New York Times

[nana]

It's been a while, and I'm sorry not to have popped in more often....
I'm still off the cigs. though, and it's all down to the ecig.

Don't know if you've seen this...

www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/e-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit-but-they-have-some-unlikely-critics.html?_r=3&ref=science

[Gordy]

thanks Nana ..an interesting read

[nana]

Hi Gordy,
I know it doesn't say anything that we (users of ecigs, that is) don't already know or suspect, but, maybe, the word is spreading at last....

[jerryrm]

An interesting and truthful article, Nana. Here in the U.S., we like to see articles like that, instead of the anti ecig propaganda, that the anti smoking groups like to spout out.

[Gordy]

i think so ...there has been quite a few articles lately and mention of e-cigs in both the UK and US governments ...at the very least its getting e-cigs recognised by the public

[Anne (fuzzy)]

There was a paragraph in there that initially put my back up...

But there’s a powerful group working against this innovation — and it’s not Big Tobacco. It’s a coalition of government officials and antismoking groups who have been warning about the dangers of e-cigarettes and trying to ban their sale....

but as I read on, this nonsense was quashed. It was a good read. Thank you nana.

[jerryrm]

Yes Anne, government officials and anti-smoking groups are opposed to e-cigarette use. It has nothing to do with health though, it's all about money.

[Anne (fuzzy)]

Isn't everything nowadays

[Scylla]

Thanks for that great article, Nana. Combined with other developments in the reactions of various Powers That Be, it's so encouraging

[Jemima]

Thanks for the link Nana, and welcoem back

I have a question please don't laugh I'm not sure if I'm having a blonde moment or just forgot the answer to this but.....

The article talks a lot about getting people off nicotine, and nicotine addiction. Obviously teh world would be a much better place (would it b*^^*%"s) if noone was addicted to anythign, caffine, sugar, adrenaline etc. Why is nicotine addiction such a bad thing? (I don't mean cigarette form or anythgin like that we all knwo thast the delivery system problem, I just mean nicotine)

Sry for being dense

[Gordy]

any chemical addiction isnt ideal ...but then the reason they are addictive is that our brains like how it makes us feel... nicotine isnt any worse than caffine IMO but i guess their negativity is because they dont want to add another to the list

i want to try a blonde moment... i wonder if they will make a consumable version of that

[grizwald56]

There already is.......... it's called food.

Anything that grows in nature contains nicotine to some degree. Plants, trees and grasses produce it as an insecticide and protection against disease.

So you could say that a vegetarian consumes more nicotine than a meat eater, albeit on a lower level than a smoker.

But if clinical trials with alzheimers and ADHT are anything to go by then nicotine in itself is not that harmful.

Welcome back nana.

[foxy9212]

In it's raw form nicotine is one of the most deadly poisons on the planet However, in the highly diluted form we vapers use, it appears to be harmless - I haven't read of any proven harm coming to any vaper over the past four years or so that e-cigs have been in the UK. Smoking is known to cause serious health problems for many people apart from it's obvious social downside - the horrible pong and brownish/yellow film it leaves behind etc., etc.

Nicotine use, allegedly, is not advisable for anyone with heart/respiratory/blood pressure problems or during pregnancy but neither is tobacco (along with countless other things) so vaping would certainly seem the better option of the two.

If nicotine itself is considered by 'government' to be harmful, then why does it actively promote the use of nicotine-containing smoking cessation products? These products, allegedly, do not have to adhere to any standard with regard to the nicotine content (mg) of their products so we may be either getting too much or too little; as end-users we have, again allegedly, no way of knowing.

Everything I enjoy in life has always been either illegal, immoral, over-taxed or fattening and, it would seem, government would like to add my e-cigs to the ever-growing list!

Fox

[nana]

I won't get onto my soapbox about the greedy, stupid morons who go under the guise of "government" (of whatever persuasion, they always end up exactly the same - stupid and greedy).
But this article is the first time I've seen a health professional talk sense on the subject and also come out in favour of ecigs.
I particularly like this bit:

"“It boggles my mind why there is a bias against e-cigarettes among antismoking groups,” Dr. Siegel said. He added that it made no sense to fret about hypothetical risks from minuscule levels of several chemicals in e-cigarettes when the alternative is known to be deadly: cigarettes containing thousands of chemicals, including dozens of carcinogens and hundreds of toxins. "

It says exactly what all of us have been saying for years.

[dave]

Interesting - a version of this article by John Tierney has appeared today in the Observer. They do a supplement with articles from the New York Times. There doesn't seem to be a link to it on the Observer web site, but it is mostly an edited version of the original. From a quick comparison it does seem to have one significant addition:

'In Britain, the Royal College of Physicians has denounced "irrational and immoral" regulations inhibiting the introduction of safer nicotine devices. "Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous", the British medical society concluded in 2007. "If nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved." '

I guess he re-vamped it a bit for a UK audience - it is good to see the word is spreading!