They don't smell. There's no second-hand smoke. They don't affect anyone but the person using them. So, what reasons do you have for "not wanting" them somewhere? Just curious.

I ask, because I am using them to try to quit, and to keep the other stuff from tobacco out of my system. It's really annoying when anti-smoking zealots say nasty things, even though they can't possibly be bothered by them in any real sense.

I find perfume obnoxious, too, but don't make nasty comments to people wearing it.

Perhaps you should rethink your objections.

bother you? How odd. Actually, I do smoke them in places where regular smoking is not allowed sometimes, since that's virtually everywhere. I'm not getting a lot of flak for that, frankly. If someone mentions it, I tell them it's an e-cigarette and that usually is enough for them to ignore it.

If it does not affect you, why on earth would you care?

People who hate smoking should be jumping up and down with glee about e-cigs, but many of them are actually angry about them. I'm convinced that at least some of them are indignant that people can quit smoking relatively painlessly with e-cigs. They'd prefer that smokers be miserable - whether they're smoking at any given time or not. A smoker (or former smoker) using an e-cig isn't suffering, dammit.

I use e-cigs everywhere. I only got grief one time, when I was into something I was reading and forgot to be discreet. I blew out a visible cloud of vapor on an MBTA commuter train, and someone ratted me out to the conductor. He came over, a bit confused since there was obviously no smoke in the car, and asked me, "Are you smoking over here?" I said no and showed him my e-cig. He said, "Oh, OK," and went on his way, chuckling. The people who called him were enraged and complained loudly until I left the train at my stop. For all I know they were griping about it after that, too.

I was sitting in a very empty area at another gate, deliberately. A little vapor escaped, and some guy came from two gates down to whine at me about smoking. I showed him my e-cigarette and asked if he could smell any smoke. He admitted that he couldn't but still insisted that there was no smoking allowed. I said that there's no smoke, so I'm not smoking and he should mind his own business.

So, he went and found some security guy, who told him that e-cigarettes were fine. Pissed the guy off, I guess. I don't know what the rules at the MSP airport actually are, which is why I took myself way away from everyone.

Anti-smoking zealots are bothersome. If there's no actual smoke, and no smell (the ones I use don't smell at all), then leave me the fuck alone and mind your own business, folks. There must be some important thing to get annoyed with.

I am 100% on your side on this.

SCORE!

Always got a problem with something. It's just water vapor folks, it's not going to hurt you one bit! If you don't like the sight of someone using one, stop staring at them and get on with your day!

I also have problems with perfumes. There are very few I can actually wear and I can get some pretty severe migraines from perfumes, especially if they smell like they bathed in it! However, I do not expect the world to cater to me. I just get away from them as soon as I can.

That's me. I am a non-smoker and I loathe second-hand smoke, but e-cigs make it possible for me to hang out with my friends who use nicotine, while they are enjoying it.

I don't smoke and never have and I don't get the objections to e-cigarettes. Seems like puritanism.

Every user of tobacco should realize this: the zealots are going to stop at nothing short of the absolute prohibition of tobacco - so there's really no point in having a discussion with them - that is an accommodation I'm not willing to make.

anymore, not the ones on this thread, since the people they're railing about - folks who use e-cigs - aren't even smoking. Someone who uses e-cigs and never smokes any real cigarettes is a nonsmoker, by definition.

Thankfully, most people are more rational and reasonable than that.

When I have both real & "e" in my pocket, I seem to invariably go for the real. So now I'm thinking in terms of trying to replace the flavor with something different, rather than to try to match the flavor I'm used to. I'm hoping to get to a point where I enjoy the e-cigarette flavor more than I enjoy the actual cigarette. So I'm trying a fruit flavor to see if I can get used to it.

I'm trying to switch over, but I'm only a fraction of the way there.

Okay, instead of real cigarette this time, I'm hitting the e-cig. It's a one-at-a-time battle. Okay, tickle in the throat? Check. Exhalation of smoke-like substance? Check. (Man, I have to have an e-cig that blows out fake smoke well so I fool myself into thinking I'm smoking.)

That's one less real cigarette smoked. Small victories.

That way you can try a bunch of different flavors for very little money.

If you make the switch and start using e-cigs exclusively, your taste will change after a few weeks, so it's probably best not to buy a whole lot of liquid in your favorite flavor early on.

I quit using puresmoker.com fire and ice blend. The fruit flavors didn't give the throat hit that my brain was looking for, but this cinnamon-icy-hot-whatever it is just nailed it.

Best of luck to you, my friend.

I appreciate the recommendation. It might be just the thing.

I found the Rootbeer works the best. You can find the drops in some cigarette stores, or order them online

...I use a coffee flavored one that is really good. Apple also does well with the fake flavor

The "tobacco" ones - I think it makes it harder to stop - at least for me.

I smoked both cigs and E for about a month - reducing the smokes each week. 6 months but now no smokes (except bumming ones while golfing)

. . . which raises the blood pressure and constricts capillaries. I have high blood pressure anyway, and I don't like in the air anymore than I like having my drink spiked. Plus, I'm not convinced that they are completely effective in removing tar and carcinogens, but that objection is provisional.

Yes, and they do stink like hell, too. Not like perfume, but like a fart in an elevator.

People just want to control others. Makes them feel self righteous or something.

By the way, good luck with quitting. I did it with ecigs.

that they don't have for whatever reason

But the opposition to ecigs is nothing but exerting control with a dash of I'm better than you are thrown in.

Personally, I could care less what others choose to do for fun or relaxation as long as it doesn't harm me or others.

Admit it, you just don't like the way they look - or the way people look smoking. Right?

I imagine you hold all other annoyances with a slight smell to that precise same standard also... otherwise, it simply wouldn't be logical.

Nicotine occurs naturally in a lot of foods we eat, so it is not as if you are being exposed to some poison or something. In large quantites, it can be, but that's true of other natural food components.

Nicotine cannot be absorbed in an acid medium. It can't enter the blood stream from your digestive track, which is why you don't find foods with it to be addicting in the way cigarettes are.

There are noticeable nicotine concentrations in the blood/urine/saliva of non-smokers, and a lot of it doesn't come from "passive" smoke.

Vegetarians, especially, tend to hit false positives on nicotine tests more.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100324155653AAxFFz9

Certain black teas contain nicotine, and it is most definitely absorbed from foods like potatoes, eggplants, etc. Some peppers, tomatillos, stuff like that.

One reason you don't find foods with it addicting (which I suspect is not entirely true for the very nicotine sensitive), is that tobacco contains not just nicotine but MAO inhibitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAOI'

The incidence of clinical depression after stopping smoking in heavy smokers is quite high. It's likely that some of these people are self-medicating, and in any case it takes a while for the brain to readjust once the chemicals stop flowing in.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=383334

Ever hear of nicotine pills? Ever ask yourself why you've never heard of them?

If nicotine addicts can truly get a fix through the stomach but choose to smoke instead, then smokers are some of the rudest assholes in the world and don't deserve any courtesy.

But they're not, because you're absolutely wrong.

Nicotine cannot be absorbed through an acid medium. Otherwise, why wouldn't people be eating it rather than smoking it, or chewing it, or putting on a patch? It's never absorbed through the stomach. It's absorbed through the mouth membranes (with alkali provided at the source) or through the lungs, which are neutral pH. It absolutely cannot cross over into the blood from the stomach.

If it could be absorbed through the digestive tract, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would have put in pills long ago. And don't ask me for source on that, because now that I point that out to you, that should be obvious. Either that, or tobacco companies refuse to come out with pills because they're dicking with everybody.

Your link to wikipedia doesn't work, and I suggest you check that fact with something more reliable, because your claim is ratshit insane. Addictiveness is intrinsic with nicotine. moa's or not.

Your link about vegetarians: they only call a result a "false positive" when in fact, there's none of the drug present. Do you know how many false positives come up on other drug tests? And in those cases, the people did not have an inadvertent sources of the drug.

Besides, the test cited was a saliva test. Not a blood test. Did I even dispute that there's nicotine in foods? Wouldn't it be in the saliva and not the blood? Or might it have just been a false positive, in which case it had nothing to do with the foods, which BTW, your source said "contain nicotine like ingredients." Not nicotine.

Your link about quitting smoking and depression is totally off topic. What does it have to do with nicotine's lack of titration from an acid medium like the stomach?

They post a response, talking about facts, with reference links. You respond to that with...profanity and underlining. Cool story, bro.

The wikipedia link had an errant apostraphe on the end of it. It works here. For future reference, though, wikipedia is a pretty easy to navigate site, you probably could have found the article yourself. If you had wanted to. Which obviously you don't.

The relevant section, I believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAOI

On the topic of "false positives", the link also describes nicotine in a persons system from second hand smoke. Are you of the impression second hand smoke contains no nicotine? Because you'd be wrong. "False positive" means they are not a smoker but come up on tests as having nicotine in the system. "Positive"=smoker, "false positive"=non-smoker showing nicotine. Simple, right?

But who cares about all that, right? We're just rude assholes.

Apparently, the profanity distracted you, because you missed the whole point of my post. My point was there are no nicotine pills and nicotine cannot be absorbed from foods. (Excuse the underlines, but they work so well when people don't want to read the whole message.) You talk about citations, can you find a citation that contradicts that? If you can, I retract my whole message.

Did you read to the bottom where I gave rebuttals to his citations, or was that irrelevant to you due to the profanity.

The link he gave to Wikipedia did not work. I said that. Now that I've seen it, I ask you what "'relatively weak'" means. Relative to what? What is this being compare to, and why on earth do they choose to put it in quotes?

Here's my reading of that: it means relatively compared to the nicotine without the MOA's. It's comparing nicotine to itself. That doesn't say nicotine without the MOA's is less addictive than say, heroin (just for example).

Cigarettes are a new invention in the history of tobacco. Tobacco was addictive before there were cigarettes. They quickly supplanted all other tobacco delivery systems in popularity, but even before that, tobacco was probably the most widely used recreational drug in the world.

Or are you saying people don't get addicted to nicotine unless the co-administered with MOA inhibiters? MOA inhibiters, tend to have some very extreme side effects, and have dietary restrictions. The results of adding them to tobacco would be immediately obvious, due to flood of people to emergency rooms.

If false positive means what you say about nicotine, then it means that about nicotine tests and no other drug test. It also means that about nicotine and no other medical test. A false positive on HIV means you don't really have HIV. A false positive on THC means you really have not THC in your system.

Profanity?

Oh, you're talking about these two untrue, hypothetical statements, that I canceled myself? Where I was giving examples of how absurd the world would be if nicotine pills were possible?

and:



Those weren't insults. At all. I said smokers would be the rudest assholes, but they're not, because what would make them that way isn't true. They cannot take nicotine in pill form. So, they are forced to use more imposing methods to meet their need. Do you think I was just going out of my way to insult smokers? No. And I had a point.

You seemed to have been too distracted by my style to understand my substance, and then talked down to me. If you can't take the occasional profane statement, then you're going to be flustered by my posts. Your complaint about my underlining was just pettiness.

My personal opinion about citations is, people on discussion boards should think more and cite less. That's just my personal opinion as to what I think is missing on the boards. One is no substitute for the other.

Maybe you think I was too harsh on Yo_Mama, but I had said it twice and he wasn't getting my point, and he made citations that missed the point. Nicotine cannot be digested, and it doesn't matter how much of it is in foods, because none of it ends up in the bloodstream.

The strawman of equating ingesting nicotine and "getting a fix" of nicotine through digestion. The amounts of nicotine are vastly different.

Why do people smoke, when they have gum available?

Why do people smoke, when they have patches available?

On the false positive, the test is whether you're a smoker. Therefore, a false positive shows you to be a smoker when you are not. That's not so hard, is it? Poppy seeds can, in some small amount of cases, cause positive results for opiates in drug screenings. That's also a false positive, in the exact same sense - there are opiates present, but the subject isn't a drug user.

Profanity? "Assholes" "Ratshit insane". I've read all - or most, anyways - of your posts in this thread, and you clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder on the topic. Swearing doesn't engender civil discourse.

My opinion on citations is that people should discuss more and cite more. Rational discussion without facts to back you up is just bluster, pure and simple. For example, when you talk about gastric ingestion of nicotine, you could cite this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01079790?LI=true Now, it somewhat supports what you say, but it's very specific that absorption decreases from "well absorbed" at pH 9.8, to "negligible" at pH 1.0. Since the human stomach is between pH 3-5 we can see that some small amount of nicotine will be ingested, though far from a full dose (or a "fix", if you will). Enough to display a false positive on a test? Possibly. Ohhh...right, that's probably why you didn't want to cite something like that.

Now, on the topic of monoamine oxidase inhibitors: you've clearly misread the article. It's comparing Nicotine and Nicotine+MOAIs, and it's saying that Nicotine alone is not nearly as addictive as Nicotine+MOAIs. And they put "relatively weak" in quotes because it is a direct quote of the terminology used in the referenced study.

. . . and so you could verify what I said was true and to what degree, then why on earth would you ever demand one? That's my problem with citation in informal discussions. In the Internet Age, people can look it up themselves easily if it's important or if they're truly interested. If they aren't even that interested, I'm wasting my time with them.

Look: about nicotine and stomach acid, you were able to come up with something that verified my point exactly when you wanted to play gotcha about it. Perhaps not in all particulars, but I, myself, don't need all the details because I don't work in chemistry. And if I learn them now, through lack of practice, I will likely forget them by next week.

Despite how it looks, I'm not here to convince anyone. They're not likely to admit they're wrong about anything no matter how I source it. I'm not an expert anyway, and I have no illusions that I'm right on all the particulars because I'm not a specialist. The most positive thing I can do in discussion with them is awaken their curiosity on the subject enough to look it up themselves and see if I'm right and to what degree. (And yes, I have been corrected in discussions and it has prompted me to look it up myself.)

There are exceptions: if my argument is esoteric, I can see citing sources. If the discussion or writing is more formal or very important, I'll cite sources.

I have a sufficient explanation for those, but they're just rhetorical questions. You're only interested in mockery and gainsaying. If you've read all my posts here, as you said, you have the answer already.

You conflate profanity with the same emotional state in all people. Usually, if I use profanity, I say it that way because I like the turn of phrase, and I have nothing against the occasional cuss word. Yes, sometimes I get frustrated. Sometimes I've had a bad day. (And last night was both, which explains "ratshit insane.&quot Even considering all that my profanity use has been light. I challenge you to find more than one profanity per post, or even half that. Given my verbosity, that's very low.

Um, a test that detects nicotine in your body does not demonstrate that you're a smoker. How do you know the person isn't chewing, or patching? No, the way you test whether somebody is a smoker is to keep watching them. If they light up, they're a smoker. If they test positive for nicotine in their bloodstream, then they either nicotine from some source, or it's a false positive, meaning it's actually not present in their bodies at all. You should probably drop it, because from here there's nowhere to go but redundancy and mockery, and we're at already redundancy. Anything else you say about this will not be answered.

On the stomach, by memory of chemistry class I had thought the stomach had a pH of 1.0. But the source that I found places it as low as 1-2 and as high as 4-5.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenoteslab1/a/Stomach-Ph.htm

Though I knew you could put "stomach pH levels" into Google yourself, I decided to save you the unfeasible drudgery of typing 17 characters clicking the mouse, looking at the very first listing and clicking the mouse again. In my days of writing papers this was called "common knowledge," which you did not have to source. The Internet has made a lot of knowledge common.

I wasn't aware of the absorption curve, but to get the stomach to absorb amounts of nicotine needed for their test, they apparently had to turn it alkali in pH, and the absorption induced severe nausea due to rapid acid production, apparently, the nicotine stimulated the gastric cells as soon as they absorbed it. Also, this was done in a lab, and presumably, on an empty stomach.

I stand by my point, then. If nicotine could be absorbed in any significant amount (that is an amount that a smoker will feel) from the stomach, we'd have nicotine pills. And you'd have some extremely nauseated people.



There's some misunderstanding here. In first sentence, you seem to be saying exactly what I said. In the second, no doubt, they put it in quotes because it was in the article (which is, by grammatical use, the only time you should use quotes). That was never my point, nor is pointing it out a rebuttal to my point now. The question is, why did the Wikipedia author choose to go out of his way to make a two-word quotation?

Now that I look at it more carefully, I can see the Wikipedia author didn't say exactly what the source said. The source, Ivey & Triggs, say "In addition, it has been shown in several species that nicotine has relatively weak reinforcing properties compared with other addictive drugs." The Wikipedia article paraphrases that as, "Nicotine, a substance frequently implicated in tobacco addiction, has been shown to have 'relatively weak' addictive properties when administered alone."

So, it looks like I'm wrong on one point, it does say "other drugs." However, it says it has relative weak addictive properties in "several species." Does that include humans? I would think that would be important enough to mention.

Plus, in the abstract, the article doesn't demonstrate that there are MOAI's in tobacco smoke. It tests the effects of nicotine with MOAI's and hypothesizes that perhaps tobacco contains MOAI's. Given how tight-lipped the tobacco industry has been about its formulations, it makes sense it would be a hypothesis.

There's a big difference between hypothesizing-- which in this case, means conjecture-- and demonstrating.


That wouldn't be a straw man. That would be conflation. I don't think we really disagree here now. Though my doubts about other parts of the process remain. I doubt it can cross over in any significant, or perhaps even detectable amounts from the stomach. Apparently if it did, you'd immediately have stomach problems.

And if I had time to read and interpret every scientific paper on this subject and still eat, sleep and do my work, I would. I don't have that. I wish very much I did.

Good day, sir.

Do you think the questions I had were without merit? Like, it doesn't matter if they had to get somebody's stomach turned inside out to have it accept nicotine, and that's in a controlled environment? Or that the source says nicotine alone wasn't strongly addicting "in several species" but it doesn't mention humans? Or that the study just made the hypothesis that MOAI's were in tobacco based on what MOAI's did in a lab with several species?

That's moving the goalpost? No, I don't believe it is. I believe the real problem is, the studies didn't say what you thought they thought they did. They didn't nail down the facts needed to make your argument.

I even agree with you on a point, and you're still dissatisfied.

And there's still no such thing as nicotine pills. And there will never be. That's called game, match and set.

For a conversation that started out so badly, you really lived down to it. You're right. Have a great life.

PS: You're the one who placed the goalposts. I told you what you needed to do to win: prove that there are nicotine pills on the consumer market. That was the goalpost(s) I gave you, and you blew me off .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376761/table/T1/

The health concerns more fodder to reach an end than anything else as demonstrated by this cross.

Take away the possibility of adverse impacts to non-smokers, take away the odors, hell...take away almost all the adverse impacts to the subject themselves even and the zealotry continues unabated fueled by psychobabble and lame and phony concern about "the children" based on pretty much nothing.

I don't in any way miss going home at night smelling like an ashtray, with my eyes sore, and with sinus conditions I have to take decongestants for.

Plus, if you look up the increased chance a nonsmoker has of cardiovascular "event" in a room full second hand smoke, you would be shocked.

I have high blood pressure. I can demonstrate for you that nicotine raises it 20/10 points respectively. I know this because I've tried using nicotine through patches, but no, I've never smoked.

So, don't give any speeches about "Oh, it's only power and control of other people." You're paranoid, delusional, and resentful if you think the "power" to stop other people from smoking is in any way satisfying, except from the point of view that the air is fresher, there's less stress about my health, and less stress to breathing generally.

Quit making this a case of smokers being bullied. I came of age in the "smoky" '70s, and I wouldn't go back to that time for anything. Even if it was before AIDS and Herpes.

We were talking about people using e-cigs. As much as you might like to pretend otherwise, someone using an e-cig isn't smoking. So, why do you want to stop them?

Did you read where I said nicotine raises the blood pressure and constricts capillaries? It has other side effects. I'm not getting second-hand high from it, either.

Plus, I haven't read the articles, yet. I'm not at all certain that the tar and other pollutants are actually gone. Tobacco companies have a very large and effective propaganda wing, and it's very good at reassuring smokers that their habit is harmless for everyone. I remember there being a "smokeless cigarette" in the 80s that turned out to be even more harmful than a normal one. If you don't see smoke that doesn't mean it isn't killing you and the people around you.

And sure smells like it's killing somebody.

E-cig juice is comprised of flavoring, propylene glycol or glycerine, water and optional miniscule amounts of nicotine. The e-cig atomizer heats this liquid as the user inhales and the user then breathes out the resulting vapor. There is no burning of solids, which is what creates tar and carbon monoxide. Vapor does not distribute the same as smoke. If you enter a room five minutes aftersomeone that smoked a cigarette, that smoke is still lingering in the breathable air. If you enter a room five minutes after someone that has been using an e-cig, that vapor has already been dropped down to or absorbed by the surfaces in that room. If you're in the the same room as an e-cig smoker, unless that person blows vapor in your face, you're probably not going to inhale one single droplet.

Excuse me if I wait until that's confirmed. Did I already mention that tobacco companies have first-rate propaganda apparatuses aimed at convincing smokers their habit is harmless, to themselves and everyone else? Aren't the ones reporting this process the same people who lied about cigarette additives?

But that's all provisional. I could easily be persuaded that you're right.

My other objection is not so easily allayed. In my long experience with smokers in public places, you won't have someone using an e-cig; you'll have dozens or scores using them at a time. There will still be the issue of second-hand nicotine, which is neither benign nor neutral. When you say "absorbed by the surfaces" that includes the skin, mucus membranes, eyes and lungs of non-smokers. The nicotine in this aerosol form, I presume, would be designed for maximum absorption, so in mass use, it will easily go into non-smokers bodies.

I have high blood pressure, and to reiterate, I can demonstrate with a nicotine patch and a blood pressure meter that nicotine will raise blood pressure 20/10 and will accelerate my heart. Nicotine also constricts capillaries, and stimulates cell growth, and is a carcinogen in its own right.

However, it looks like I'm going to be a lab rat to this whether I volunteer or not. So, we'll see just how effective this is. I've already seen people using them publicly. The worse effect of it so far is that cigarette smokers then don't feel restricted anymore either, and they start lighting up, too. But that's bound to change as the e-cig takes off, as it will. I suppose I'm going to get used to it, and I'm going to have to.

What I guess is so distressing to me is after all the lies big tobacco has told to you, their customer, you're so willing to buy into the claims about this new delivery system. I suppose there's a chance they're not lying, but judging by the past, how great do you think that is?

Meanwhile, I predict that more people will become addicted to nicotine due to the e-cig. It will probably return to its 70 percent plus pre-1960s rate.

Excuse me if my embrace of this is not very warm.

Just some friendly facts given you sound like you're looking for them. One e-cig company ''Blu," I think has been bought out by a tobacco company, but by and large this is a new industry.

Nicotine is not a benign substance, but it's not a known carcinogen, although I think I've read it might be thought to exacerbate existing cancers or something.

Please, be skeptical about everything. But I for one would much rather have people around me emitting an odorless, dissipating vapor containing no known carcinogens than clouds of sticky particulate matter with thousands of cancer-causing substances. Also, no ash, no butts, no stains, no burns.

I can't help but thinking a lot of the objections (perhaps not yours) are coming from people incensed that "e-cigs" are another way for people to "smoke." It really isn't. It's something else entirely, and it's highly unlikely it's anywhere near as deadly or obnoxious.

The industry itself started in China. However, I think if you look at the investors, you'd likely find big tobacco in it up to their elbows. At least on the domestic market. There's no way big tobacco was going to allow e-Cigs to eat their lunch.

Nicotine not a carcinogen? Maybe it's not listed as a carcinogen. (Please note the power of the tobacco lobby). Here are just a few scientific articles about its effect on cancer, and they all point in one direction. (A hint: it's bad).

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17600315/reload=0;jsessionid=9tBXHk73O2ZNjjuhzpn1.2

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n7/abs/nm0701_833.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18844224

[link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495523|http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495523
]
http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/content/37/6/681.abstract

http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/13/6/R113

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28164

It's not listed as a carcinogen, but it stimulates cell activity and cell growth. Anything that accelerates those is also going to cause errors in growth. This can be seen by an increase in wrinkles and benign lesions in smokers. You can draw your own conclusion from that. The articles above show that it at least aggravates cancers that have started.

It is a marked improvement over conventional cigarettes, though, but a lot depends on the fluid loaded into them.

... and you're sticking with them,

Super.

That's only what I could find on the top of a first page of a Google search. I could have given you twenty more. Yet, you say, nicotine can't be a carcinogen because it's not on some list you know about.

First you advise me to be skeptical, then you act like an ass when I am.

Hypocrite. You have no intellectual flexibility, but you demand everyone else have infinite amounts of it. Good luck in the world with that demand. Nobody in the world changes their mind on a dime. Nobody. Even scientists. Even if your arguments are good. Because backtracking is hard. Right now, I can't tell what's true. I'm sorry, it's confusing. Most I can say is I'll think about it. Maybe in a month or so I'll change my mind, but right now, that's my POV and I'm sticking with it until I know better.

What do you expect? That I throw down and thank for your intellectual superiority before I'm even sure of it myself?

If you don't accept my POV about this, then can't you accept why I would have it? I definitely had that courtesy for you. If all citations nicotine don't give you that, if my being straightforward on my reasoning process (premise: nicotine stimulates cell growth and cellular activity) doesn't give you that much, maybe you should go back to the happy time before you saw my posts. It sounds like that was working for both of us.

And for everyone else here, I think I've said I'll see about the e-cigs, but my expectations are low and my approach skeptical. Can you accept that, or is that aiming skepticism at somebody too elite?

You've decided e-cigs come from tobacco companies, nicotine causes cancer, and the vapor is harmful to bystanders. There is no evidence for any of this.

There's no evidence e-cigs are safe either, but it's not helpful to throw down negative assumptions and then try to back into them.

I stopped smoking regular cigarettes as of one month and two days ago. I'm inhaling the vapor directly. I haven't even begun to cut down on the nicotine yet. Most of the liquid I'm using is 18mg, which is usually rated "high". And with all that my blood pressure has come down signficantly in the short time since I stopped using cigarettes. Last time it was taken when I still smoked it was 145/80-something. It's been around there in a holding pattern for some time. Could not get it any lower than that, but the doctor said that wasn't all that bad. This Monday I was at the doctor and it was 122/68. The only change I've made is switching to e-cigs and my stress level lately has been fairly high. I don't think that whatever nicotine is floating around in the vapor is going to hurt anyone's BP.

Also, you can't go by one BP reading, because a lot of things affect BP, and the meters are notoriously inaccurate. I know the latter is shocking to say for something so crucial, but it's also true.

Moreover, as with any drug, there is a certain tolerance effect with nicotine. The effect that it has on your blood pressure after you've been smoking for years will be less than for a nonsmoker, probably a lot less. It's one of the reasons why a nonsmoker in a room full of second-hand smoke is actually at a greater risk of an acute coronary than the smokers around him.

One thing that is true is nicotine is it raises the blood pressure generally. This has been tested repeatedly. There's no doubt about this. However, any scientific study depends on statistics, and what is true of the majority of people might not be true of a particular person.

That works, too, for the purpose of satisfying nicotine cravings. Does nothing for the craving for a cigarette, which is not the same thing.

With cigarettes, the nicotine crosses over into the blood stream in the lungs, which-- via the heart-- that gives the brain a quick, uncut nicotine "jolt" with every inhalation.

The gum just gives the brain a steady supply of nicotine, but it will still miss the jolts.

But it still satisfies a particular urge for many smokers, allowing us to quit smoking first, then bring down the nicotine and then, stop vaping if that seems most desirable.

I was discussing whether nicotine, and whatever has been introduced in manufacturing this nicotine solution, was harmful enough.

Nicotine is no joke as a drug. Having it in the air is no small thing.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022551212#post64

That's what I get posting hours after my mind is asleep, and after a terrible day caused by a different memory lapse.

cause or sore eyes are negative stimulation of your sinuses nor any know reason to elevate your blood pressure (which you admit it took a direct dose to your system to determine as well as weirdly wearing a patch when you never smoked, which is pretty bizarre behavior in and of its self).

So, yeah the lame ass arguments made in the present context make me dubious of the motivations from the previous debate too. When you have the same puritanical behavior and demands in a different paradigm then I have to call bullshit not just now but on before as well. Dishonest and controlling folks with martyr complexes are dishonest and controlling folks with martyr complexes. The people with legitimate concerns are satisfied when they are addressed and happily end the hostilities while asshole, busy body controllers just keep fighting that last battle seeking domination over the enemy.

. . . people kill people. I know it's off topic, but it's an example of a self-serving, ideologically based claim that's equally as ignorant. Just so you know, even most smokers will see your post in that light.

Your post certainly doesn't reflect well on your state.

We're done. For good.

some weak ass and childish insult while getting indignant for getting called or your lame bullshit.

Don't get mad at me because you showed your nature because overreach is too tempting to resist for some folks.

Honest brokers don't keep pressing after their concerns are remedied and not dealing square makes motives questionable and justly so. Why would you be fighting the last war after winning it other than for some power trip and/or phony martyrdom?

Since their is no "we" my feelings may prove to be just resilient enough to absorb our doneness, it probably wasn't written in the stars for us to be big pals right now anyway.

Peace Besty!

Extreme gotta-be-right-every-time argumentativeness, e.g.

Just sayin' ...



Bake

in a debate is far more harmful to BP than what little nicotine you could breathe in second hand lol

Obscene taxes.

I recently started using e-cigs, and I expect the government to do their best to stigmatize them in the near future to keep their revenue stream in place.

labor day weekend. I haven't had an actual cig since then. Now actual cigarette smoke is very noxious to me. I've cut down to the lowest nicotine level before zero and I'm ok with it. The act of smoking is not only an addiction but a habit. I liked to smoke after I eat, when I was stressed and when I have alcohol. I do all that with my ecig but now I can do it in my house, I do it at my desk at work, even in bed. I know we don't know all of the effects yet, but anything that can get cigarettes out of our hands and it's related pollution is worth promoting. I'm 42 and have been smoking since I was 17.

My 2cents

The consensus seems to be that they're considerably less dangerous than actual cigarettes, and may be useful for those quitting smoking; but, there may still be dangers. Research needs to be done on long-term effects.

Wikipedia has some of the discussion:

...........//snip


To be fair, critics of the FDA maintain that the levels of various harmful impurities were much lower than what is usually considered dangerous to human beings.

I would still maintain that more research needs to be done. If you're using e-cigs to quit smoking, well and good; but, please consider quitting the e-cigs when you've kicked the cigarette habit.

The propylene glycol, which is the part that produces the vapor has been researched to death over the years. Its the same thing found in fog machines. And its been in use for asthma inhalers and other healthcare delivery devices for a long, long time.

Nicotine has also been researched to death. Taken by itself, its not all that different from caffeine.

The only other thing is flavorings and its the same kind of flavorings found in all kinds of candy and food.

Unless you think putting those things together makes some kind of new chemical (which it doesn't), then theres really no merit behind the notion that this stuff has not been thoroughly researched. It has.

...and it was found in minute amounts in minute numbers of e-cigs.

That particular bit has been debunked pretty well. The question of whether e-cigs are "safe" is of course up in the air. But it's not smoking, so whatever objections there may be shouldn't be based on the notion that this is some new form of smoking, and therefore presumptively harmful.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetters1.1.1.html

the nicotine/tar/carbon monoxide is just an excuse for continuing stigmatization

which is why I am all in favor of public smoking bans. But I would no more complain about e-cigs than I would complain about someone eating red meat. People are welcome to have any bad habits they like as long as it does not affect me.

however, i do think a lot of our distaste (even for ecigs) is not being propelled by stigma not science or health concerns

When the American Lung Association got the smoking ban on the ballot, I voted for it enthusiastically in commemoration of the shit heads who wouldn't move their stinky faces away from us when asked politely: "Smoke on this!"

When you make breathing difficult for people-- when you irritate their eyes and cause them chronic sinus congestion and generally make the atmosphere bad-- well, even if they're polite about it, a lot of passive-aggressive anger tends to build up.

I remember how unpleasant just being social was in the '70s because of the damn cigarette smoke. My social life got much better when places started to go smoke free. About the only way to be social at the time was to take up the damn habit. So, if didn't want to smoke, there was the effect of being left out.

I don't want to have to go back to that. Smokers ignorance of what it's like for nonsmokers to be around them is just astounding to me. Being around one individually is a struggle, even when you otherwise enjoy their company or even love them. Being in a room with dozes or scores of them is just an ordeal.

No, there's no power rush to keeping people from smoking. But there is, no doubt, a pissiness about it. If you feel you've been "stigmatized," try refusing the smoking habit in a "smoke friendly" world and see what it does to your social life.

The worst thing about it is you can't even call it a stigma, but it has exactly the same effect.

PS. The pissiness tends to get worse depending upon whether the nonsmoker has actually had a close friend or relative, you know, die of a smoking-related illness. Especially if it was the final outcome of more than a decade of suffering. Especially after the cigarettes caused some of the separation between say, the parent and the offspring, though it was taboo to mention it because that would make the parent feel stigmatized and they couldn't quit the habit anyway. That tends leave a rather passive-aggressive imprint on a person.

Therefore, if you're finding people reluctant to embrace the e-cigs, those are possible reasons why. However, I think you'll find if these products work as well as people say, nonsmokers will learn to accept them. Watch.

but a stigma attached to smokers

But if the product is as good as looks (and, yes, I have my doubts) I think you'll find more flexibility about it then there first appears to be. People need to get used to them.

When I've been out and seen them used in a nonsmoking environment, after the initial strange looks, people didn't seem to have any objections. I guess I can get used to the smell. The worst thing about them was that smokers then took it as a signal that they could light up.

Thoughts are habits, too.

My husband and I both stopped regular cigs cold turkey after 30+ years with these.

I also think fire fighters would like to see more people using these and not catching themselves and the house on fire when falling asleep when smoking.

I think it would be just as easy to keep kids away from using them as it is with regular cigs...restrict the sales.

I stopped smoking 2 years ago when I switched to e-cigs after 50 years of heavy smoking. My doc, who has been nagging me for years, is now recommending them to people like me after seeing me stop .

He even had me demonstrate it for another patient.

real cigarettes

I don't know where to begin so I just won't say anything more.

i love how you reliably demonstrate things i talk about. like stima, stereotype, generalizations, lack of complex thought, shaming etc.

good work

You're being a jerk. You should stop.

And I'm saying that as a non-smoker who really doesn't like cigarette smoke.

There's no science to back what you said and it seems more like a bid to provoke a response than a sincere opinion.

nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2465114

Smug moralizers are high on that list.

"no better than real cigarettes..."

I imagine anyone but an idiot would be able to back up a statement like this they make with valid, peer-reviewed analysis. And since you're allegedly not an idiot, you will of course supply us with this analysis, yes?

Word!

All of their missives are one liners with (nt) unless they are feeling particularly verbose on a topic (nt). Then, they will spew their regularly scheduled negative bile (nt) as if anyone gives a shit (nt).

I'm sitting here enjoying a coffee flavored one in my office right now.

Haven't thought about a "regular" cig in forever. No interest in it.

And my response to e-cig opponents: GROW UP!

Granted, as the article suggests, there should be rules - don't give them to children, monitor what goes in the nicotine vaporizer cartridges so people aren't being poisoned, but subject to those provisos, they should be legal.

They're a great tool to wean people away from real cigarettes, second-hand "smoke" isn't really a problem, so I see them as a net benefit.

And I don't smoke!

They hate smokers. They feel that smokers should be miserable while they smoke, and they damn well deserve to suffer when they quit. Many smokers quit by switching to e-cigs with no misery at all, and that just infuriates those people.

I've been using an ecig for 3 years and can smell a smoker miles away...ugh, to think I used o smell like that!! I see no down side on ecigs at all.