48 replies to this topic

[jugoso]

Just a different way to get your nicotine fix. It may be healthier but hardly healthy. Shouldn´t be promoted on TV IMO.

[JGirl]

supervike, on 06 December 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Seems to be a win-win for everybody.

Smoking is bad for you, we all know that, but some people just aren't going to quit.

This sort of thing allows them to still do it, and makes it much safer for everyone.

I think its a great idea.

Light em up! (figuratively speaking)

Why are the anti-smoking people upset?

i think it's a great alternative for those who do not want to quit their nicotine addiction. the electronic cigarette is perfectly safe for one's body, does not give off any chemicals or smoke to anyone else in the area, does not smell, does not make a mess, does not hurt anyone.
my only problem with it was the weight of it. some might not find that a deterrant - i'm figuring they'll make them lighter in future.

[G Donnelly]

What would happen though if everybody stopped smoking overnight?
They will increase taxes on anything that it isn't bolted down.
Then create an anti E cigarette group to keep us on our toes.
The government will attempt anything to fill the coffers.
Even after their little money spinner has bit the dust.

[Arbenol68]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Just a different way to get your nicotine fix. It may be healthier but hardly healthy. Shouldn´t be promoted on TV IMO.

I don't know much about the health risk of nicotine, but it is nowhere near the main risk of smoking. When people talk about smoke-free policies and campaigns, they're don't mean nicotine-free. It's not nicotine that's the problem, it's the method of delivery that's the real killer.

So, as a previous poster wrote. What's the problem with advertising these? A less lethal method of nicotine delivery? God forbid.

[jugoso]

Arbenol68, on 06 December 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

I don't know much about the health risk of nicotine, but it is nowhere near the main risk of smoking. When people talk about smoke-free policies and campaigns, they're don't mean nicotine-free. It's not nicotine that's the problem, it's the method of delivery that's the real killer.

So, as a previous poster wrote. What's the problem with advertising these? A less lethal method of nicotine delivery? God forbid.

These devices keep you hooked both physically and psychologically as you are still getting your nic fix AND still engaging in the ritual of "smoking".  Remember "popeye" cigarettes?

[Arbenol68]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

These devices keep you hooked both physically and psychologically as you are still getting your nic fix AND still engaging in the ritual of "smoking".  Remember "popeye" cigarettes?

But, if it reduces health risks significantly, what's the problem?

[F3SS]

Walnut Whip, on 06 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

What would happen though if everybody stopped smoking overnight?
They will increase taxes on anything that it isn't bolted down.
Then create an anti E cigarette group to keep us on our toes.
The government will attempt anything to fill the coffers.
Even after their little money spinner has bit the dust.

Why do you think Nanny Bloomberg in NY has outlawed, yes OUTLAWED, large soft drinks and not cigarettes? It's isn't about anyone's health. It's about 2 smaller drinks of equal size to the outlawed larger drinks cost more money therefor more tax revenue is gained. It seems ridiculous because I can't see a real significant boost in revenue but if he was so concerned over the "widespread" health risks of a large pop why on Earth wouldn't he be the most outspoken cigarette Nazi the world has ever known? I'm not trying to make sense out of liberal government here because that's like trying to figure out women but all I can see from such a thing is either a boost in tax revenue or just wielding power over the people. My guess is both.

Arbenol68, on 06 December 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

But, if it reduces health risks significantly, what's the problem?

I don't see any problem unless they're advertising them as a new product to try. Like The Patch and Nicorette, these should be directed at current smokers only and not something new to try for anybody else. They can't possibly be healthier for a non-smoker unless you have amphibious genes and your lungs require extra moisture or you have a desire to be hooked on water vapor because if they contain nicotine I guess they could be addictive which is contrary to what I've said before about them not being so. I didn't know they had nicotine.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 06 December 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[OverSword]

Brother and his girlfriend, both faifly heavy smokers since the 80's bought some of these about a year ago and quit like that *snaps fingers

[jugoso]

Arbenol68, on 06 December 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

But, if it reduces health risks significantly, what's the problem?

Like Mr_Fes- said above, if they are marketing them as a new product to try then you are really just setting people up to eventually smoke. I´d like to see long-term statistics on how effective these are in getting people to stop smoking cigarettes permenantly.

[OverSword]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Just a different way to get your nicotine fix. It may be healthier but hardly healthy. Shouldn´t be promoted on TV IMO.

Actually when my brother used these to quit he started off with the nicotene inserts and soon weened himself off and changed to non-nicoteen inserts, so still maintaned the feeling of smoking but without the harmful chemicals or terrible odor that comes from tobacco.

Edited by OverSword, 06 December 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[jugoso]

OverSword, on 06 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Brother and his girlfriend, both faifly heavy smokers since the 80's bought some of these about a year ago and quit like that *snaps fingers

Quit wht??? They still take nicotine and still "smoke". I along with five other people I know who were long-term hard.core smokers read a book and stopped like that *snaps fingers   (but really stopped)

http://www.unexplain...opic=227287&hl=

[OverSword]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

These devices keep you hooked both physically and psychologically as you are still getting your nic fix AND still engaging in the ritual of "smoking".  Remember "popeye" cigarettes?

You need to do more research before spouting such opinionated innacuracies

[OverSword]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Quit wht??? They still take nicotine and still "smoke". I along with five other people I know who were long-term hard.core smokers read a book and stopped like that *snaps fingers   (but really stopped)

http://www.unexplain...opic=227287&hl=

Read my above.  They use nicoteen.  nicoteen is optional.  More research you need.

[JGirl]

jugoso, on 06 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

These devices keep you hooked both physically and psychologically as you are still getting your nic fix AND still engaging in the ritual of "smoking".  Remember "popeye" cigarettes?

are you suggesting the physical act  of intaking nicotine is wrong? is this where the nonsmoking bias is headed now?

[Arbenol68]

JGirl, on 06 December 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

are you suggesting the physical act  of intaking nicotine is wrong? is this where the nonsmoking bias is headed now?

I agree. This message is coming across loud and clear. It's strange but, the way I see it, if you can make smoking (or an analogue of smoking) significantly less harmful then why shouldn't this be marketed as any other product. After all there doesn't seem to be the same objection to fast food outlets and sugar loaded food advertising.