the danger of nicotine addiction by avoiding all those foods that contain nicotine compounds: tomatoes, capsicums, potatoes, chillies, egg plant, tomatillo, Cape gooseberry -- all, like tobacco, members of the solanaceae family.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
