Thailand got it right about vaping?

[ThomasThBKK]

Quote

Since the regulatory process for vape oils is “pure chaos right now,” it’s hard to know which chemicals have been added, and even if what’s on the label is accurate, he says. The FDA, for example, has issued multiple warnings to companies making inaccurate claims about the contents of products containing CBD, another compound in marijuana. 

 

 

Quote

While the FDA attempts to stop cannabis products from making health claims, it does not regulate THC vaping products––in part because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. And though some states require companies to submit to random independent testing of their products, Borodovsky says, there’s little oversight before something goes to market—and even less for the “black and gray market companies” that have popped up as the industry has grown. “Just because it says lab-tested on the label, don’t believe that,” he says.

Products that contain less than 0.3% THC do not fall under Drug Enforcement Administration purview. And those that contain more are subject to a byzantine regulatory system that can prevent even scientists from studying their contents.

Soon in Thailand  too...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/is-vaping-marijuana-safe-deaths-and-lung-disease-linked-to-e-cigs-call-that-into-question/ar-AAGUSNW

 

lol at banning flavored ejuice but thc <deleted> isn't regulated at all... braindead

 

11 hours ago, jany123 said:

I’m not sure about your wee rave about Thai doctors though... the study I linked was done by Dartmouth college in the USA.

https://news.thaivisa.com/article/39038/e-cigarettes-cause-brain-damage-and-cancer-reports-thai-media

 

Just read that rubbish then, Nicotine causes cancer this genius claims, meanwhile cigs, nicotine gum and patches don't right, yeah... for sure no corruption involved.

[wisperone]

Inhaling a concoction of chemicals into your lungs everyday....what could go wrong? Maybe the 2 recent deaths and thousands of lung issues should be a warning to others. But perhaps not. You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till these kids get older and see on ventilators before they kick off. 

[White Christmas13]

8 million

 

Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Around 80% of the world's 1.1 billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.

 

1: Vaping Is Less Harmful Than Traditional Smoking.

[ThomasThBKK]

9 minutes ago, wisperone said:

Inhaling a concoction of chemicals into your lungs everyday....what could go wrong? Maybe the 2 recent deaths and thousands of lung issues should be a warning to others. But perhaps not. You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till these kids get older and see on ventilators before they kick off. 

http://archive.fo/fc0iN 

 

Taking blackmarket drugs you mean? 

 

Ohh you use the word chemical, sounds dangerous... Throw away your asthma sprays, and of course air in thailand is nothing but pure ???? no one claims vaping is healthy, it's less unhealthy then every alternative.

You can't ban something less harmful and allow the harmful one just because tax money. Wake up sheep... 

 

Ps: no offense to the teens, if i had to live there i would need to get high too

[pattayadave]

19 hours ago, Yme said:

I'm about 3 months ahead of you. I plan to ditch the tanks by the end of the year. With the money I saved I went and repaired some of the damage 40 years of smoking had done. Six coronary stents and 2 kissing iliac stents in India. Couldn't have afforded my cigarettes habit in the last few years in Australia. 

The (very dangerous) patches were useless and fell off in the heat, the pills made me feel homicidal, and the gum was a waste of time. 



 

57 days, stopped using Quomem only took the tablets for 14 days then binned them.

[jany123]

 

 

5 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

 

https://news.thaivisa.com/article/39038/e-cigarettes-cause-brain-damage-and-cancer-reports-thai-media

 

Just read that rubbish then, Nicotine causes cancer this genius claims, meanwhile cigs, nicotine gum and patches don't right, yeah... for sure no corruption involved.

Ok... no worries... but again, I’m not sure why you need to point out the failings of thai research to myself, or anybody here... my post contained no mention of Thai research... it actually suggests that studies done by others be considered when constructing new regulations

 

 

"We will continue to present fact-based, non-ideological studies and results from other countries with the government," Mr Margolis said.

 

Anyway... moving forward... using research conclusions by others, apparently e cigs are dangerous for you. Complain to the US surgeon general, if you don’t agree... and while one chemical included in e cig use, may not be carcinogenic, it doesn’t mean that e cig fluids themselves are not carcinogenic... in fact, non Thai research finds that e cig use can indeed cause cancer and brain damage, as the Thai article you linked, suggests.

 

https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/knowtherisks.html

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323036.php

Also, one study paper published this year explains that e-cigarettes may produce dangerously high levels of formaledhyde.

Formaldehyde and other aldehydes are chemical compounds that harbor carcinogenic properties, meaning that prolonged exposure to these substances has the potential to cause cancer.

 

Now... maybe you could link studies that demonstrate no cancer or brain damage potential from e cig use. (If you want to carry on about nicotine alone, please explain the delivery method of nicotine, which does not include carcinogens)

 

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by CharlieH
link to bangkokpost removed as per forum rules.

[jany123]

44 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

Ohh you use the word chemical, sounds dangerous... Throw away your asthma sprays, and of course air in thailand is nothing but pure ???? no one claims vaping is healthy, it's less unhealthy then every alternative.

You can't ban something less harmful and allow the harmful one just because tax money. Wake up sheep... 

 

Wonderful.... you ascribe to a system such as methadone to reduce heroine use. Apparently this is somewhat effective under medical supervision.... but your suggestion doesn’t include supervised use, nor does it address uptake of use by non nicotine consumers, ergo your model is akin to freely handing out the methadone to all comers, no questions asked.

 

and again, per my original post, whilst e cigs might stop thousands from smoking, they encourage tens of thousands to start smoking, which might be great for a small percentage of the population (those that are already addicted), but it’s bad for the population overall (those not yet addicted), and one must consider the welfare of the group over any individual.

 

so... perhaps legislating the use/sale of e cigs to existing smokers only (those individuals), might be a way to move forward, as e cig use seems to only benefit those committed to quitting. Ergo....That’s the only reasonable target group for the use of e cigs, at present. 

 

and.... you can indeed ban a harmful product. That it is “less harmful” than an alternative, has no realistic value whatsoever. It is still harmful! 

 

Tobacco was never banned, because it preceded medical research and was in common use, and actively killing people. So... The logical spin is to ban unsafe tobacco products that cause harm, not introduce more tobacco products that cause harm. 

 

anyway... why ban them? Because if the health department approve their (unrestricted) use, that very same department is open to future lawsuits for approving it... just as is the case for all approved products... There are too many class action suits out there already.

 

so... e cigs only for medicinal purposes... ie, as a supervised substitution drug (medical marijuana use springs to mind)... that seems reasonable, whilst ostensibly protecting non nicotine addicts. (Or at least an attempt to protect)

 

 

[rocket3rider]

On 9/6/2019 at 6:45 PM, BestB said:

Good on you, you will find your reduction in nicotine is just in your mind.

 

I was a heavy smoker up until 3 years ago when i switched to vaping.

 

At that stage i still had very little understanding of e juice or much else for that matter.

 

I really loved horny flava, so stuck with it. Without realizing for at least 1.5-2 years that horny flava i was vaping was in fact 0 nicotine.

 

Point is, get yourself 0 nic juice now and you will not even know  if you vaping nic free or not. ????

So you decided to take a lung substance without doing your research or even looking at at the bottles you bought for 1.5-2 years.

 

Priceless.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, rocket3rider said:

So you decided to take a lung substance without doing your research or even looking at at the bottles you bought for 1.5-2 years.

 

Priceless.

Yes and your point is what exactly ?

[rocket3rider]

RTFM

[ThomasThBKK]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

Wonderful.... you ascribe to a system such as methadone to reduce heroine use. Apparently this is somewhat effective under medical supervision.... but your suggestion doesn’t include supervised use, nor does it address uptake of use by non nicotine consumers, ergo your model is akin to freely handing out the methadone to all comers, no questions asked.

 

and again, per my original post, whilst e cigs might stop thousands from smoking, they encourage tens of thousands to start smoking, which might be great for a small percentage of the population (those that are already addicted), but it’s bad for the population overall (those not yet addicted), and one must consider the welfare of the group over any individual.

 

so... perhaps legislating the use/sale of e cigs to existing smokers only (those individuals), might be a way to move forward, as e cig use seems to only benefit those committed to quitting. Ergo....That’s the only reasonable target group for the use of e cigs, at present. 

 

and.... you can indeed ban a harmful product. That it is “less harmful” than an alternative, has no realistic value whatsoever. It is still harmful! 

 

Tobacco was never banned, because it preceded medical research and was in common use, and actively killing people. So... The logical spin is to ban unsafe tobacco products that cause harm, not introduce more tobacco products that cause harm. 

 

anyway... why ban them? Because if the health department approve their (unrestricted) use, that very same department is open to future lawsuits for approving it... just as is the case for all approved products... There are too many class action suits out there already.

 

so... e cigs only for medicinal purposes... ie, as a supervised substitution drug (medical marijuana use springs to mind)... that seems reasonable, whilst ostensibly protecting non nicotine addicts. (Or at least an attempt to protect)

 

 

 

lol yeah because HEROIN is freely available in stores like cigarettes? 

Subutex, the heroin subsidy however is freely available in european countries like france, without any supervision, guess why, to get people off of heroin.

 

 

Some really nice mental gymnastics you are capable off doing.

 

 

Ecigaretts don't encourage smoking anyway, that's just another made up lie: https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/e-cigarettes-do-not-promote-smoking-teens/

Let adults do what they want, vaping is already banned for minors, same as alcohol and cigs.

Do you want to forbid everything unhealthy?

 

Quote

Tobacco was never banned, because it preceded medical research and was in common use, and actively killing people. So... The logical spin is to ban unsafe tobacco products that cause harm, not introduce more tobacco products that cause harm. 

 

lol yeah nothing to do with billions of tax money and the tobacco lobby....................

 

[ThomasThBKK]

51 minutes ago, rocket3rider said:

RTFM

Blame the guvment here, hard to to research on black market stuff, you never know what's in, if that stuff was sold in a licensed pharmacy or regulated shop none of these issues would exist.

[jany123]

22 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Subutex, the heroin subsidy however is freely available in european countries like france, without any supervision, guess why, to get people off of heroin.

Widely available dude, not freely available. It must be prescribed by a doctor... guess why. Because it’s an addictive drug which is being widely abused.

[jany123]

31 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Ecigaretts don't encourage smoking anyway, that's just another made up lie: https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/e-cigarettes-do-not-promote-smoking-teens/

“But we need to be cautious before attributing smoking patterns and attitudes within this study directly to vaping. 

This study has not even assessed teens' views on vaping, or whether they have tried or regularly used e-cigarettes.”

 

the above is from your link.... did you only read the headline?.... to summarize, the article does not support your claim

[ThomasThBKK]

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Widely available dude, not freely available. It must be prescribed by a doctor... guess why. Because it’s an addictive drug which is being widely abused.

Every physician can describe it to you there, it's absolutely hilarious to even compare it to nicotine tho.

All this would do is kill the whole vape economy and put it back into pharmacy corporations that will bleed users left and right.

Vaping doesn't work if it's not easy to get, cheap to maintain and gets put into a stigma like heavy drugs.

Everything is already heavily regulated, all liquid companies must send their stuff to laboratories that check the ingredients and purity. For the devices the same electronic safety applies as for every other electronic device too, from CE certification to blabla.

 

If you have a hard time buying vaping gear it's less efficient and people will just go and buy fags at 7 11 and die a horrible death from lung cancer. 

Go figure.

 

Doesn't make sense to discuss with people like you anyway as you have zero empathy and just make <deleted> reasons up against it as you please.

 

5 minutes ago, jany123 said:

“But we need to be cautious before attributing smoking patterns and attitudes within this study directly to vaping. 

This study has not even assessed teens' views on vaping, or whether they have tried or regularly used e-cigarettes.”

 

the above is from your link.... did you only read the headline?.... to summarize, the article does not support your claim

 

Lacking reading comprehension hu? 

 

How about you show us the numbers that proof there is a teen vaping epidemic? 
 

Come give us your source, there's none. We are waiiiting.

 

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

 

 

Ok... no worries... but again, I’m not sure why you need to point out the failings of thai research to myself, or anybody here... my post contained no mention of Thai research... it actually suggests that studies done by others be considered when constructing new regulations

 

Anyway... moving forward... using research conclusions by others, apparently e cigs are dangerous for you. Complain to the US surgeon general, if you don’t agree... and while one chemical included in e cig use, may not be carcinogenic, it doesn’t mean that e cig fluids themselves are not carcinogenic... in fact, non Thai research finds that e cig use can indeed cause cancer and brain damage, as the Thai article you linked, suggests.

 

https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/knowtherisks.html

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323036.php

Also, one study paper published this year explains that e-cigarettes may produce dangerously high levels of formaledhyde.

Formaldehyde and other aldehydes are chemical compounds that harbor carcinogenic properties, meaning that prolonged exposure to these substances has the potential to cause cancer.

 

Now... maybe you could link studies that demonstrate no cancer or brain damage potential from e cig use. (If you want to carry on about nicotine alone, please explain the delivery method of nicotine, which does not include carcinogens)

 

 

 

Rubbish fake study. As already pointed out earlier, there's no formeldehyde in ecig as that can only happen if eqliuid is burned.

Ecigs don't burn eliquid, that would make it impossible to inhale: 

https://vapebeat.com/health/that-ecig-formaldehyde-study-is-complete-rubbish

https://www.clivebates.com/spreading-fear-and-confusion-with-misleading-formaldehyde-studies/

 

Quote

Essentially, what this study demonstrates is that if you overheat a vaping system, it will produce high levels of formaldehyde. However, such conditions are not realistic, as they could not be tolerated by an actual vaper. Therefore, extrapolating from this study to a lifetime of vaping is meaningless.

 

 

Quote

Now... maybe you could link studies that demonstrate no cancer or brain damage potential from e cig use. (If you want to carry on about nicotine alone, please explain the delivery method of nicotine, which does not include carcinogens)

<deleted> off with your strawman fallacys.

How about you point to studies that show no brain damage potential from reading your replies, because unless you can they should be banned here.

 

 

[jany123]

33 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

Let adults do what they want, vaping is already banned for minors, same as alcohol and cigs.

Do you want to forbid everything unhealthy?

 

 

lol yeah nothing to do with billions of tax money and the tobacco lobby....................

 

Yer sure... I would direct your attention to prohibition. Take away a perfectly legal and established drug (alcohol) and the shy will fall, the same would happen if you unilaterally banned tobacco.

 

anyway... let people do what they want, is that your solution? The law prohibits me from doing a lot of things, some of which i don’t agree with, but prohibiting some actions is necessary, which is a hallmark of civilization, whereby to live communally, laws need to exist.... blame god, he started with the commandment rubbish, not me.

 

meanwhile, I am still maintaining this needs to be controlled, along with other addictive products, for the sake of the whole, vs individual.... note controlled... which is the position I started with...  not prohibited.... and I have also consistently maintained it is something for smokers to use therapeutically, vs being available for non smokers, much like, as you will remember, methadone and subtext, is for heroin abusers

[jany123]

3 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Doesn't make sense to discuss with people like you anyway as you have zero empathy and just make <deleted> reasons up against it as you please.

My partner is currently using an e cig ( or tank... she has multiple), and I used an e cig before I quit smoking tobacco products..... you have zero knowledge pertaining to my empathy... and... where have I made reasons up, as you assert? I’m pretty sure I supported everything with links (sometimes by using your links!)

 

no sir, it’s you who is misconstruing things, including my posts, which condemn the use of e cig products by non smokers only.... because I have empathy and real life experience to draw on.

[jany123]

 

23 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

How about you show us the numbers that proof there is a teen vaping epidemic? 
 

Come give us your source, there's none. We are waiiiting.

 

From the U.S. Surgeon General’s office last year, Jerome Adams also issued a warning: Vaping among youth has reached epidemic levels. 

https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/teen-vaping/

 

Patience petal.... wait no more... although I simply typed in e cigs teen epidemic, and the answers popped up immediately, so you really had no need to wait

 

[jany123]

29 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Rubbish fake study. As already pointed out earlier, there's no formeldehyde in ecig as that can only happen if eqliuid is burned.

Ecigs don't burn eliquid, that would make it impossible to inhale: 

https://vapebeat.com/health/that-ecig-formaldehyde-study-is-complete-rubbish

https://www.clivebates.com/spreading-fear-and-confusion-with-misleading-formaldehyde-studies/

Wow... double down donald!

 

you back up an e cig advocates opinions with an opinion provided by an e cig provider... sort of like believing the Marlboro man when he told you smoking was safe, don’t you think?

 

i see your next paragraph... your last paragraph... demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that your losing the plot, old son.... probably because you’ve got nothing of real value to add, eh what?

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

 

 

From the U.S. Surgeon General’s office last year, Jerome Adams also issued a warning: Vaping among youth has reached epidemic levels. 

https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/teen-vaping/

 

Patience petal.... wait no more... although I simply typed in e cigs teen epidemic, and the answers popped up immediately, so you really had no need to wait

 

The devil is in the interpretation.  One misleading thing is that 'experimenters' are counted as regular users.  This makes it appear that there is a teen epidemic when in fact there isn't: just teenagers experimenting as they do!

 

Still, it's not as bad as the report that blamed heart events on vaping before people even started vaping.????

[ThomasThBKK]

33 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yer sure... I would direct your attention to prohibition. Take away a perfectly legal and established drug (alcohol) and the shy will fall, the same would happen if you unilaterally banned tobacco.

 

anyway... let people do what they want, is that your solution? The law prohibits me from doing a lot of things, some of which i don’t agree with, but prohibiting some actions is necessary, which is a hallmark of civilization, whereby to live communally, laws need to exist.... blame god, he started with the commandment rubbish, not me.

 

meanwhile, I am still maintaining this needs to be controlled, along with other addictive products, for the sake of the whole, vs individual.... note controlled... which is the position I started with...  not prohibited.... and I have also consistently maintained it is something for smokers to use therapeutically, vs being available for non smokers, much like, as you will remember, methadone and subtext, is for heroin abusers

 

Oh yeah but you want to forbid ecigaretts for us, how does that make ANY sense? The reason is because it's not legal or what? But why is it not legal, because of corruption here.

 

I am not the one here who wants anything banned, unlike cigarette smoke vaping has no second hand damage. 

Adults should be allowed to take what they want, as long as they don't endanger others doing tho.

Cigaretts are dangerous for everyone who you sourround tho, allowing them while forbidding something less harmful is just corruption and hypocrisy.

 

Quote

meanwhile, I am still maintaining this needs to be controlled, along with other addictive products, for the sake of the whole, vs individual.... note controlled... which is the position I started with...  not prohibited...

 

It is controlled and regulated pretty much everywhere, <deleted>.

No minor is allowed to buy it, every manufacturer is regulated under the FDA in the USA and other bodies depending on country. 
Tons of regulation from TDP in europe to whatever the equivalent is in other countries.

 

 

22 minutes ago, jany123 said:

My partner is currently using an e cig ( or tank... she has multiple), and I used an e cig before I quit smoking tobacco products..... you have zero knowledge pertaining to my empathy... and... where have I made reasons up, as you assert? I’m pretty sure I supported everything with links (sometimes by using your links!)

 

 

 

Well, then she's also breaking the law, welcome to the club. She shouldn't be a criminal just for trying to quit smoking. (assuming you both are in Thailand).

Efags are already banned for minors everywhere, we don't need more bs laws that harm their adoption, we need to encourage smokers to switch over.

It needs education not prohibition.

If people can't buy their ejuice at a gasstation or vapestores and only from a doctor nothing will happen.

 

Quote

no sir, it’s you who is misconstruing things, including my posts, which condemn the use of e cig products by non smokers only.... because I have empathy and real life experience to draw on.

 

No i didn't, i debunked them, you just can't read the links and you have the habit of misinterpreting.

You don't want non-smoking adults to have access to ecigs while you give me a talk about prohibition, what kind of mental hypocrisy is that?

 

Look i would NOT mind if only smokers can access ecigaretts, but that's IMPOSSIBLE, how do you want to do that logistically??? I just go to a doctor and waste their time and tell them i am a smoker and i get my ecig or what.

Waste of time and resources, make it easier not harder. Nothing than a brainfart. There's over 10 million smokers in thailand, how the hell do you expect that to work??

 

9 minutes ago, jany123 said:

 

 

From the U.S. Surgeon General’s office last year, Jerome Adams also issued a warning: Vaping among youth has reached epidemic levels. 

https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/teen-vaping/

 

Patience petal.... wait no more... although I simply typed in e cigs teen epidemic, and the answers popped up immediately, so you really had no need to wait

 

 

I ask you once again for the numbers, there are none, the surgeon general just made this up.

How often do i have to repeat that? 

 

The youth smoking/vaping rate is at an all time low, by definition can there not be any epidemic.

 

https://nicotinepolicy.net/blogs/guest-blogs/95-dunworth-james/1860-teenage-vaping-epidemic-hype-or-fact

Quote

So how many teenagers are vaping?  12% of under 18’s have tried vaping. But the key word is tried. Just 2% of teenagers vape at least once a week, and almost all of these are existing smokers, with just 0.2% of non-smokers using electronic cigarettes on a regular basis.^[1]

 

 

So for 0.2% of teenagers you want to kill millions of people, right, go figure.

Punish their parents and people who sell to them but leave adults alone.

I guess they can be damn happy these kids are just vaping and not smoking tho.

 

Quote

although I simply typed in e cigs teen epidemic, and the answers popped up immediately, so you really had no need to wait

 

Yes, this is all you do and also the reason your knowledge is mostly wrong. if you would have at least taken the time to search for counterexamples and stories that debunk this surgeon comment one could at least take you serious.

 

Ok let's do that:

 

https://www.clivebates.com/the-great-american-youth-vaping-epidemic-really/

 

Quote

This is crucial to understanding the ‘anatomy’ of the so-called youth vaping epidemic.  Now the data is available it confirms the picture we expected.  

But the analysis does not stop there. What would this group of regular or daily users be doing instead of vaping if e-cigarettes did not exist? The data strongly suggest that many of these more regular users would be smoking.

Ohhh let's see

 

Quote

Scientists with access to the underlying datasets for the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey on which the ‘youth vaping epidemic’ claim is based have provided the breakdown of the frequency of vaping (number of days vaping in the past 30) by tobacco use history.  Absolutely unsurprisingly, the most frequent vapers are also previously or currently smokers – the more they have smoked, the more they are likely to be more frequent vapers.  This is the critical point: vaping is ‘intruding’ on the smoking behaviour of US adolescents. 

 

So how does the epidemic look in absolute numbers

 

Quote

0.6%	Proportion of students who were regular vapers and never used tobacco products

 

Oh yes, so around 0.6% of teenagers vaped without smoking before. But - maybe there's something that inflated this numbers, of right, it's called marihuana.

Quote

Despite the moral panic about vaping in the United States, the current use of marijuana was almost one in five 19.8% in 2017 among high school students. In 2018 e-cigarette use was 20.8%. It is quite possible that some of the increase in vaping arises from adolescents vaping cannabinoids instead of smoking. Though one would not wish to condone this, it is better to vape than to smoke – whatever the substance. However, such an effect would exaggerate the rise in vaping. It could simply represent a change in the way young people take marijuana.

 

 

Ohh we talked about brain damage before right? 

 

Quote

So an important rider on this claim is that: there are no human data that show nicotine causes material harms to the adolescent brain. The evidence that there exists is based on rat and mouse studies. Even the Surgeon General’s 2016 report recognises just how indirect and speculative the claims of harm are:

Limited direct human experimental data exist on the effects of nicotine exposure from e‑cigarettes on the developing adolescent brain, but experimental laboratory data have been found to be relevant in animal models to contextualize effects in humans.

 

Ohh right so another made up statement by the Surgeon General, without any underlying evidence.

 

But what do scientist say? 

 

Quote

I am unaware of evidence suggesting that nicotine “can cause learning, attention and memory problems” in young people. Please advise.

In fact, Abrams et al. point to research suggesting cognitive benefits for adults from nicotine use:

Our framework allows for additional harms informed by science and recognizes potential benefits of nicotine use in adults (e.g., increased alertness, concentration, memory, and modulating mood) (Heishman et al., 2010; Newhouse, 2018; Talati et al., 2016). 

 

Oh right, just another surgeon general lie.

 

There's more research that suggest teenagers don't get hooked on nicotine due to vapin: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/25/teen-vaping-is-not-what-you-think-it-is-researchers-say/

 

Quote

And as it turns out, the overwhelming majority of teens who experiment with vaping — about two-thirds of them — use only the flavored vaping juices that contain absolutely no nicotine, marijuana or other drugs. The findings "suggest that the recent rise in adolescent vaporiser use does not necessarily indicate a nicotine epidemic," the authors concluded.

 

It is after all, just fear mongering, and morally extremely questionable as even pointed out by the world renowned epidemiologist Dr Niaura: 

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/renowned-epidemiologist-debunks-fda-claims-of-teen-vaping-epidemic

 

Quote

“Well, it depends on how you define an epidemic, which is actually NOT – as far as I can tell - [the FDA press release] doesn’t have the strict guidelines in terms of definitions.  But, it has been declared an epidemic by no less than the Food and Drug Administration and the Surgeon General of the United States.  So, by their accounts, it is an epidemic.“

 

Interviewer Stafford then asks why two of one of the world’s largest public health agencies - the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – use terms like “epidemic” and “clear and present danger” which are typically reserved for such potentially catastrophic outbreaks of deadly diseases like yellow fever and the Ebola virus.  Dr. Niaura responds by noting the data used by the FDA to declare a vaping epidemic in September 2018 was not publicly available at the time of the announcement, which, in itself, is rather strange.  

“Yes, and you bring up Ebola, which is raging in the Congo right now. And that’san epidemic...”

 

“Frankly, this is what was annoying and frustrating by the – back in the fall when the FDA and the CDC… and the Surgeon General were saying that [teen vaping] was an epidemic, we researchers didn’t have access to…this information at that point in time.  And, you know, we’re an obsessive-compulsive bunch.  We like to slice and dice and dissect and look at everything and kick the tires for ourselves to convince ourselves, you know, that we understand what’s going on.  And, you know, I have to say – and no offense to the FDA or the CDC or the federal government – but we don’t take things on trust.  That’s not how science works.“

 

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

 

TL;DR: Don't believe everything the first google hit gives you.

[rocket3rider]

I didn't inhale.

 

 

[ThomasThBKK]

34 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Wow... double down donald!

 

you back up an e cig advocates opinions with an opinion provided by an e cig provider... sort of like believing the Marlboro man when he told you smoking was safe, don’t you think?

 

i see your next paragraph... your last paragraph... demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that your losing the plot, old son.... probably because you’ve got nothing of real value to add, eh what?

Wow, now the ad hominems come out, sure as you have no arguments. Debate lost, thanks.

 

It's simply science, Ecig devices heat up liquid to around 200-300 degrees, so they don't burn. So no formaldehyde.

Everyone who ever vaped knows that a dry hit is impossible to breath in.

 

What kind of BS reasoning would disallow me to quote a vape advocate? They are after all vape advocates because they are convinced that ecigaretts are less harmful.

So i am just allowed to listen to anti vape advocates, right?

Dumbass reasoning, all your arguments are either slippery slopes, strawmans or other logical fallacys.

 

Old son? Thanks, but i am quite young and progressive.

[jany123]

13 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Oh yeah but you want to forbid ecigaretts for us, how does that make ANY sense? The reason is because it's not legal or what? But why is it not legal, because of corruption here.

Who Is “us”... an existing smoker using e cigs therapeutically, or a non smoker giving it a whirl? 

 

The reason is its potentially a huge health risk ( and associated burden on non users), and this needs proper research to provide a semblance of fact. (Existing users can be the guinea pigs... but prevent new users until there’s a consensus)

 

why is it not legal here? Could well be corruption, as common sense often seems elusive within the kingdom.

[jany123]

31 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

It's simply science, Ecig devices heat up liquid to around 200-300 degrees, so they don't burn. So no formaldehyde.

Everyone who ever vaped knows that a dry hit is impossible to breath in.

It is indeed simple science.... chemistry actually... here it is explained for you.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/

[jany123]

32 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Dumbass reasoning, all your arguments are either slippery slopes, strawmans or other logical fallacys.

And yet they are all supported with credible links.

[jany123]

1 hour ago, ThomasThBKK said:

It is after all, just fear mongering, and morally extremely questionable as even pointed out by the world renowned epidemiologist Dr Niaura: 

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/renowned-epidemiologist-debunks-fda-claims-of-teen-vaping-epidemic

Lmao.... the article is about semantics... it’s not an epidemic because epidemic infers disease, if used in its strictest medical sense, which smoking is not, as its behavioral. The term is used metaphorically by health officials, but that’s not scientific... lol... pedantic

 

And the conclusion from another link that you supplied, which says exactly what I say;

 

In conclusion, the majority of US youth who use vaporizers and e-cigarettes do not vape nicotine," the researchers wrote. "This finding challenges many common assumptions and practices, and points to the need for vaporizer-specific research to assess and ultimately regulate the public health threat of vaporizers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/25/teen-vaping-is-not-what-you-think-it-is-researchers-say/

 

even your own links don't concur with you... Vaping is harmful and Regulations are not robust enough to prevent youth uptake, which is encouraged thru flavored products. Existing smokers can knock themselves out for all I care, but they shouldn’t be so self centered as to rope new users into e cig use. Ignore the surgeon general if you want, you did when you started smoking, so even though time has proven him right on that call, why believe him now, right?

 

as a minimum, current research definitely suggests there is a problem, so it needs sorting now, rather than when the damage is done.... did you support the grounding of the Supermax jets, or oppose that decision?... because that was about stopping something before it caused more issues, and it’s implementation, though late in America, is largely seen as the correct action. Stop. Investigate, implement controls, continue.

[ThomasThBKK]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

It is indeed simple science.... chemistry actually... here it is explained for you.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/

 

Yeah thanks, it explains what i said. No one can vape at those conditions...Already explained that x times.

it's absolutely unrealistic.

Especially the used pod systems all work in TC mode, temprature control, which can't go over those tempretures...

Happens in cigarettes 100% of the time tho, but that doesn't matter because cigaretts right?

 

Quote

 Vaping is harmful and Regulations are not robust enough to prevent youth uptake, which is encouraged thru flavored products. Existing smokers can knock themselves out for all I care, but they shouldn’t be so self centered as to rope new users into e cig use. Ignore the surgeon general if you want, you did when you started smoking, so even though time has proven him right on that call, why believe him now, right?

 

Oh yeah but flavored beer, alc, cigaretts and shisha is ok and doesn't cause youth epidemics...

 

You want to forbid ecigs, forbid everything, just stop beeing a hypocrite.

You are the only self righthouse person here, which seems to be common in ex-smokers...

Are you annoying your ecig vaping GF with thise stuff all day long too?

 

Quote

as a minimum, current research definitely suggests there is a problem, so it needs sorting now, rather than when the damage is done.... did you support the grounding of the Supermax jets, or oppose that decision?... because that was about stopping something before it caused more issues, and it’s implementation, though late in America, is largely seen as the correct action. Stop. Investigate, implement controls, continue.

 

 

Yeah that will help, lets wait another 20 years and let 8 mio people die from cigaretts each year.

If the only alternative to supermax jets would be sth more dangerous then no i wouldn't support it, such a bad comparison...

 

 

 

Quote

why is it not legal here? Could well be corruption, as common sense often seems elusive within the kingdom.

 

lol why are tobacco heating devices and shishas not legal? Taxes...

 

they have no tax code for this: http://www.thailawforum.com/blog/thailand-to-legalize-e-cigarettes-and-vaporizers

 

But now they just make stuff up about nicotine causing cancers while selling nicotine gum from Pfizer, they don't want PM to bring out their IQOS device as it would cause them major market share in their tobacco monopoly, you might want to try to lookup who owns the Thai Tobacco monopoly... 

Besides IQOS, PM also known as Altria owns JUUL, the biggest (and worst) vape brand

 

There are a bunch of interesting things about it actually like: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alliance-one-international-inc-and-universal-corporation-resolve-related-fcpa-matters

 

Quote

To obtain these contracts, Dimon paid bribes totaling $542,590 and Standard paid bribes totaling $696,160, for a total of $1,238,750 in bribes paid to the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly officials during the course of four years. Universal Brazil admitted that the company paid approximately $697,000 in kickbacks to the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly officials. Court documents detail how the companies conspired to set the price of the tobacco sales, pay the kickbacks to the officials, and then falsely characterized the payments on each of the companies’ respective books and records as "commissions" paid to their sales agents.

 

PM is their arch enemy, sued them in front of the WTO and won, tho thailand refuses to pay them: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30372928

 

I mean, you are totally entitled to your opinion and for sure vaping is worse than breathing just air but thinking it's a net negative in thailands health is just made up, the amount of issues caused by vaping will be less than those of tobacco - if we set the amount of taxes generated aside.

[wisperone]

8 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

no one claims vaping is healthy, it's less unhealthy then every alternative.

Believe that if you like.... people don't start smoking and come down with cancer the next day. But people are facing lung issues much sooner from vaping than those who smoke cigs. Believe what you want. I would say come back in 30 years and lets see what the vapers are going thru, but we are already seeing the results very soon after they start. Too each their own, People can do with their lungs what they want. 

[BestB]

19 minutes ago, wisperone said:

Believe that if you like.... people don't start smoking and come down with cancer the next day. But people are facing lung issues much sooner from vaping than those who smoke cigs. Believe what you want. I would say come back in 30 years and lets see what the vapers are going thru, but we are already seeing the results very soon after they start. Too each their own, People can do with their lungs what they want. 

Again for the 10th time , those with lung problems are not vaping ejuice but poorly made cannabis oil . 

Can not say most or how many , but highly unlikely most vapers vape cannabis oil, otherwise numbers of sick people would be into millions not a few here and there.

 

like it or not but vaping community is huge worldwide and growing by the day. Some have been vaping for over a decade and they have not come down with any illness., yet newbies are getting sick . 

 

Why are they getting sick? For the 11th time because that vaping poorly made cannabis oil not regular ejuice.