e-cigarettes debate

[Weechancer]

The Scottish Parliament Health & Sport committee is holding a public consultation on e-cigs so i have started a change.org.uk petition to open up this debate.

MNHQ has edited this post as petition links and such must be posted in our Petitions board, however for those who are interested it is easy to find from the information above

Of course cost is one of the benefits of using e cigs and not smoking! The result is the same irrespective of motivation, reduced smoking.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that non smokers (adult or children) are taking up vaping.

Twunk - You ask what is my beef? My beef is that the world is now bombarded with media reports that e-cigs are the wonder way to stop smoking tobacco. When in fact it is a trap to ensure that smokers continue to be addicted to nicotine. What also concerns me, as someone who has spent 5 decades in drugs education, helping children and young people to understand the difference between facts and fiction about all drugs, is that there is no reliable information yet about e-cigs.

You say, “would I prefer that people smoked cigarettes” absolutely not. Tobacco is the drug that is by far the biggest killer of our people. Scotland’s latest annual drug-related deaths were 613, alcohol-related deaths were around 1,200 and smoking-related deaths were a staggering 13,500. The uk figure is ten times that. So I think it is reasonable for me to be very suspicious of a tobacco industry that is heavily involved in the sales of e-cigarettes, and is marketing them as a way to stop smoking! That is like turkey’s voting for christmas. It can never be in the long-term interest of the tobacco companies to support a route to smoking cessation.

The history of the tobacco industry shows clearly that they will stop at nothing to keep people buying their products. Over the centuries cigarettes have been constantly loaded up with new and different chemicals to increase sales. Currently there are over 4,000 chemicals added across the range of cigarettes to attract different sorts of smokers.

Once e-cigs really take off what is to stop this tobacco and e-cigs industry doing exactly the same again? The tobacco industry cannot be trusted to do anything that is in the interest of public health. For decades they have denied that there is a link between smoking and cancer of the lungs, throat and mouth, yet 50% of smokers die from such horrendous and preventable diseases. To admit the link between smoking and ill-health would have seen them in the courts being sued by millions of dying smokers.

You admit that you gave up smoking with very little trouble. That is excellent, because you are one of about 90% of ex-smokers who did likewise. There is a very dangerous myth engrained in the minds of smokers, that says it is nearly impossible to stop smoking, when the facts tell us quite the opposite. In the the UK there are now 8 million smokers and 10 million ex-smokers. The vast majority of the ex-smokers, did it all on their own and most certainly did not need the aid of e-cigs to get them there, because that option did not exist until very recently.

You said that you wished there was a safer method to meet the Nicotine craving. Why would we want to encourage people to continue their craving for nicotine is my question. Nicotine is a stimulant drug which gives us a high and then very quickly dumps us back down again so we feel bad and want to have more nicotine. That is the classic example of a perfect drug for drug dealers to make loads of money. Amphetamines are the next level up of stimulant drugs, then we move on up to cocaine and finally crack cocaine. Drugs workers know only too well that thousands of people progress from the nicotine in tobacco up through the stimulants to cocaine and crack. My puritanical obsession that you speak of, is to do everything that I can to reduce the harm done by all drugs in the our next genertion. The tobacco and e-cig’s industry, along with the alcohol industry, in my mind have no more interest in preserving public health, than the illicit drugs barons, who sell heroin, amphetamines, cocaine and now the so called ‘Legal High’s”

These legal highs and e-cigs have been launched on the market with ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL CONTROLS in place, not even LAWS to stop our kids buying them. The submission to the Scottish Parliament’s health and sport committee by Imperial Tobacco, and others in that trade, says it all. They are against any regulation, do not want retailers selling e-cigs to be licensed, do not want vending machines banned, do not want any ban on advertising their products. THEY JUST WANT TO CARRY ON PROFITING FROM THE ILL-HEALTH OF THOSE BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS.

Oh lord! Of course a high number of ex smokers stopped with little problem! By their very nature they would be as a) they have stopped b) hindsight reporting is often more positive. That is like saying that 100% of committed vegetarians eat no meat products.

Having spent the last 15 years working with the local NHS in their Support to Stop street clinic and coordinating a Reduce to Quit group (smoking an prescription drugs, respectively), I know you are wrong, in numbers and attitude.

Your insistence on conflating smoking, e-cigs, illegal drugs and legal highs is infuriating. You insistence that you know best is out of kilter and dangerous, makes no allowance for the psychology of addiction and, in my bailiwick, would get you reprimanded for making the clients feel unable to connect with the service. You do come across as puritannical, and that does not fly well with people who are struggling to make changes in their lives.

I am sure that 'our people' would prefer help from someone who appears, at least, to have some understanding of the sociological, psychological and physiological difficulties they face and who does not judge them for having 'fallen into a trap'.

And you persist in ignoring the evidence you have been shown. At least one of the main e-cig manufacturers has paid for research and is trying to get the government to look more closely at the products. They are also calling for better legislation, more clear guidelines, etc.

But your capitalised hysteria makes better headlines, I suppose!

Uhhh, you do realise that vapers start on strong doses of nicotine and then reduce?? Then they either drop the habit altogether or just keep on a low dose. And, again, what's so bad about nicotine!? It's a stimulant like red bull, coffee, adrenaline sports. Are you going to ban bungee jumping because it gives you a high!?

So what if people are addicted to nicotine in its pure form in ecigs? I'm addicted to caffeine. Are Yorkshire tea out to keep me addicted with their wicked adverts bestowing the delicious flavour? Get. Over. Yourself.

My puritanical obsession that you speak of, is to do everything that I can to reduce the harm done by all drugs in the our next genertion.

What harm is done by nicotine please? Not cigarettes, not e-fags, not legal highs, not illegal drugs, just nicotine.

I think she doesn't like the fact we're not buying into her hysteria. Truth is, nictotine isn't bad AT ALL.

I think this here is the root of the problem: My puritanical obsession that you speak of, is to do everything that I can to reduce the harm done by all drugs in the our next genertion.

Puritanical obsession is incompatible with harm reduction. I can't work out whether you just don't understand what harm reduction means or whether you're simply against it.

You were a drug and youth worker. What do you think about methadone programmes, needle exchanges, take-home naloxone programmes, free condoms? What do you think about seat belts and safety helmets? What do you think about the NICE guidelines on tobacco harm reduction?

is a proper expert in your field explaining harm reduction in simple terms and how it relates to vaping. What do you think about what he says? (Video is about half an hour long and is a great intro for anybody wanting to know more about ecigs, their place in PH and why there's such a hooha about them)

I also don't think OP was listening when it was pointed out that Big Tobacco wasn't really involved in e-cigs. Absolutely none of the vapers I know (and I know quite a few) use BT products like Elites. It was and remains (just) a consumer-led innovation and market.

I suspect the old 'it looks like smoking' trope is behind all this bluster.

When i was giving up i tried cold turkey at first, then after going cold turkey for two weeks i stupidly gave e-cigs a try and found them to be stupidly addictive. I gave the e-cigs up and found that more difficult than actually giving up cigs. I now only smoke once or twice a month now when we go down the local on a Friday evening or Sunday lunch with a drink but we don't even go down the pub that much these days anyway. I'm now normally the annoying ex-smoker who pays £1 for a cigerette here and there off friends in the pub lol

Yep. I was reading this yesterday: A Convenient Myth: The True Story of Big Tobacco & E-Cigarettes It's very good. I got it slightly wrong in an earlier post. There are not 7 brands owned by tobacco companies, there are 10, but still ...

That's interesting penguin. I and everyone I've spoken to about it generally finds it far easier to go without a vape than it was to go without a fag. Vaping is definitely more fun than smoking, but I wouldn't say it's more addictive. All depends how you go about it, I guess. I think (but can't cite) that you generally get less nicotine per vape puff than per cig draw, so yes, some people can vape more in that sense. Also depends on your nic strength, coil ohmage, voltage/wattage and vaping technique.

But 1st gen cigalikes (and some 2nd gens) are total weak sauce, so I can see someone going through quite a lot of those quite easily.

I think (but can't cite) that you generally get less nicotine per vape puff than per cig draw

Yes, that's right. Nicotine is absorbed much more slowly from vaping than it is from smoking. When you smoke a fag you get a very sharp spike in nicotine plasma levels - this is thought to be part of the reason smoking is so addictive. It takes around half an hour for a vaper to reach the same nicotine plasma levels with a second gen device. I'm not sure you can ever get there with a first gen device because of the short half-life of nicotine. Because of this, vaping tends to be far more of a little-and-often thing than smoking which leads some new vapers to feel they are more addicted.

There is evidence which shows that vapers are less dependent on nicotine than they were as smokers and most vapers IME have little problem cutting down over time. Not all vapers want to cut down though - many decide they want to continue to enjoy vaping nicotine and are happy with the tiny associated health risks, especially as it prevents relapse to smoking.

NiNoKuni I don't know see people i know seem to have them permanantly in their hands. Its like mobile in one hand vap in the other hand. Because its there people just seem to vap away without even realising it i reckon.

One thing I'd ask you, OP, is to separate the ideas of people taking up vaping, never having smoked, and getting addicted (especially kids) and people who have tried everything else to stop smoking but have finally got some success with vaping.

I fall into the latter camp. I also fall into another, very big but often overlooked, camp of nicotine addicts - people with mental health problems. I never, ever thought I could stop smoking. When I tried to stop, I actually felt suicidal. I walked a mile in the rain on a Sunday morning at 5am to find the nearest petrol station to buy fags, I was so desperate. Sounds stupid, but throw cigarette addiction into the mix of generalised anxiety disorder and OCD and that's what you get. Vaping has given me the only release from smoking that I've had since I first got ill. Fair enough, I'm not 'fixed,' I still struggle and have had a few relapses back to the fags, but I take strength from knowing that I have, by and large, stopped smoking.

I'll be 30 this year and I was so afraid I wouldn't be able to stop before I hit 30. As I said, things aren't perfect, but I feel I've been given a lifeline that didn't exist a few years ago. If vaping didn't exist, I'm pretty sure I'd start smoking again.

Yes, it would be better not to be addicted to anything. But to be able to deal with that addiction quite gently, getting by day by day without completely losing it, that means something. I wish you could see that vaping is something to be engaged with, something that can be helpful. It's a damn sight better than smoking, which is an absolute scourge for for so many of us who suffer with MH problems.

I have to say op that your arguments are nonsense and bizarre. People have tried to engage with you but you are simply obsessed that people might be addicted to nicotine. As someone up thread pointed out, you can reduce the nicotine to 0 gradually if you want. Or not.

Agent, just keep counting the ones you don't smoke, you're doing brilliantly!

There is a distinct lack of humanity in certain parts of public health. Some of them have become so locked into an ideological battle against substances (and associated industries) they have forgotten why these substances are a problem in the first place - because of the devastating effects they can have on people's lives and wellbeing. If we can reduce the harm for those who are unable or unwilling to abstain (and for those around them) then it's unethical not to do so.

In spite of OP's 'Red Bull Madness!!!' post earlier, we don't have a public health crisis with caffeine. It simply doesn't matter that half the population is addicted to coffee. Addiction is only a problem if it causes harm. With the advent of vaping, nicotine can be as harmless as caffeine - i.e. not completely harmless but really not something to worry about for most people, or for public health.

OP, I found your submission to the Scottish consultation.

1. Should the minimum age of sale for e-cigarette devices, refills (e-liquids) be set at 18?
YES or higher perhaps at 21

So how would that work then? These young people who you profess to care so much about would be able to buy cigarettes from the age of 18 but would have to wait a further three years to buy the massively less harmful ecigs?

Do you realise how fucked up, stupid and dangerous that idea is?

Thanks Plenty, onwards and upwards

Yes Plenty - and then it's a slippery slope to shooting up heroin

People like stimulants - it would appear to be something innate (though I have no proof of that, I have observed it from the popularity of coffee, alcohol, drugs etc). Nicotine in its non-smoked form has no consequences for public health, crime, poverty that I can see.

And we all know how well banning stuff works - look at drugs, or underage drinking. Oh, wait...

is good - Prof Linda Bauld and Andy Morrison on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday, talking about the latest Scottish stats on ecig use.

Although politicians, and the e-cigs industry say they are keen to protect under 18’s form using e-cigs, there are currently no laws in the UK to prevent this. It can take years to agree new laws.

Surveys are quoted all the time in the media, to suggest that this really is not a problem, but surely prevention is better than cure. BUT, overnight it could easily become the norm for children to either switch, like adults from standard tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, or to start using e-cigarettes because this has become the new craze amongst our youth.

I received information today from California, where they like us have managed to reduce smoking by teens down from 23% in 2000 to only 9% now. However it is not all good news because Californians are now worried that already a new trend of using e-cigarettes has caught on across that state. A recent report claims that e-cig experimenters amongst teens, has risen to 13% in the last year. California already has a serious problem with teens smoking cannabis. How long I wonder will it be that Vaping Cannabis is the new craze?

You really don't like harm reduction, do you?