It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New york to amend health bill, trying to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes!!!

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Oh you are talking about the 1993 study by the EPA in the United States. That one was so sloppily done that it was roundly criticized by the courts. But the anti-smokers still use it to support their cause.

Yes - this is the one that started anti-smoking in the US but they were just following along with the UN. The one who actually started this craze of using "science" to justify a puritan movement to ban smoking was actually Hitler during the second world war.

www.smokersclub.com...

He had drawn all the same conclusion that current anti-smokers rely on and enacted all the same regulations. He hired scientists to do "research" that mirrored what scientists are just finding out today with their "research". Funny thing, when he died in the bunkers, the first thing everyone did was light up! The smoking rate in Germany doubled as soon as he died.

Anti-smokers have a hard time in Germany now because people still remember Hitler.

Most people don't know it but there was an anti-smoking campaign led by Lucille Gaston-Page in the 1930s that actually went so far as to get the sale of tobacco banned in 17 states. This puritan campaign is not talked about very much because it occurred at the same time as prohibition of alcohol. Lucille Gaston-Page died of throat cancer after an unsuccessful bid to be president of the United States.

Dave Hitt's site is a good site to learn how to properly read and interpret epidimiologic studies.


Tired of Control Freaks
edit on 20-6-2012 by TiredofControlFreaks because: To add information

edit on 20-6-2012 by TiredofControlFreaks because: To add information




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by PrestonSpace
 


PrestonSpace

Please read the whole thread. E-cigs are no competition to Big Tobacco. Lorillard owns and e-cig company. You should be upset with Big Pharma who is funding the campaign to ban e-cigs through the Big Charities. E-cigs are competition for smoking cessations devices sold by Big Pharma. That is a 2 billion dollar a year market!

Tired of Control Freaks


Lorillard might own own an ecig company but there are many. Aside from that there are over 200 ecig shops in the us. I know most of the stuff comes from china but many of the shops I mentioned make their own vapor juice.

Also people have mentioned in this thread that hard core cigarette smokers don't turn to ecigs only those looking to quit switch to ecigs. That is not true ecigs are just better, they don't smell you get the same feeling and are a tenth of the price. I just hope if they ban them I don't go back to the nasty death sticks.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PrestonSpace
 


PrestSpace

You proved my point. You turned to e-cigs because you wanted to quit smoking. People who don't want to quit smoking, usually don't, but may also use them only in certain situations.

I have provided a link proving that Big Pharma funds Big Charity to promote and defend their smoking cessation products. I have provided links showing Big Tobacco in into the e-cig markets. Somehow that still doesn't convince you?

Here is another link for you. This is directly about the New York ban. NOtice that they are not comparing e-cigs to tobacco. They are talking about the direct competition that e-cigs provides to Big Pharma cessation products.

newyork.cbslocal.com...

Still you want to mad at Big Tobacco? Go ahead. But how can you influence a politian if you don't even know what is going on?

Tired of Control Freaks
edit on 20-6-2012 by TiredofControlFreaks because: More information

edit on 20-6-2012 by TiredofControlFreaks because: added information



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I never said you didn't convince me relax. Who i'm going after is these (to email): hannon@nysenate.gov, skelos@nysenate.gov, alesi@nysenate.gov, breslin@nysenate.gov, dilan@nysenate.gov, duane@nysenate.gov, farley@nysenate.gov, fuschill@nysenate.gov, hassellt@nysenate.gov, ojohnson@nysenate.gov, lkrueger@nysenate.gov, larkin@nysenate.gov, lavalle@nysenate.gov, senator@senatorlibous.com, marcelli@nysenate.gov, maziarz@nysenate.gov, montgome@nysenate.gov, nozzolio@nysenate.gov, parker@nysenate.gov, perkins@nysenate.gov, saland@nysenate.gov, sampson@nysenate.gov, seward@nysenate.gov, skelos@nysenate.gov, masmith@nysenate.gov, scousins@nysenate.gov

Whether they are in bed with big tabacoo or big pharma I don't really care I just want the bill stopped.
And I don't think I will accuse them of being in bed with anyone they would probably just hang up.

Also I didn't want to quit smoking I just found a better alternative.



edit on 20-6-2012 by PrestonSpace because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by PrestonSpace because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by PrestonSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This is just fascist corporatism pokin its ugly head out... and once you get into the "bad" vs "good" argument about cigs and e-sigs, you as a people have already lost.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I've had mixed success and failures with my ecigs. I have a bunch of supplies sitting there, wasting away...My first attempt lasted about a month, then it broke. Last attempt involved a Ego-T, sort of fizzled plus didn't really enjoy the flavors of juices I purchased. I like having the option though, because I'm an adult and don't need a NANNY STATE telling me the specifics on how I prefer to take a legal drug. I've paid enough in "Sin Taxes" that have done nothing to curb my usage to realize that the "Nanny" state is more like an "abusive caretaker" state with mafioso tactics. They don't care about me, or my legal addiction. They only care about their Sin tax.. Who knows what they use it on (sort of unconstitutional, but I digress).

To advocate a ban is hypocritical. If they care about safety, ban cigarettes not e-cigs...

It's not about safety. It reminds me of my state's recent 85 dollar "click it or ticket" no seatbelt offense/ fine. A fine that is enforced for "Safety" concerns, while motorcyclists can ride without helmets. Yep, a fine that is nothing more then a money grab.

There's no money in e-Cigs for the Government. Currently, they can't tax it. It's also a highly effective and cheap alternative to what is offered by Big Pharm for smoking secession... How obvious could this ban attempt be?

This isn't about safety, it's about $$$.

I've watched youtube videos showing hearings (I think it took place in another state), where e-cig advocates showed their evidence, and council members could care less. It almost looked like they were sitting there, just to placate the advocates, and didn't even once listen to the evidence or concern of the advocates. I'm willing to bet, the same thing occurred in NY.

The other problem is a majority of the public think E-Cigs are as dangerous or more so then real cigarettes, which is a flat out lie. Is it totally safe, juries still out. Is it safer then a burning cigarette with 1000s of chemicals? Even a child would understand that it is. I think a majority of this misinformation was pumped out by the FDA in an attempt to gain control over E-Cigs a few years back, which failed. So, if they can't control it, and it's taking $$$ from their proverbial pockets, then ban it...

Just more evidence that the crazies are now in charge of the asylum.... If I was a NY Resident, order your supplies now (the juice lasts 2 years, longer if it's stored correctly, so order away and just try to stop).
edit on 20-6-2012 by squidboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 



You said it right, until they can tax the heck out of the ecigs it's a big threat. Like I siad earlier here in NYC it's like $12 for a pack of cigs and 85% or more is tax.

If this thing has legs and gets passed I am stocking up. As it is now I only have to order every six months with like an $80 order.

As far as your ecig failures get yourself a nice mod like the silver bullet or the provari, with 510 atomizers they last months and with a mod like that batteries last 2 days before recharge.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 


WhatAreThey

You are absolutely right! Vapors and smokers have no beef with each other. We should be working together. I don't care if no one else smokes, I just want to be able to smoke, socialize with those who also smoke and generally live my life. I am confident that Vapors feel the same way.

My point in bringing up the issue about who is funding anti-vaping bans is that other than contacting your local representatives, you should also consider withdrawing any donations to any charity who publically supports smoking or vaping bans. Make sure and tell them why you are withdrawing your support. And let Big Pharma know what you think about their war on the competition. Stop buying smoking cessation drugs from them. They don't work anyway.

If you really want to quit smoking, cold turkey has a 58 % success rate. If that doesn't work for you, try vaping.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Again...thank you for the info! I am just beginning my research so it really helps.

My Mom just started on e-cigs because her breathing is so bad....but she keeps going back to the real thing..I have to keep reminding her to stick with it.

NYC and Nanny Bloomberg want to ban everything, he wants to "save" you or "tax" you depending on the day....and I hear his ridiculous ideas are now spreading...

These Nazi-Nannies need to be stopped.
edit on 21-6-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 





E-Cigs DO contain sugar which causes MEGA problems where people who are sensitive to it VAPE.


So, I mix my own liquid. I use PG, a small amount of VG, a .6% nicotine/PG mix and some flavorings which do not contain sugar.

Where is the sugar coming from? The nicotine? I've been using an ecig for about 2 years now and the only problems I've had were unsatisfactory equipment but I've never had an issue with the actual vaporized solutions. Do you have a source for your information?

I'm not trying to be difficult or rude, it's an honest inquiry. I had to reply to this because this is the first time I've ever heard of this. I researched these devices (I actually never stop researching them) thoroughly before purchase so much so that I felt like an expert the first time I held one. I really never bought commercial liquids save for a few times just to try them out. I'm 99.999 percent positive (my .001 percent uncertainty comes from your comments here) that there is no sugar in my eliquid.

Sure there's sugar contained in a tobacco leaf. There is in all plants. But the nicotine is extracted from the tobacco and when I purchase my nicotine, I get lab tested and the purity is as high as it can get. The company has a good reputation and I have no reason not to trust their product. If there is sugar in it, it's at such a small amount that it's insignificant.

There's much, much worse contained in a commercial tobacco cigarette, like ammonia, used to help "freebase" nicotine directly to the user's brain. I stopped smoking the very first day on an ecig and haven't looked back but I did go through a day or two of bad withdrawal just the same, even though I was still getting nicotine. I wasn't really 100% done with all withdrawal, including small bouts of depression, for about a week or so. I would think sugar would be the very least of my worries.

ETA: I noticed one of your links to a "brown sugar" flavor. You DO realize they don't actually add brown sugar to the liquid, right? It's a flavoring. Any sweet taste you get from liquids comes from PG/VG or sucralose or other artificial sweetener that does not burn on the atomizer. The brown sugar eliquid you linked to would use a pure flavor concentrate such as this.
edit on 21-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: added afterthoughts



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Opportunia

You must be right! I must be absolutely stupid! Of course tobacco naturally contains sugar. All plants do!

But now - I will repeat - current smokers, who represent 20 % of the population, get 20 % of the lung cancers. Never smokers, who represent 20 % of the population, get 20 % of the lung cancers. Former smokers, who represent 60 % of the population get 60 % of the lung cancers.

So would you please explain, just for stupid old me, where are all the lung cancers CAUSED by all the sugar in tobacco?????

Tired of Control Freaks.


Your numbers are STATISTICS and are subject to who is gathering the numbers and how they are organizing the data, I still have not seen ONE proof from you on even the figures you post. WHERE do they come from? I've provided a link to all the information I shared, you are simply refusing to see the information presented because you do not wish to know. That is fine most people do NOT want to know because it forces them to review their own habits and humans have been known for centuries to usually be afraid of change, especially if it means becoming uncomfortable. So, we'd rather consume mass amounts of TONS of crap that do us NO good, because someone says it's OK...but aren't the ones sayng it's ok, the same people selling all the crap?

I've shared links to you written by people who LIVE it. And you STILL deny truths. My mother died from it. I was her nurse and I KNOW that is what causes it. All the refined sugar and carbs only give our bodies grief. But again, it's hard to kick one of the most addictive substances known to man so people will continue to deny that vaping causes blood sugar issues and that it rots your teeth. Oh well, guess y'all will find out on your own. At least some of us care enough to study and try to share the info. So... I take it you think it's safe to blow this crap into a baby's face too?
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: grammar

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: grammar and clarification

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: spelling - oops



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Opportunia
 





E-Cigs DO contain sugar which causes MEGA problems where people who are sensitive to it VAPE.


So, I mix my own liquid. I use PG, a small amount of VG, a .6% nicotine/PG mix and some flavorings which do not contain sugar.

Where is the sugar coming from? The nicotine? I've been using an ecig for about 2 years now and the only problems I've had were unsatisfactory equipment but I've never had an issue with the actual vaporized solutions. Do you have a source for your information?

I'm not trying to be difficult or rude, it's an honest inquiry. I had to reply to this because this is the first time I've ever heard of this. I researched these devices (I actually never stop researching them) thoroughly before purchase so much so that I felt like an expert the first time I held one. I really never bought commercial liquids save for a few times just to try them out. I'm 99.999 percent positive (my .001 percent uncertainty comes from your comments here) that there is no sugar in my eliquid.

Sure there's sugar contained in a tobacco leaf. There is in all plants. But the nicotine is extracted from the tobacco and when I purchase my nicotine, I get lab tested and the purity is as high as it can get. The company has a good reputation and I have no reason not to trust their product. If there is sugar in it, it's at such a small amount that it's insignificant.

There's much, much worse contained in a commercial tobacco cigarette, like ammonia, used to help "freebase" nicotine directly to the user's brain. I stopped smoking the very first day on an ecig and haven't looked back but I did go through a day or two of bad withdrawal just the same, even though I was still getting nicotine. I wasn't really 100% done with all withdrawal, including small bouts of depression, for about a week or so. I would think sugar would be the very least of my worries.

ETA: I noticed one of your links to a "brown sugar" flavor. You DO realize they don't actually add brown sugar to the liquid, right? It's a flavoring. Any sweet taste you get from liquids comes from PG/VG or sucralose or other artificial sweetener that does not burn on the atomizer. The brown sugar eliquid you linked to would use a pure flavor concentrate such as this.
edit on 21-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: added afterthoughts


For those of you vapers who are smart enough to opt for NO sugar in your mix, Cudos!! AT least you are being smart about it. However, the tough part about Nicotine is that it is a main contributor to high blood sugar levels. Here is a link to explain how this was discovered. diabetes.webmd.com...

I know I can't TELL smokers and vapers to quit, just please realize these dangers are far worse than you know. These sugars in your body also encourage fungal growth, and that is an exponential problem once it gets going. If you've ever taken an antibiotic regimen and didnt use probiotics. You are most likely compromised in some way. It kills all the good stuff so there is no way to keep the naughty stuff in check like Yeast in the gut, for example. Yeast's Favorite food is also SUGAR. Most parasites that infect the body also LOVE sugars. Which is WHY it's more important than ever to keep it's consumption in check. We all think us humans are immune, we are so wrong. WE are just as susceptible as our dogs and cats. Which most know should be wormed once a year at least. Anyway, happy vaping, Tho I hope you can eventually quit altogether.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: spelling



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Opportunia

Your link concerning the study that was done to associate nicotene with blood sugar is a PRIME example of a junk science study to increase the propaganda against smoking.

How do I know this?

1. The "study" was never peer-reviewed and published. In other words, the researcher in this case knew his study and his conclusions were garbage and he didn't want to submit to peer-review. This "study" was released for publication in the press BEFORE being peer-reviewed. This is called "Science by Media Release".

2. The results themselves are presented in percentages. ie Nicotene increased blood sugar by 9 to 35 %. Sounds scary doesn't it. Well frankly, its intended to. Let us take the example of a controlled diabetic with an average blood sugar of 6 (Sorry I am Canadian and use the metric system of measuring blood sugar). An increase of 9 % is only 0.54. So, discounting any food intake, this smoking diabetic would have an increased blood sugar of only 6.54. This is very very good blood sugar control. Anything under 7 is optimal blood sugar control.

If the same diabetic with an initial blood sugar of 6, smoked two packages of cigarettes and didn't eat, at 34 % his blood sugar would still be only 8.04. This is just slightly over optimal blood sugar control and would not cause the slightest concern to any diabetic or their doctors.

3. The study was done by exposing red blood cells to nicotene. Diabetics are NOT red blood cells. We are human beings. We have livers that excrete sugars. These sugars elevate blood sugar levels far far more than smoking ever would. We have medication. Most diabetics secrete some insulin from the pancreas. Human beings have metabolic rates.

Now why do you think this "researcher" would expose red blood cells to nicotene to determine its effect on blood sugar instead of using real live human diabetics who smoke for his study.

4. A slice of bread increase blood sugar by far higher amounts that smoking 2-4 packs of cigarettes.


THIS IS PURE UNADULTERED BULL# PROPAGANDA.

By the way, I have been a diabetic for over 30 years now. I smoke a pack a day and my three month average blood sugar is only 5.4.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Opportunia

I have in fact posted my link to Lung Alliance in regard to who gets lung cancer. Check out the previous posts. They got their facts from the Centre for Disease Control

Actually, a fair number of medical researchers are seriously questioning the smoking causes lung cancer theory.
Particularly in light of the fact that the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is on the rise.

Here is a link to an actual peer-reviewed study, published in a journal that you can read for yourself.

ilcco.iarc.fr...

And you are actually right when you talk about statistics. That is what epidimiology is all about. Its the soft science of observing groups of people and trying to draw correlations between this thing and that thing.

To date: After some 60 years of research, the only evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is epidimiology. Statistics! There has never been an actual research project where subjects were exposed to fresh whole cigarette smoke and the subject developed lung cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence of any substance in tobacco smoke that causes lung cancer although some researchers have been investigating benzo (a) pyrene as the possible cause.

However, now that the incidence of smoking in the population is so low, and the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is rising, it is clear that smoking does not CAUSE lung cancer (although I don't rule out the possibility) At the very least, it is clear that smoking is NOT the main cause of lung cancer.

Now HPV on the other hand has been conclusively identified as causing some where between 25 % to 85 % of lung cancer. This is known, not because of statistics, but because the HPV virus was identified in the lung tumors.

There are over 40 known causes of lung cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


It sounds like you are on a bit more of an anti-sugar kick than anti-smoking and I'll agree with you--sugar is bad and it can be addicting. You won't hear an argument from me! I keep it at a minimum in mine and my family's diet.

Any sugar (which I haven't ever seen evidence of) contained in eliquid is going to be very negligible and the only ones who would really need to be concerned with it would be diabetics, which I am not.

So considering I just ate an ice cream cone with Snickers ice cream, which would have thousands of times more sugar than my cig would ever contain, even if I actually added sugar to it, I think I'll be A-OK.

Trust me, if you add sugar to eliquid and vape it, it won't take but a minute to kill the atomizer. No eliquid vendor who actually runs a legitimate business would add it, and only newbies who didn't do any research before attempting their own would add sugar to their own mix.

There's a very easy way to find out if eliquid has any atomizer-killing substance in it. Drop some in a metal spoon and hold a flame under the spoon to heat the liquid. When the drop completely vaporizes, there should be no burnt residue on the spoon. If you find residue, there's something in your liquid that is not atomizer-friendly and will shorten its overall life.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Think what you like, I quit smoking because it was making me SICK and it has no positive benefit for me. Then, recently my niece quit smoking and started vaping. So I did a ton of reading. Where's your link to prove what I'm saying is bogus? You merely provide a link which says they've discovered that lung cancer from smokers is different that a person who's never smoked. Might study be showing that our current air quality is POORER than when they originally did the study. With all the crap being dumped into the air over cities and crops, is it any wonder that we're all getting lung cancer whether we smoke cigarettes or not? Or maybe you skipped over this part:

ilcco.iarc.fr...

"CONCLUSION: Currently, lung cancer in never smokers constitutes a significant portion of all lung cancers worldwide. Lung cancer in never smokers is considered to be a distinct disease from those in smokers in the view of the pathogenesis, molecular alterations, drug responsiveness and prognosis. Recent studies have discovered a significant portion of lung cancer in never smokers harbor a genetic variant in a driving oncogene, to which molecular targeted drugs are dramatically sensitive. These observations have led to changes in the overall treatment strategies for lung cancer. Therefore, a genetic testing before the treatment is considered essential for lung cancer in never smokers in order to select the appropriate treatment option according to the patient’s molecular characteristics. The cancer in NON-smokers IS DIFFERENT and has to be treated with different drugs and procedures.

I'm merely trying to share about a danger that not many people have talked about and it is a huge, if not the biggest, contributor to the BIGGEST problem we humans are having, CANCER. And the fact that sugar, it's favorite food, exists in most of these vaping and cigarette products OR the nicotine encourages increase in blood sugars in the blood. Fine, kick a messenger in the head. I'll just ride off to the next destination on my trusty steed. If people aren't interested why the HELL are you posting to get answers? I'd think one would want as many options to look at as possible when making decisions. But you go ahead and keep your closed off point of view.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: grammar correction

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: had the wrong person in the reply to...

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


You are not providing valid and important information. You are fear mongering and preaching your personal anecdotal evidence as fact.

You can't take one person's experience and apply it to everyone because everyone's metabolism and overall immune system and health is different. Why did my husbands grandfather, who drank no less than a case of beer and smoked 2 packs a day, live until he was 97 and not develop any disease? I could use that and say smoking and drinking aren't dangerous but I would never do that because that is one individual experience and can't be applied to an entire population.

Please cite your source of information where you came to the conclusion ecigarettes cause cancer. I would also like links to where you have found sugar in eliquid, especially if it's a store. If there is somewhere that sells it, I would like to avoid it.

If you're talking about nitrosamines, yes, there are small amounts found in the nicotine. Those amounts are TINY compared to those found in cheese, cured meat, beer, latex...the list goes on. Nitrosamines are thought to be a contributor to cancer but they don't know for sure.

Tests done on eliquid found the amounts of nitrosamines were very near or exactly the amounts found in nicotine gum and the patch. Very, very minuscule amounts (8 parts per trillion) and approved for use by your friendly neighborhood FDA.


Comment. 1) Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were found, equal to 8 ng, in the 1 g of liquid of the 16 mg cartridge. This amount is extremely small, equal for example, to the amount reported to be present in a nicotine medicinal patch. (8 ng in 1g = eight parts per trillion).

2) These very small amounts traces are likely to be due to the fact that even medicinal grade nicotine is extracted from tobacco.


So if it's not the nitrosamine count and it's not sugar, what is it exactly in ecigarettes cause cancer?
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I live in New York State. I believed the ban was to the sale of children under 18 years old? I may be mistaken. As it stands in NYS, e-cigs can be sold to anyone of any age.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I had my 1st cigarette when i was 8 (im 35 now) i was smoking 2 packs a day. I have quit smoking in the past, with a patch for one year, but the urge to smoke had me sucking on a cigarette and back to the habit. About 3 years ago i started using the E-Cig, then i started making my own e-juice, and started cutting the nicotine down.

About 1 year ago i stopped using the E-Cig because i was no longer using nicotine in it, and figured i didn't need it anymore.
I still keep one around because i miss smoking and some times i just need a smoke. This way i can use my E-cig without nicotine.

So, to sum it up i went from 2 packs a day to an E-cig to nothing.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Fear mongering, odd term to use when we were INVITED to share facts. SO now that some of those facts make people uncomfortable, I'm fear mongering? I'm inviting people to find out the fact INSTEAD of being uneducated. And I decided to go through the document you posted to me. I clicked one of the REFERENCE links placed into the document...at the bottom on page 4 (posted here for your convenience):
www.chrysalis-technologies.com...
of%20PG.pdf
This is the place they are getting their PROOF? click it and tell me what you get. PHILLIP MORRIS. They sell tobacco if i'm not mistaken. Please, come up with better links than a tobacco company. Now...ask yourself, WHY would Phillip Morris give ANY positive feedback for a study about smoking safety. And I'm supposed to believe YOUR data links?

Good heaven's folks, don't post links to informational data if it will make "some" people uncomfortable about their situation, you'll be called a fear monger. I simply hate to see folks thinking this vaping is SAFE when it isn't. It's great that some are taking great care to look up the facts, but you must be willing to investigate the things you don't want to know. To see if the negatives MIGHT be true and by that possibly save your self and loved ones a ton of misery. Also, laws on substances are different in New Zealand. Many things that are NOT allowed in your products there ARE allowed in USA products and they don't even have to put many things on the labels here any more. Maybe everywhere else the cigarettes and vaping products are SAFE, fine use them. I'm sharing info we were ALL invited to post about. A TRULY enlightening discussion is one which looks at ALL facts and not simply shove one off to the side because you don't like what it is telling you. IF you want a thread that doesn't share conflicting information. Make your own.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: spelling

edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: grammar




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join