Foxon and Shiffman should have tipped off someone else to write the article. It doesn’t look as if the analysis required to debunk this charlatan was very complicated.
Well, good for you. My position is as clear as yours, just different. I'm uncomfortable about young people becoming addicted and expect in a few years time we will start to see some restrictions on the industry. Agreed on the smoking is disgusting point too.
The essence of Snowdens article is this quote from Glantz :"Physicians, regulators, and educators should discourage youth from attempting to use e-cigarettes as a way to stop smoking cigarettes"
Glantz is opposed to the , use e-cigarettes as a way to stop SMOKING cigarettes
Why do I need a more concrete objection when my response is subjective and a personal opinion. When they are marketed as quasi sweets then that gives me reason to repel them.
The basis of my comments lies in trying to balance the narrative which is currently overwhelmingly in favour of vaping.
Smoking used to be viewed in the same way. Doctors would regularly smoke them to clear their lungs.
So your position has roughly the same level of credibility as that of Glantz. Pure prejudice based on the fact that you don’t like it and think it must somehow be harmful even if you can’t pinpoint how.
For the record, I think smoking is disgusting and don’t see the attraction of vapes (never done either) but I strongly support the liberty of people to do what they like, regardless of the impact on their health, and I despise fraudulent “science” with passion. The likes of Glantz need to be exposed and if possible taken down.
All points taken and noted. However I am far more focussed on the dangers that vaping hold, especially for the young, who are being cynically targetted and seduced by the lollipop colours and taste of these ghastly sticks. They are becoming addicts of the very thing that is supposed to keep them away from smoking!
Surely it is fairly obvious that anything done to excess ( as vapers are wont to do) is likely to have a negative outcome of some sort? Positive, of course, for the manufacturers - who are not spending millions on promoting them in an enlightened effort to 'save' their target audience.
The very thought of inhaling this cocktail of synthetic substances into my body repels me. It doesn't appear to be the case for tens of thousands of young users.
"Surely it is fairly obvious that anything done to excess ( as vapers are wont to do)" <- This part shows you have no understanding of how nicotine delivery with vaping products works and probably shouldn't comment.
I'm merely commenting on the inherent dangers of inhaling substances into the lungs and the reality of young people spending hours of their time doing so. I shall continue to comment and expect you to do the same 😍
Fair enough, but it's very irritating to keep hearing this myth that vapers take lots of puffs so they must be smoking more, which is untrue. Combustible tobacco is the most efficient nicotine delivery device ever invented, it sends nicotine deep into the lung and into the bloodstream at a supersonic rate. Unfortunately it also delivers tar, carbon monoxide and other cancerous substances. Vaping doesn't, it delivers nicotine without the harmful elements of smoking mostly to the buccal cavity and in small amounts. As a result, vapers take 'sips' to top up their nicotine level to what they were accustomed to as a smoker. Smokers binge, vapers graze. They are not "smoking more" or to excess as many who don't understand the subject say.
Additionally, although there are approx 125k youth regularly using vapes, there are over 9 million adults smoking or vaping regularly. The focus on youth vapers is a sideshow seeing as only 2.3% of them were not former smokers.
No Alice, you really are not. You previously stated that you are far more focussed on the dangers that vaping holds. Compared to what? The dangers of legal vaping are tiny compared to traditional smoking, but are above the level of doing neither of course.
You refer to legal vaping - this is not the focus of my attention. It's underage teenagers who are vaping illegally and they are the ones who will become future nicotine addicts. It is not surprising to hear the industry talk only about their role in helping adults quit smoking.
You literally said " I am far more focussed on the dangers that vaping hold, especially for the young, who are being cynically targetted and seduced by the lollipop colours and taste of these ghastly sticks. They are becoming addicts of the very thing that is supposed to keep them away from smoking!" Well that is a comment about legal vaping surely. Targetted marketing to those who are under-age ain't allowed. And you have just admitted you're a fibbing dodge pot anyways because you imply that vaping isn't the danger, it's that it might lead to smoking traditional cigarettes, for which there is little evidence. What would be the point? The hit is the same, the price is significantly higher.
Sigh. There is no evidence that teenagers migrate from vaping to smoking. Chris has written a lot about this canard. And we now have the evidence from Australia that the banning altogether of vaping has resulted in a huge increase in the rate of teenage smoking. I think we all agree that that is a terrible outcome.
Foxon and Shiffman should have tipped off someone else to write the article. It doesn’t look as if the analysis required to debunk this charlatan was very complicated.
Well, good for you. My position is as clear as yours, just different. I'm uncomfortable about young people becoming addicted and expect in a few years time we will start to see some restrictions on the industry. Agreed on the smoking is disgusting point too.
The essence of Snowdens article is this quote from Glantz :"Physicians, regulators, and educators should discourage youth from attempting to use e-cigarettes as a way to stop smoking cigarettes"
Glantz is opposed to the , use e-cigarettes as a way to stop SMOKING cigarettes
Do you agree with him?
Why do I need a more concrete objection when my response is subjective and a personal opinion. When they are marketed as quasi sweets then that gives me reason to repel them.
The basis of my comments lies in trying to balance the narrative which is currently overwhelmingly in favour of vaping.
Smoking used to be viewed in the same way. Doctors would regularly smoke them to clear their lungs.
So your position has roughly the same level of credibility as that of Glantz. Pure prejudice based on the fact that you don’t like it and think it must somehow be harmful even if you can’t pinpoint how.
For the record, I think smoking is disgusting and don’t see the attraction of vapes (never done either) but I strongly support the liberty of people to do what they like, regardless of the impact on their health, and I despise fraudulent “science” with passion. The likes of Glantz need to be exposed and if possible taken down.
All points taken and noted. However I am far more focussed on the dangers that vaping hold, especially for the young, who are being cynically targetted and seduced by the lollipop colours and taste of these ghastly sticks. They are becoming addicts of the very thing that is supposed to keep them away from smoking!
Surely it is fairly obvious that anything done to excess ( as vapers are wont to do) is likely to have a negative outcome of some sort? Positive, of course, for the manufacturers - who are not spending millions on promoting them in an enlightened effort to 'save' their target audience.
The very thought of inhaling this cocktail of synthetic substances into my body repels me. It doesn't appear to be the case for tens of thousands of young users.
"Surely it is fairly obvious that anything done to excess ( as vapers are wont to do)" <- This part shows you have no understanding of how nicotine delivery with vaping products works and probably shouldn't comment.
I'm merely commenting on the inherent dangers of inhaling substances into the lungs and the reality of young people spending hours of their time doing so. I shall continue to comment and expect you to do the same 😍
Fair enough, but it's very irritating to keep hearing this myth that vapers take lots of puffs so they must be smoking more, which is untrue. Combustible tobacco is the most efficient nicotine delivery device ever invented, it sends nicotine deep into the lung and into the bloodstream at a supersonic rate. Unfortunately it also delivers tar, carbon monoxide and other cancerous substances. Vaping doesn't, it delivers nicotine without the harmful elements of smoking mostly to the buccal cavity and in small amounts. As a result, vapers take 'sips' to top up their nicotine level to what they were accustomed to as a smoker. Smokers binge, vapers graze. They are not "smoking more" or to excess as many who don't understand the subject say.
Additionally, although there are approx 125k youth regularly using vapes, there are over 9 million adults smoking or vaping regularly. The focus on youth vapers is a sideshow seeing as only 2.3% of them were not former smokers.
No Alice, you really are not. You previously stated that you are far more focussed on the dangers that vaping holds. Compared to what? The dangers of legal vaping are tiny compared to traditional smoking, but are above the level of doing neither of course.
You refer to legal vaping - this is not the focus of my attention. It's underage teenagers who are vaping illegally and they are the ones who will become future nicotine addicts. It is not surprising to hear the industry talk only about their role in helping adults quit smoking.
You literally said " I am far more focussed on the dangers that vaping hold, especially for the young, who are being cynically targetted and seduced by the lollipop colours and taste of these ghastly sticks. They are becoming addicts of the very thing that is supposed to keep them away from smoking!" Well that is a comment about legal vaping surely. Targetted marketing to those who are under-age ain't allowed. And you have just admitted you're a fibbing dodge pot anyways because you imply that vaping isn't the danger, it's that it might lead to smoking traditional cigarettes, for which there is little evidence. What would be the point? The hit is the same, the price is significantly higher.
Sigh. There is no evidence that teenagers migrate from vaping to smoking. Chris has written a lot about this canard. And we now have the evidence from Australia that the banning altogether of vaping has resulted in a huge increase in the rate of teenage smoking. I think we all agree that that is a terrible outcome.
Do you have a more concrete objection to vaping than the fact that it “repels” you and you consider the “sticks” to be “ghastly”?
Your second sentence makes an assumption that vaping gives rise to dangers; what is the basis of this assumption?