Poll: E-cigs

[Inverse Skies]

Actually it's a very valid point. People whom choose to smoke do so knowing the dangers it causes. And in return, for destroying themselves, they're paying insane amounts of tax money. And packs of smokes only keep getting more and more expensive. So, while you may not want to treat me when I'm 60 and have lung cancer, chances are, simply from the tax I payed over the years smoking, I will have payed several people's life treatment. Especially at a pack of smoke costing 7.50 and most of that going to taxes.
Not only that, but you can't get treated for lung cancer if you don't have insurance last time I checked. So, not only will I have been paying all my life for that hospital bed by purchasing smokes, I'll have been paying all my life for that hospital bed, through my insurance alone.
Smokers give back a lot. And it's viewable in our wallets.

Hmmm, I can't quite find it for smoking alone, but I see the DALY's for cardiovascular disease and cancer (two major consequences of smoking) are 600,000 and 500,000 respectively, so in Australia every year there is potentially a maximum of 1,100,000 years of life lost due to some sort of disability (not just death) which could be attributable to smoking. Obviously not all of these would be attributable, but even if half were that's still around 500,000 years of life lost due to one single cause, which is shockingly high.

Another interesting thing is that for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes, the consumption rate can be expected to fall by 4%. Therefore, price increases are the single most effective way of causing people to stop smoking. Hence the argument in saying that governments are only doing it to rake in more tax dollars is somewhat false, as international research has suggested this link between higher prices and lower consumption, hence the tax increases are actually a means to cause people to stop smoking.

 

[Rabid Llama of Doom]

I've actually tried it as I am a filthy filthy smoker
It really wasn't an improvement in any way. The nicotine that one would get from it was very weak and was not as "fulfilling" as a normal cancer stick. The flavors from it would closely resemble what I imagine fungus tasting like. It was also expensive as hell. It is nice, however, that it gives off no tar.

It could be a somewhat useful tool in helping people try to quit, but i think it would only be reinforcing the mindset of smoking in the long run.
Maybe people (myself most definately included) need to put aside the selfish based impulsive mindset of smoking to quit. Smoking is an expensive way to kill yourself and I think it's quite the opposite of necessary in society.

Looking back maybe i would have more room to talk in this once i actually do quit.

 

[Inverse Skies]

My health is my business, not yours. If I decided one day I wanted to saw off my own leg or leap out of my bedroom window, the healthcare system is fine treating that, so it can deal with my smoking if I'm willing to pay for it, which I am.

Rubbish. Would you suck on the end of a biro belonging to some other kid if they told you it was a pretend cigarette? Would you let other kids do that to yours? Hell no. Passing a pack of cigarettes around your friends works because you aren't all sharing the same one; you have to go a little stronger than tobacco before people get mellow enough to take a drag and pass it on without looking at what a soggy mess the end is.

I just had three doctors, a psychiatrist and Skeletor knock on my door and remind me anecdotal evidence is completely useless.

No, 'we' don't. People are, as they should be, free to make their choice as they see fit; smoke or don't smoke, without an overbearing government glaring over their shoulder ready to slap them down for making a choice the do-gooders of the world don't approve of. If someone chooses to smoke today they do so fully aware of the risks and consequences. Constantly nagging them that it's naughty is just self-righteousness for it's own sake.

Moreover, your argument is a paranoid slippery slope fallacy; the device has clear negative points when compared to an actual cigarette that mean it's not likely to be something a kid would want to try, and is far more expensive than a real cigarette anyway.

Actually, as a person in medschool who is going to be a doctor in a few years I'm very much interested in your health and keeping you as healthy as possible. Hence why governments are shifting towards the idea of health promotion in order to try and keep society as a whole as healthy as possible so they don't impose a burden on the health care system later on in life when chronic diseases start to come to the fore. That's why we're interested in your health, its better for society to have more people living longer with less disabilities from chronic diseases.

So by your theory kids don't pass joints around in a similar fashion?

See my previous statement, constantly trying to get them to quit is for the betterment of society through less strains on the health care system through less people with illnesses directly caused through smoking. Hence why governments pour millions into quit campaigns.

Just because kids aren't likely to want to try it doesn't mean it should be banned lest in become a way for them to try cigarettes without suffering the consequences of doing so.

 

[Inverse Skies]

In America, if you walk into the Emergency Room, they legally have to treat you. It's an abused system and is why our health care tax, which we pay on top of paying for health care, is so expensive.
However, that doesn't go with saying that I want my tax money paying for someone who smokes and refuses to pay for health care.
I don't quite like the fact that I smoke, I've only been doing it for 9 months, and already am having trouble quitting. I think cigarettes and alcohol should be outright legalized if we're so adament about our war on drugs.
I personally just hate it when people say that those whom endanger their health shouldn't be treated. It's hypocrisy to a level of insanity.You said you wanted to be an oncologist right? What if you wanted to be a podiatrist? Would you treat skateboarders? They surely know the risks of jumping a flight of stairs on a tiny, wooden, almost uncontrollable mode of transportation*
What if you wanted to be an EMT? Would you treat someone whom was in a car accident? Surely they know the risks of getting in a screaming metal death trap.

*I believe you see a podiatrist for broken bones. That's what I had to see in '07 when I broke my leg.

A podiatrist specialises in feet. Hence why you would have seen one when you broke your leg.

I didn't say anything about not treating them, its my moral obligation to do so and I would treat them just like any other patient. Just that I would rather not see cases of small cell lung cancer and the like which are caused by smoking and hence are an unnecessary case in the idea it was preventable. Besides, lung cancer has an 80% mortality rate, one of the highest amongst all cancers. You don't want to mess around with those sorts of odds if you can at all help it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

[/facepalm]

Taxes on smoking help keep cigs out of hands of kids. There's your 4%. And if it really worked at 10% increase for 4% decrease, smoking would be gone in the US by now. Something is seriously fishy with those numbers.

I have quit alcohol (glad I did), caffiene (not happy with quitting that) and pot (really pissed I had to give that up). Quitting all three together was easier than quitting smoking. I still smoke cigs. Would love to give it up but it's not happening anytime soon. I just don't want to feel homicidal every day for the next 3-9 years.

I really want an e-cig for a multitude of reasons. Pisses me off that cigs are legal as anything but e-cigs aren't when e-cigs are clearly a healthier option whether you're using them to help yourself quit or not. I just had a long conversation last weekend with a lady who uses an e-cig who had been using it for a year or more and it was working wonders for her. No more lung problems and she had tapered off her nicotine consumption considerably. She was living a healthier life while keeping a habit she enjoyed. Makes sense to me.

If governments really wanted to do away with smoking in the US, they would have already. I guarantee you that in my state tobacco taxes are heavily relied upon by the state government with no real concern for the smokers, just the treasury. Why is smoking still legal? One simple term: TOBACCO LOBBY! Those fuckers have screwed the US populace eight ways from reverse and back again.

As for the argument that e-cigs are a gateway for kids to smoke, I'm calling complete BS on that. KIDS WILL FIND ALL KINDS OF CRAP THAT'S UNHEALTHY AND TRY IT! E-cigs can easily be marketed for adult even without claiming them as a quitting aid. Just because any habit is bad for kids is not a reason to take it away from adults. You really want to keep kids healthy? For US: TRY BLOODY FUNDING EDUCATION PROPERLY AND MAKE SCHOOLS INTO A HONESTLY HEALTHY SECOND HOME FOR KIDS WHERE THEY CAN BE PROPERLY MONITORED, RAISED AND TAKEN CARE OF! Oh wait I forget conservatives aren't interested in common good, especially for children. Oh well.

 

[FallenRainbows]

Its all in the nicotine....
Of course, it would prolly be a good phycological helper for someone trying to quit.

I imagine that's it entire purpose.
But really, all it will do is convince children that's it's okay to smoke.

How will it convice kids to smoke? In what respect, I fail to see how it will influence that in anyway, people know there risks, there just plain stupid for doing it.

Before i get flammed AGAIN, Im really not going to reply to people who are having ago at me for calling people who smoke stupid, as they kinda are has 0 health benifits and plenty of negatives,

It gives smokers the pleasure of smoking but not the nicotine fix which has addicted them to smoking. Actually this sort of thing worries me quite a lot, as it's basically saying to children that is it alright to smoke this form of cigarette as it is not damaging at all. How does it replicate the taste of tobacco anyway?

Do you have a link to an article or something? As there's a few unanswered questions from this.

Well, it's illegal in Australia, so I guess it doesn't really affect us.

Smoking is illegal in Australia? Wow, no smoking, no violent video games, no salvia. You guys really ARE oppressed. 2 Steps away from becoming china.

Another reason I'm Gonan move to aussieland ASAP.

 

[SqueeFactor]

i have a friend who has one, and her boyfriend has a black one. when you take a drag the end lights up -the black one lights up blue- but what you can do is get different flavors of the nicotine water to vaporize- she had toffee, marshmallow, and there were a whole buncha others more. its interesting, but doesnt quite have the same effect as a normal cigarette

 

[teisjm]

As a smoker i find this very interesting. I've got no intentions on quitting anywhere in the near future, but this would allow me to smoke indoors, and if it feels like smoking a real ciggarete then why not. As long as it's not extremely expensive compares to real cig's, but i doubt thats the case seeig as a smoker who smokes 20 cigs a day will spend about 2000$ (12000 DKR) a year in Denmark

Only downside is that i won't get to play with my zippo lighter every time i have to light up

 

[internutt]

My brothers have started using them recently. They can smoke in the house without leaving the smell of cigarettes everywhere. Its pretty cool in that sense. It might be healthier too, I'm not sure.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Nobody want to see anyone in the hospital, no one wants to be in the hospital. But it's a fact of life that it's not safe anywhere, not even in your own home.
Before 07' the only thing I went to the hopital for was a physical, and ear surgery when I was younger. You're just going to end up there.

And smoking is the least of anyone worries. Whilst playing D&D acouple years ao my friend declar he was going out for a smoke. Some obese (morbidly 5"9' and at least 350 pounds), moron with no less than six hostess cupcakes in his arms tells him it's a filthy habit that will kill him. To whih I responded, "Yes, in a minimum of hirty years considerig how long and how much he smokes. However, if he were to replace every cigarette with one of your fatty cakes, he'd die in a year."
And it's true. The things we eat will kill you much faster than cigarttes ever will. We just have more things to worry about than adding 15 yars onto our lives. Eveyone I've known whom has died from lung cancer (my mom's step mother, father, and step father) were smoking at a young age, and died in ther 60s. My father's mom is currenty 65, has bee smoking since 12, and has no signs of lung cancer. Our projected life span is 75 years. Losing ten years, isn't that bad, especialy when these days you're looking at an 80% chance of be incontinet and ludicrous before you die.

Alternatively, you could develop atherosclerosis and die at forty, which smoking accelerates. Smokers are something like twice as likely to die from a myocardial infarction (heart attack) as well as have a stroke, both illnesses that strike without warning and often affect people into their late 30's/40's. That's around 30 years that have been knocked off your life there. Also, a statistic like 80% is a slight exaggeration, seeing as cardiovascular disease kills almost as many if not more people than cancer does, and often they just drop dead on the spot, no incontinence or loss of cognitive function involved. Sorry, I might be being a little blunt but they're the facts. It's not just lung cancer that you should be worried about. Emphysema is a nice one as well, struggling to catch every breath because your alveoli (where you exchange gases in the lung) have been destroyed by cigarette smoking. And if you're worried about cancer, pancreatic cancer usually kills in about 5-6 months of discovery and has a high mortality rate as lung. As I said, I'm sorry to be blunt but this is what happens, which is why it staggers me that people still smoke voluntarily.

You're quite correct though in saying no-one wants to be in hospital. I certainly don't want to be (as a patient, as a doctor I do obviously). Hence the idea of health promotion, an incentive that governments have taken up in order to try to make the population as healthy as possible in order to decrease not only the burden on hospitals (and hence lower costs) but also decrease the burden of chronic illness (of which smokers have a lot of, be it hypertension, atherosclerosis, emphysema, diabetes mellitus type 2, blindness due to hemmorhages of the small blood vessels of the eye) which again, means society as a whole is healthier and costs less to maintain.

It might only be 10 years, it mightn't be any. Smokers vary remarkably in their resilance to cigarettes and how they effect them. It might be 30, there's no way to tell. One thing I do know, is you're more likely to live a longer and healthier life by not smoking, as well as spend less money on them. 3000 a year is the average, so over 20 years you've spent 60,000, enough for at least a couple of new cars or even a couple of overseas holidays, all to a habit which is neither necessary nor good for you. Please... it's for your own sake.

Stop.

 

[Ryuzix]

So with e-cigs your not smoking, your...steaming? I reckon this is a good idea but then theyll find something wrong with them...eventually.

 

[Evil Tim]

Hence why governments are shifting towards the idea of health promotion in order to try and keep society as a whole as healthy as possible so they don't impose a burden on the health care system later on in life when chronic diseases start to come to the fore. That's why we're interested in your health, its better for society to have more people living longer with less disabilities from chronic diseases.

Yes, because people are of great help to society when they've lived to the point they have no bowel control and can't remember their own names, after all. What use is a long life if you're constantly harried to prolong it for it's own sake? Duration alone is a worthless life goal. It's this kind of logic that concretes over playgrounds to keep kids from hurting themselves and locks them indoors with the idiot box and wonders why they end up obese and maladjusted.

So by your theory kids don't pass joints around in a similar fashion?

I actually addressed that directly.

See my previous statement, constantly trying to get them to quit is for the betterment of society through less strains on the health care system through less people with illnesses directly caused through smoking. Hence why governments pour millions into quit campaigns.

Which are condescending and useless. The best way to get a child to try something out is to vigoriously state that they're not allowed to do it. But why are you demanding we evaluate a product meant for adults on the basis of it's possible use by children? You could make the same argument about, say, pornography: children might see it, think it's ok to have sex and be driven right into the arms of pedophiles! Oh no, we'd better ban Hustler and Playboy before this menace can be shown to even potentially exist!

Allowing people a choice means accepting it when they make it. If a kid tries a cigarette, likes it, and decides he's going to smoke, it's fine to offer him information on why he should give up. It's self-righteous nannying to continue doing so once he's taken the advice and decided to carry on. Accept that while you might think a man is drowning, if he refuses to take the life ring you throw to him and tells you he's just having a swim, throwing more life rings at him is just likely to make him think you're either deaf or stupid.

Let me bring up an example of one of my hobbies: I make model kits. Ships and tanks, mainly. This means I'm working with an extremely sharp knife close to my fingers, various corrosives and irritants, and sometimes also photo etched metal [which due to it's thickness can cut like a knife if you're not careful]. I'm also working with impact cement that's pretty snappy at binding fingers together. Statistically, all other things being equal, I imagine modelmakers are significantly more likely to suffer hand injuries than people who don't make models. Does this mean we should launch condescending government campaigns sticking pictures of sliced-open fingers on boxed kits and ban snap-together kits entirely on the basis that they might lure kids into a dangerous hobby? Of course not, it would be insane.

Funny how that works. And in that instance you can't even make the argument that it's useful somehow, because making models generally has no use at all save personal satisfaction. The same argument could be applied to almost any physical sport with an increased likelihood of sprains or broken bones rather than hand injuries.

Just because kids aren't likely to want to try it doesn't mean it should be banned lest in become a way for them to try cigarettes without suffering the consequences of doing so.

Aside from the double negative there [you're accidentally agreeing with me]; so, you're saying if they try a cigarette with no consequences, they might want to add the consequences in later just for kicks? Why, exactly?

This is the same ludicrous reasoning that Australia applies to videogames in its refusal to establish an R-18 category for them, making it the only developed democracy to judge the suitability of products for adults on the basis of their suitability for children. It's a farcical argument that could be applied to any product not designed for use by children; alcohol, pornography, cars, cleaning products, sex toys, power tools, firearms; in every case you could bring up the angle that children might get hold of them. If you were to see a kid playing around with a circular saw, you don't go running to the government to ban sales of power tools to adults, you ask why his parents allowed him to get hold of it. That's the thing; the government isn't directly responsible for raising children. Parents are notably better at it.

It's nice that you want everyone to live in a smiley happy fascist state where everyone lives an enforced long life where they're free to do anything as long as it's not in some way bad for them or not appropriate for a child, but I hope you don't like sex, since you'd have to ban that to be consistant. I mean, it's entirely inappropriate for children, and think of all the people you'd save from STDs!

 

[Inverse Skies]

Who wants to live forever anyway?

Oh well, I tried. Let me just say then I hope nothing bad comes of your smoking and even if you smoke for all of your life, that it is not the cause of your death and you live a long and happy life regardless of your choice. I guess that's all I can say.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Yes, because people are of great help to society when they've lived to the point they have no bowel control and can't remember their own names, after all. What use is a long life if you're constantly harried to prolong it for it's own sake? Duration alone is a worthless life goal. It's this kind of logic that concretes over playgrounds to keep kids from hurting themselves and locks them indoors with the idiot box and wonders why they end up obese and maladjusted.

I actually addressed that directly.

Which are condescending and useless. The best way to get a child to try something out is to vigoriously state that they're not allowed to do it. But why are you demanding we evaluate a product meant for adults on the basis of it's possible use by children? You could make the same argument about, say, pornography: children might see it, think it's ok to have sex and be driven right into the arms of pedophiles! Oh no, we'd better ban Hustler and Playboy before this menace can be shown to even potentially exist!

Allowing people a choice means accepting it when they make it. If a kid tries a cigarette, likes it, and decides he's going to smoke, it's fine to offer him information on why he should give up. It's self-righteous nannying to continue doing so once he's taken the advice and decided to carry on. Accept that while you might think a man is drowning, if he refuses to take the life ring you throw to him and tells you he's just having a swim, throwing more life rings at him is just likely to make him think you're either deaf or stupid.

Let me bring up an example of one of my hobbies: I make model kits. Ships and tanks, mainly. This means I'm working with an extremely sharp knife close to my fingers, various corrosives and irritants, and sometimes also photo etched metal [which due to it's thickness can cut like a knife if you're not careful]. I'm also working with impact cement that's pretty snappy at binding fingers together. Statistically, all other things being equal, I imagine modelmakers are significantly more likely to suffer hand injuries than people who don't make models. Does this mean we should launch condescending government campaigns sticking pictures of sliced-open fingers on boxed kits and ban snap-together kits entirely on the basis that they might lure kids into a dangerous hobby? Of course not, it would be insane.

Funny how that works. And in that instance you can't even make the argument that it's useful somehow, because making models generally has no use at all save personal satisfaction. The same argument could be applied to almost any physical sport with an increased likelihood of sprains or broken bones rather than hand injuries.

Aside from the double negative there [you're accidentally agreeing with me]; so, you're saying if they try a cigarette with no consequences, they might want to add the consequences in later just for kicks? Why, exactly?

This is the same ludicrous reasoning that Australia applies to videogames in its refusal to establish an R-18 category for them, making it the only developed democracy to judge the suitability of products for adults on the basis of their suitability for children. It's a farcical argument that could be applied to any product not designed for use by children; alcohol, pornography, cars, cleaning products, sex toys, power tools, firearms; in every case you could bring up the angle that children might get hold of them. If you were to see a kid playing around with a circular saw, you don't go running to the government to ban sales of power tools to adults, you ask why his parents allowed him to get hold of it. That's the thing; the government isn't directly responsible for raising children. Parents are notably better at it.

It's nice that you want everyone to live in a smiley happy fascist state where everyone lives an enforced long life where they're free to do anything as long as it's not in some way bad for them or not appropriate for a child, but I hope you don't like sex, since you'd have to ban that to be consistant. I mean, it's entirely inappropriate for children, and think of all the people you'd save from STDs!

There's a couple of fairly large generalisations there, the first being that everyone who lives to an old age does so in a state in which they are incompetent. The idea behind people living longer is they also live longer free from the burden of chronic disease, which significantly improves quality of life. One of the biggest burdens of chronic disease? Smoking. Hence why it's better for society in general if we try to get as few people smoking as possible. The other is that all children are obese and socially maladjusted. It's true that obesity is one of the larger health problems facing ouy society today but that also falls under the banner of health promotion, trying to get people to make the right eating and exercise choices to try and prevent obesity as much as possible which again lessens the burden of chronic disease in later life.

The amusing thing is, the freer people are of chronic disease the less likely they are to be incompetent and in need of full time care when they are older, hence why reducing smoking rates as well as things such as obesity are critical in creating a healthier society.

Alcohol, cigarettes and pornography are three examples of products that are evaulated by their possible use by children, hence why it is illegal to sell them to minors. And yet they still get distributed and obtained by minors no?

So in my work as a general practicioner (when I get out of medschool obviously) I should give up on patients who refuse to quit smoking? As a doctor, I have a moral obligation to try and provide the best standard of health for my patients, and stopping them from smoking is just one of those measures.

My hobbies include listening to classical music, playing piano and reading Peanuts comics. Your hobby sounds interesting as well!

I'm saying that if they try an e-cigarette and enjoy the flavour they might be more inticed to smoke actual cigarettes because they mirror the flavour. All of the governments efforts are to try to get kids to never start smoking, and something like an e-cig undermines those efforts.

Circular saws don't cause around 19,000 preventable deaths in Australia every year, hence why comparing them to a substance such as tobacco is rather farfetched.

Actually, seeing as I broke up from my girlfriend of two years a few months ago, I hadn't been enjoying sex much lately actually. I'm sure the enjoyment will return later on.

 

[TheDoctor455]

First off, I'm not a smoker.
Second, I suffer from mild asthma symptoms every once in a blue moon.
Third, my father has the equivalent of one lung because his father smoked 24/7 in front of everybody (and my father's father also died long before I was born).

So, I think it's pretty obvious why I like the idea of these "E-cigs".