posted
I find e-cigarrettes stupid and pretentious (actually more an opinion of their kiosk vendors), but let me note the failings of the article: small sample size, and apparently the samples examined did not return the same results.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And they pointed that out. The article pointed out something that is more disturbing, though -- these are being sold all over the place, but have never been submitted for FDA approval. And apparently that's not a violation of the law.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm posting something I posted elsewhere, because it is important people not misunderstand the statistics here. The sample size is completely sufficient to support the basic claim being made:
quote:Conclusive as to what?
Conclusive as to there being a non-infinitesimal possibility of unlisted potentially harmful substances in the devices, completely.
Conclusive as to how many of the product are contaminated how much, not at all, but they didn't say anything about that in the report.
Showing the potential presence of dangerous substances only requires a small sample. The odds of selecting, for instance, more than nine items with "Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans" out of a sample of 18 are vanishingly small unless items with those impurities are present in a significant proportion of the items.
posted
There are plenty of unlisted dangerous chemicals present in the air in your given city, too.
That they found dangerous substances in e-cigarettes is unsurprising. Is the amount of substance found significant? It's alarming that the article explicitly says they don't know.
quote:the agency has no way of knowing, except for the limited testing it has performed, the levels of nicotine or the amounts or kinds of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user.
My point being-- don't punch that e-cigarette vendor in the mall in the face just yet. More thorough studies are warranted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of see Scott's point. (Kind of. I assume he's got meanings on levels I can't discern [the snob]. ) The FDA didn't come out and say these things are dangerous to use, they just reported their findings that there are certain chemicals present. As a layman I don't know whether these chemicals are always harmful, no matter how concentrated, and they didn't put this information in the release.
But we know that the FDA hasn't evaluated these products for health risks, and so there's reason for caution. I think rivka's "think again" was not so much a tacit "they will KILL YOU!" as a "they aren't known to be safe, and there's some reason to suspect they might not be".
Don't punch faces, but if you *really* need nicotine then it seems smarter to use the FDA-approved gum or patches or whatever.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think rivka's "think again" was not so much a tacit "they will KILL YOU!" as a "they aren't known to be safe, and there's some reason to suspect they might not be".
Correct. I keep hearing these things touted as safe alternatives to cigarettes. And I had no idea they had not been evaluated by the FDA.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Don't punch faces, but if you *really* need nicotine then it seems smarter to use the FDA-approved gum or patches or whatever.
Speak for yourself. The gum gives you weird stomach aches and a mouth that feels like it's just been used to clean the floor of a public restroom.
The patch makes you have insane dreams, jitter all day, and itch like crazy.
Personally I just wish this topic didn't have to be posted on my second day in a row without a cigarette. Thanks folks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Congratulations and sympathies.
Don't congratulate me yet, I do it all the time- I don't actually smoke that much, but it's still a pain to give up completely.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be wrong to try to guess when you're attempting to stop completely based on your posts on Hatrack?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
As compared to texting and gabbing, most definitely. As compared to sitting on California's death row, probably not. But I'd still rather use a cellphone than rot in prison.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Would it be wrong to try to guess when you're attempting to stop completely based on your posts on Hatrack?
Interesting premise. Unfortunately no, I'm fairly docile when I'm not smoking. You'll note my temper tantrum was the day before my two days- but I had one today... so watch out!
quote: It might be, but it could be quite interesting.
I hereby give you permission to speculate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Think e-cigarettes are safe?"
As compared to texting and gabbing, most definitely. As compared to sitting on California's death row, probably not. But I'd still rather use a cellphone than rot in prison.
Those are bizarre points of comparison.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think rivka's "think again" was not so much a tacit "they will KILL YOU!" as a "they aren't known to be safe, and there's some reason to suspect they might not be".
Correct. I keep hearing these things touted as safe alternatives to cigarettes. And I had no idea they had not been evaluated by the FDA.
When these things were first proposed, it was evident that there was no way they would pass an EPA review because nothing containing Nicotine is safe for regular consumption. Nothing. Nicotine is a harmful drug that causes cardio vascular disease. Cigarettes themselves could of course never be approved by the FDA but they were grandfathered in. I think ultimately regulators decided to allow e-cigarettes on the market as cigarettes (ergo outside FDA jurisdiction) because dangerous as they are they are still les dangerous than cigarettes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with e-cigarettes. I *hate* cigarette smoke. I can't stand to be around it, which causes problems because one of my best friends smokes. She just got an e-cigarette for her birthday. When she tried it, there was absolutely no smell at all. I could stand right next to her while she "smoked" and not be bothered at all. For that reason, I wish everyone who smokes would switch to e-cigarettes. Unless they're actually worse health-wise than regular cigarettes, I'll continue to not have a problem with them.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: For that reason, I wish everyone who smokes would switch to e-cigarettes.
But people are not just switching to them. They're also very popular among teens and young adults who have never smoked before.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? I believe that *cigarettes* are very popular among teens and young adults who have never smoked before. I would suggest we treat them the same- or for that matter, be more accepting of the safer alternative (if it actually is safer, that is). People have been using tobacco/nicotine in some form for many centuries, so I'm in favor of allowing people to do as they wish with it. Some drugs you shouldn't be allowed to buy- heroin or cocaine for instance, because they're just too dangerous. But we have to establish for ourselves where that line is- kids can and do buy caffeine products openly, and working with young teens in college, I have seen caffeine abused as well.
On the other hand, I'm fully in favor of adopting the French model of nicotine distribution, and limiting the right to dispense and advertise nicotine products to a small set number of locations, so that parents will have absolutely no trouble in avoiding them, and underage people can be kept out much more easily- I'm also in favor of strict licensing requirements for distribution. However, if we have decided that at 18 we are adults, and free to do what we wish within the law, then I'm in favor of teens being allowed to obtain these products. Tax it, educate, restrict, but beyond that what can you do?
If we're on the subject of unhealthy crap being sold to kids- the fact is that nicotine is one in a crowd of things these days, from video games to fast food. It's a cultural problem, but I don't think it's one we're going to solve by litigation or direct legislation. It's a problem that requires a holistic solution: schools that teach health effectively, that feed their kids healthily, that provide alternatives to a sedentary lifestyle, and a society that rejects the infiltration of big food and big pharmaceuticals into our lives on every level. Unfortunately, the society that contracts the diets of its college students to Sodexho is not the society I trust to convince kids not to inhale nicotine. How could I trust the judgment of my own school when I was 13, when they taught us about nutrition at 10am, and sold us candy and sodas from the snack bar starting at 11:45, followed by fast food lunches once a week from McDonalds or Taco Bell? When we've already sold our youth to these businesses, how can we be surprised when kids don't exactly put much stock in our opinions about what they should and shouldn't consume?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't e-cigarettes just crack pipes for nicotine?
This is another one of my inventions that didn't make me a millionaire. In this case, I didn't pursue it because, in addition to my normal laziness, I wouldn't want to be associated with such things. It's pretty obvious that you can put anything in one of those things, in order to ingest it.
That said, I think there is some benefit to be had, but I think that these should be sold with a prescription, like nicotine gum.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So what? Throw the baby out with the bathwater?
How about require that they not be sold until the FDA has a chance to evaluate them and compare them to regular cigarettes?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, but I'd guess that some legal loophole allows them to be classified as some exempt item?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for all you know they might be much safer than actual cigarettes, and they might have the potential to save millions of lives. Since their use is voluntary in the first place, I'm for gathering as much information as we can and acting prudently according to what is found. Unfortunately, like everything to do with business in America, there are some fairly deep pockets who will do nearly anything to make sure the "best" solution will be the one that benefits them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) The FDA didn't come out and say these things are dangerous to use, they just reported their findings that there are certain chemicals present. As a layman I don't know whether these chemicals are always harmful, no matter how concentrated, and they didn't put this information in the release. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
