Thailand continues debate on electronic cigarettes

[Matt96]

4 minutes ago, kalidescopemind said:

If all there is in the cartridges of e-cigs is nicotine, e-cig pose zero health problems, except elevated heart beat.  

the problem is with the liquid in cartridges - formaldehyde, which is harmful itself.

 

5 minutes ago, kalidescopemind said:

E-cigs have saved a lot of lives in that way, they are a far healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes.  

its just your wishful thinking. same as heroin junkies like to talk that "heroin is not so harmful as oppressive state propaganda depicts it"

 

6 minutes ago, kalidescopemind said:

E-cigs have saved a lot of lives in that way, they are a far healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes.

no proof

[bbbbooboo]

hmmm.... I wonder what a monopoly on stupidity is called  in the world of tobacco selling ?

[tifino]

 

... 'Debate' ... what Debate?, - 'it's a Decision

Done'n' cough cough Dusted

 

 

so much stress, for some, that it'll lead them to smoke heavier, to get over it...

[anon789561]

2 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

but have no proof lol that's why you go ad hominem in almost any post.

i think i explained my position on this earlier but just for you . . . https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/promote-e-cigarettes-widely-substitute-smoking-says-new-rcp-report

[Matt96]

Just now, Happy enough said:

i think i explained my position on this earlier but just for you

this is just an internet site article, not a scientific research

 

and even this articel says " E-cigarettes and long-term harm - the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, "

 

likely? lol lol lol

this is not how scientific research should be described.

 

for example, for decades in the US it was written in pseudo-scientific journals that fat is likely to be much more harmful than sugar. not it is known that Kellog and other sweet breakfast manufacturers paid for them.

[zzidenn]

2 hours ago, Matt96 said:

there is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco.  it's just in imagination of those who want to find an easy way to destroy his and other people health in public places.

 

but there are studies suggesting that e-cigarettes damage lungs in unique way - not same as cigarettes.

 

https://newatlas.com/e-cigarette-unique-lung-disease-harm/51847/

 

even FDA did not approve e-cigarettes.

 

ban on e-cigarettes is totally justified. if you  can't accept it - go back home. Thai government create new laws to make Thai people healthier not to indulge harmful habits of foreign visitors.

if you really believe that, maybe you should go home.

People who live in thailand are not foreign visitors. Thailand is part of the world and the world is home to all of us. we live in the year 2018

[wealthychef]

Efforts at policing private citizens' health choices are forced down peoples' throats... in other news, the rampant bribery of police officers continues without any effort at changing or controlling the practice.  

[kalidescopemind]

You have gone off the deep end.  Nicotine in e-cigs is non-carcinogenic.  There is formaldehyde in cigarettes, maybe in some e-cigs.  Cigarettes kill over a Million people every year due to the presence of strong carcinogens, but you want "proof" that e-cigs save lives, like you have any idea what you are taking about?   The only bad chemical you seem to know of in some, not all, e-cigs is formaldehyde, which is classified as a "probable carcinogen"  unlike cigarettes, that have about 5 very strong carcinogenic compounds.   You have put on an impressive display of your lack of knowledge.    

[zzidenn]

46 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

here you are - typical globalism-leftism which the West is trying to impose to the whole world. no its not.  your home country is your home. not "the world"

 

people on the land, in the country still have a right to decide who they allow to enter as visitors on their land. if you dont agree with this - burn your passport.

yes, they are visitors. either you like it or not. and they don't owe you anything.

 

home is an abstract term. if you wanna refer to your home as your place of birth, please do so. 

my home is where i want it to be and it always has been. 

 

[anon789561]

anyway, as much fun as matt has been. i like you matt. you have made me laugh. i like people who make me laugh. i'd say that the iqos is and will be rolled out internationally, (still uses tobacco) will be taxed in the same way as smokes are and will be just as expensive as smokes but clearly alot less harmful. right now everyone, not just thailand is working out where their cut comes in. IMO

[zzidenn]

3 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

no its not. it's written in international laws by which the whole world lives.
 

my home is the country where I have a citizenship. and yours too.

dont lie to yourself

 

so throw away your passport. and try to go to the foreign country. lest see if people of this country will agree that it is your home now

 

just a wishful thinking

lol

good luck man! and congrats for being a non smoker for so long.

[tomacht8]

7 hours ago, ukrules said:

This monopoly recently reported a loss of 1.5 Billion Baht , the first such loss.

 

This means that the Thai taxpayers are now subsidising the company as it's a state enterprise.

 

How can the monopoly generate such a huge loss?
In a business where all other tobacco companies in the world achieve billions in profits? Who is just putting all the money in his bag?

[anon789561]

so will it be IQOS and taxed and then they hit vapers with enforcement?? i think it will go IQOS way??

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, wgdanson said:

The public is NOT confused over this. It this committee who are.

You, for instance, appear to be very confused about them....in particular confusing them with cigarettes. 

[2112]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

You, for instance, appear to be very confused about them....in particular confusing them with cigarettes. 

This fool seems to be very confused!

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” (Proverbs 26:4). In other words, "don't argue with stupid people, they'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience" (M. Twain).

[mommysboy]

If they were dangerous I really don't think they would be legal in countries such as UK and the USA.  The health authorities in UK actually encourage their use as a smoking cessation device and have been backed by some heavyweight health orgainizations such as cancer research UK.

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, monkfish said:

E-Cig vapor does not contain Formaldehyde unless vaped at over 480 F and nobody vapes at this temp without getting their lungs burned out.
 

Yes it was a bogus study- in vitro at that.

[Matt96]

4 minutes ago, Gforcejunkypkt said:

The article refers to both heavy metals and formaldehyde specifically and very clearly...

and it is still not a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal. just another blah-blah\

 

4 minutes ago, Gforcejunkypkt said:

I guess the Royal College of Health doesn't get any peer reviews...

I dont know. you did not give me a link to a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal

4 minutes ago, Gforcejunkypkt said:

And how much more authority do you need than a doctor that specializes in this topic

i dont need an authority at all. all i need is a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal. why it is so hard to understand?

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Matt96

[Gforcejunkypkt]

2 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

and it is still not a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal. just another blah-blah\

 

I dont know. you did not give me a link to a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal

i dont need an authority at all. all i need is a scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal. why it is so hard to understand?

 

Ok, here you go: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/guidelines-policy/e-cigarettes-inquiry  -- why is this so hard to understand? Take off your blinders!!

[Matt96]

1 minute ago, Gforcejunkypkt said:

Ok, here you go: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/guidelines-policy/e-cigarettes-inquiry  -- why is this so hard to understand? Take off your blinders!!

its just a " inquiry response " nothing else

[Gforcejunkypkt]

1 minute ago, Matt96 said:

its just a " inquiry response " nothing else

But since your so knowledgeable about his subject and act like you know more than the UK Royal doctors and all of us experienced vapers, please address the "inquiry response" point-by-point in order to enlighten us. We're waiting Dr. Matt....Any other response will just be your consistent BS...

[Matt96]

Just now, Gforcejunkypkt said:

But since your so knowledgeable about his subject and act like you know more than the UK Royal doctors and all of us experienced vapers, please address the "inquiry response" point-by-point in order to enlighten us. We're waiting Dr. Matt....Any other response will just be your consistent BS...

i have no wish to analyse someones' response to someones' inquiry. no scientific research in peer-reviewed journal - no proof

[monkfish]

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/new-cdc-study-officially-debunks-vaping-and-formaldehyde-myth

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/dr-michael-siegel-ca-vaping-study-shows-second-hand-vapor-is-harmless-to-public-health

“Area sampling results showed that background formaldehyde concentrations were similar to the personal sampling results. Low concentrations of formaldehyde exist in many indoor environments because of off gassing from furnishings, clothing, and other materials.”

Yep there is Formaldehyde in vape but it's also in the air you breath so better to use an oxygen tank if you are worried.

Edited April 2, 2018 by monkfish

[Bastos60]

9 hours ago, Get Real said:

The only reason this ban exists, is to secure that the tobacco monopoly is intact. Disregarding better health, we rather ban and still make money out of peoples misery.

We still have no clue on what the long term effects are of vaping, so far the only reason it would be better for health is that it can help people break there cigarette dependency.
But is far more annoying to bystanders who are not smoking, it is even annoying to smokers.  In closed rooms the vapor doesn't dissipate as easily as smoke from cigarettes does. 
Ever sit in a room with heavy vapers? It is like the fog in London. 

It is far less innocent as what you would make it out to be.

[Bastos60]

36 minutes ago, monkfish said:

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/new-cdc-study-officially-debunks-vaping-and-formaldehyde-myth

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/dr-michael-siegel-ca-vaping-study-shows-second-hand-vapor-is-harmless-to-public-health

“Area sampling results showed that background formaldehyde concentrations were similar to the personal sampling results. Low concentrations of formaldehyde exist in many indoor environments because of off gassing from furnishings, clothing, and other materials.”

Yep there is Formaldehyde in vape but it's also in the air you breath so better to use an oxygen tank if you are worried.

Where are the times the tobacco industry was throwing around such studies to prove smoking was harmless.

[sambum]

9 hours ago, ukrules said:

This monopoly recently reported a loss of 1.5 Billion Baht , the first such loss.

 

This means that the Thai taxpayers are now subsidising the company as it's a state enterprise.

 

Many years ago in the UK, I was a smoker, and my stock answer to anyone who criticised my "habit" was that if everybody stopped smoking, then other taxes would have to be increased to make up the shortfall, so I was in effect subsidising  non smokers. Needless to say, I got the usual indignant responses about the savings in NHS treatment for lung cancer, breathing disorders etc., but my answer to that was that the increased life expectancy for the ex smokers would in itself put an added strain on the system. People live longer, therefore there is more to be paid out in pensions and benefits.

Years later, although I kicked the habit a long time ago, my views are exactly the same!   

[mommysboy]

18 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

We still have no clue on what the long term effects are of vaping, so far the only reason it would be better for health is that it can help people break there cigarette dependency.
But is far more annoying to bystanders who are not smoking, it is even annoying to smokers.  In closed rooms the vapor doesn't dissipate as easily as smoke from cigarettes does. 
Ever sit in a room with heavy vapers? It is like the fog in London. 

It is far less innocent as what you would make it out to be.

Nonsense argument on many fronts. Misinformation and hypothetical situations.

 

We most definitely do have a clue about long term effects, but obviously it can not be stated with certainty- same applies to many innovations.

[Get Real]

44 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

We still have no clue on what the long term effects are of vaping

 

44 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

It is far less innocent as what you would make it out to be.

You do know that you just contradicted yourself, right? Good Job!

[cookieqw]

but they sell them on beach road next to soi 5

[cookieqw]

1 hour ago, sambum said:

Many years ago in the UK, I was a smoker, and my stock answer to anyone who criticised my "habit" was that if everybody stopped smoking, then other taxes would have to be increased to make up the shortfall, so I was in effect subsidising  non smokers. Needless to say, I got the usual indignant responses about the savings in NHS treatment for lung cancer, breathing disorders etc., but my answer to that was that the increased life expectancy for the ex smokers would in itself put an added strain on the system. People live longer, therefore there is more to be paid out in pensions and benefits.

Years later, although I kicked the habit a long time ago, my views are exactly the same!   

you seem to think it is better to have a non healthy populace than a healthy one