I'm glad this video is back up. While I am a nicotine addict myself (around 20 cigs a day), I have not tried out e-cigs, simply because there are not enough studies yet to come to solid conclusions whether they are better than conventional cigarettes. The ultimate goal for me is to eventually quit, but as already mentioned in your video, quitting is hard. The longest I lasted without was a period of 3 years, and still fell back and started again. Thanks for this video. :-)
In my experience, the eCig has helped me reduce the amount of times I want nicotine in a day. On a typical work day, I usually smoke 6-12 cigarettes - Not a heavy smoker, but still enough to hate the things. The eCig satisfies me, and once I get out of the habit of taking smoke breaks, stepping outside, etc (My boss does not mind their use inside) I find that I am using it a similar number of times, but usually only one or two drags. Less cancer, less nicotine. Seems like a good thing to me.
American Association of Public Health Physicians Statement Re: E-cigarettes:
"A cigarette smoker can reduce his or her risk of future tobacco-related death by 98% or
better by switching to a low risk smokeless tobacco product. He or she could cut that risk by 99.9% or better by switching to a nicotine-only delivery product like one of the pharmaceutical products or E-cigarettes."
This seems like the real issue that needs to be addressed, not fluff about gov't agency approval. C0nc0rdance?
You talk a lot about education, information, and honesty yet your video is replete with alarmist half truths and speculation. Shame on you.
For those that can't figure out who has an agenda and who doesn't, look up the statement on e-cigs from American Association of Public Health Physicians. The whole site may wipe some of the inaccurate rhetoric off of you.
And if you REALLY care, buy an e-cigarette and give it to a current smoker.
I hope you or those sensitive to nicotine also stay away from Tomatoes, Potatoes, eggplant, peppers, tea and Cauliflower, because they also contain nicotine.
The correlation you cite between nicotine users and schizophrenia is a mistake based upon cause and effect. While a high number of schizophrenics have been known to use nicotine, it is believed they are self medicating as nicotine has been shown to help treat schizophrenia. It has also been shown to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
@WelderInOk Thank you. I was just thinking about this then I saw you beat me to it. :D I smoke an no fucking govt., rightwinger, religious, fundamentalist is going to stop my right. Fuck them. For the people who don't like my smoke, stand away from our smoking areas.
@WelderInOk Sadly, banning those other nicotine containing plants may actually happen if more States follow Maryland's misguided and over-reactive request to re-evaluate the GRAS list. No joke, I'm afraid. Look up HJ2 at mlis(dot)state(dot)md(dot)us
Please dont you have someting better to do.... No regulations..................or taxes... I use 100% VG USA MADE E-LIQUID.... We like our NICOTINE.... Personal freedoms are suffering because of cry babys like you.....
So come on , what exactly is your job/title in the FDA, official parrot? Perhaps you're a pharmaceutical lobbyist? I can get over your smarmy condescending tone but you gotta fess up to your affiliations.
Nah, never mind I actually *can't* get over your tone but at least this video of lies was good for a chuckle.
@Scottitude Condescending? William Lane Craig is condescending. C0nc0rdance is just well spoken. If you disagree with him, check his clearly documented sources and point out how he was wrong or lying.
@FALCO64125 It's the same FDA/BT/BP rhetoric every "anti" spews in billowing clouds of "facts" based on incomplete and flawed "research" in the name of "science".
The FACT is that PVs (or e-cigs as the subscription thieves and ignorant call them) are the most effective method for harm reduction and for many, smoking cessation, in existence.
And yes, condescending. And smarmy. Sorry, but I haven't and won't drink your Kool-Aid; I'll think and experience life for myself, thank you.
very unique i will say...your tone of voice, the terms used, hearing you turn your cue cards, some of your research is done, plus mentioning marry-jane, and hearing you talk about the gum, patch, or inhaler, which are extremely higher priced and lay in bed with the big tobacco companies....so my question is: how much money does your business stand to loose as smokers switch to a safer alternative to e-cigarettes? How much vested interest do you personally have when you made this video?
As a side note: My wife and son are highly allergic to cigarette smoke, so my use of the gum or patch meant i could not hug or kiss my wife, then nic inhaler meant i could not sit at the kitchen table with my son. Also your research fails to point out that nicotine is in the coffee you drink, the vegetables you consume (in natural occurring format) and in the vitamins you ingest.
@DaemonRealms He actually does not own any business at all and will not lose any money at all because of Electronic Cigarettes. I am pretty sure he works in a hospital though I do not remember what his exact profession is. You really should not make random assumptions about the creator just because you disagree with his views.
Personally I will wait for more information before I jump on the E-Cig bandwagon so to speak.
@XxSequndaEtapaXx Interesting you said about the hospital, as he states he was going to a scientific conference to make a short topic of his current project...and is it not a novelty that this video is made, then there is a planted story of the e-cig that supposedly exploded (but nooooo one can identify it), which was followed by another planted story of someone on a plane and a e-cig? but all that aside my opinion still stands: who has the most to loose over e-cigarette's?
It is unique to say that when it comes to a e-cigarette, big tobacco companies, and the so called "stop cession" companies do. Another, seeing as this video was up this current year (2012), why is it that Vegetable Glycerin (natural occurring) is not mentioned?
- = ~ update and another 'planted story': UTAH: senator says that smoking a cigarette is healthier for you as you know how much nicotine you are getting....oddly on the pack of smokes beside me it says nicotine: 1.0-2.4 yeah
states right there EXACTLY how much nicotine i am taking in right there, pin points it too...now what about the other 4,000+ chemicals in a smoke compared to the 3 or 4 chemicals in a e-cigarette....
In relation to personal vaporizers (PV), would you rather have smokers continue using cigarettes if they cannot quit using regulated, ineffective, NRT, or switch to a personal vaporizer with whatever level of nicotine? However you may feel, about PV, I don't think there is anyone out there that would say vaping is worse for your health than smoking cigarettes. If you don't smoke, then I KNOW you won't understand how difficult it is to quit the HABIT. for me at least it isn't the nicotine, it
Well, find some facts and start countering if you feel so strongly that C0nc0rdance is wrong and that MattZuke5's arguements aren't good enough to support your views on the subject.
It's a bit lame to just make a post wishing that other people would come up with good information supporting your beliefs instead of countering arguements yourself.
Have you considered making a video response to C0nc0rdance? You'd probably get a bigger audience instead of those just trolling the comments in this video. IMO the only issues worth considering here are the relative harm levels of smoking versus smoking alternatives and the overall benefit to public health from these options. C0nc0rdance does a disservice to the debate by distracting us with conjecture about FDA intentions and positing some sinister propaganda campaign.
I like to come back to this video once in a while to see every single argument you attempt to make against e-cigs gets countered with actual facts. Even the data you cite goes against your "opinion". You're starting to remind me of nephilimfree.
@professor88p I fail to see how he was anything but impartial on the subject. He provides references to all the evidence he cites, and at the end of the video suggests that you stick to methods of nicotine addiction treatment that have been properly tested, or better yet consult your doctor. You seem to be knocking down a straw-man. Am I missing something?
I know of a number of people who simply switched from conventional cigs to e-cigs. You neglected to mention that e-liquids are sold with differing levels of nicotine-- some are as high as conventional cigarettes, others have none. Also, I strongly suggest you do more research on the variety of e-cigs. They are currently available from a number of (foreign) manufacturers, and that would raise concern in my mind about differences in quality. Same goes, perhaps more importantly, for the e-liquids.
I have a question, say If I had an empty e cig filter with no nicotine or whatever substance, and no heater part, and just the empty filter and the cig part that lights up, so I can experience the light and habit of puttin it to my mouth and sucking pure air back, is that ok?
However, I am against completely banning them, and since there are powerful groups that stand to lose money to e-cigs, they need some defense.
As far as long term studies go, we'll have to wait until they've been out awhile and people should be able to choose to take the chance to use them if they want.
I am bothered that the easily availabe disposables come from China, since they even have lead in toys.
I'm also bother by CASAA's resistance to even reasonable regulations like not using them on planes. It's insane that they're claiming that fines for using them on planes is cruel and unusual punishment. There is no obligation to prove that something is dangerous to restrict it's use in public areas. Many things are resticted just because they are an annoyance. They also to seem think marketing of smokeless products that is appealing to children is ok, even though that's when ppl normally start.
I might have tarred MattZuke with the wrong brush, but I found him in a forum saying "At CASAA, we..." so I assumed he's affiliated.
I'm suspicious of the anti-regulation stance they've taken, but it's just that: suspicion. FDA regulation as a medical device would have given more control over advertising, manufacturing standards (cGMP), and point of sale. Right now, they're being sold in gas stations along with Copenhagen and Marlboros. Makes me uneasy.
"they're being sold in gas stations along with Copenhagen and Marlboros. Makes me uneasy."
Given the target market is 40yo smoker, with at least one cessation attempt under their belt, why do you feel uneasy? After Judge Leon's ruling Njoy opted to not sell candy flavored e-cigs at gas stations, Blu does the same thing
Now if you were to say tobacco products and e-cigs shouldn't be sold at gas stations, I'd agree. I support dedicated shops, easier to police.
"I'm also bother by CASAA's resistance to even reasonable regulations like not using them on planes"
It's not a safety issue. If the airline wants to ban them, let the airline ban them, but a government imposed ban ban suggests a safety issue, which serves to poison the well without objective evidence.
"Many things are resticted just because they are an annoyance."
It's not the role of the FAA to regulate annoying behavior, only passenger safety.
Thankyou for your response. It gives me a better understanding of your objections to e-cigs and CASAA than just pointing out that nicotine addiction is unhealthy.
I am bothered by CASAA's seemingly defeatist attitude of trying to get people to quit smoking, and how switching to e-cigs seems to be considered the same as quiting. (cont.)
I'm an e-cig user that quit cigarettes on day 1, after smoking a pack a day for 17 years. I don't feel concordance did a good job here. The FDA's investigation into e-cigs is so dated, biased, and mispresented (by the FDA themselves) that it isn't fit to mention. If you want ALL the studies, articles, science and facts related to e-cigs, head over to ECF's forums (google it). E-cigs didn't work for my gf, but works for so many. All smokers should at least try. Non-smokers, stay away.
Yeah, exagerating the dangers and misrepresenting the facts just makes it less likely that people will take him seriously, and he's only comparing e-cigs to not smoking at all and ignoring the fact that e-cigs can be safer and the only real issue I see is that they can reduce the number of people who try to end their addiction, but people should be given the option.
"and the only real issue I see is that they can reduce the number of people who try to end their addiction,"
This is a valid statement. However, keep in mind that close to 1/3 of nicotine gum users are habitual users, and there has been NO change in the number of smokers for roughly a decade. Roughly an equal amount start smoking as die.
The ONLY issue with nicotine gum is more smokers are not opting to use it instead of cigarettes.
I had to stop watching. Ecigs contain tar?? That study was flawed (sample size) from the start, and parroted by so many with their own agendas. Dislike.
I forget who made the comment, can't see what you're replying to on my phone, but the claim was 3 orders of magnitude which is ten times as much as 2 orders, and if you're one of those lucky people who actually has insurance in the States, perscriptions are much less, and I'm guessing you picked out one of the most expensive meds with no generic for your example.
"I'm guessing you picked out one of the most expensive meds with no generic for your example."
Ah, no. The ALA has data who covers what. Generic NRPs don't exist, except store branded NRPs that cost more, or the host of products like nicotine suntan lotion. Respectfully, you're pulling skepticism out of your arse.
It takes 7-11 cessation attempts, and 19% die smoking. Insurance at best will cover the FDA approved 12 week program, only 3% eff. after 20 months.
From an insurance perspective, cessation is a net loss propitiation. Smoking ends the lives of roughly 33%-50% of it's users, at a rate of roughly 1%/year. Heart disease covers a bulk of them, often untreatable, or lung cancer, typically untreatable. Lung cancer is the ultimate win to insurance, diagnosis means you're likely to have a year at best.
And NRPs are not that effective over doing nothing, the best shot is counseling + NRPs for nicotine cessation.
Personally I'd rather have the person next to me smoking an e-cig rather than a real cigarette, at the very least. The lesser of two evils. The hipster angle is a valid point, but there are nicotine-free e-cigs. At least if you trust the manufacturer. Hurray lax requirements for manufacturing and testing -_-
"Personally I'd rather have the person next to me smoking an e-cig rather than a real cigarette, at the very least."
My GF has asthma, she'd rather be indoors with 100 people using e-cigs than have to deal with 1-2 people outside with real ones.
"At least if you trust the manufacturer."
This is Concordance's dishonesty, the unrelated recreational product was shown by the FDA tests as having fewer tobacco impurities than the pharmaceutics product. This was edited out of his screenshot.
I would say you are misrepresenting the findings with:
"fewer tobacco impurities than the pharmaceutics product"
What the report says is:
"present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification" (no more than 0.5%)
The specification is a lot failure test under 21CFR11, not the content. The amount of TSI is cause for concern because e-cigarettes are not a nicotine replacement therapy, they are an unregulated risk reduction product.
It's TSNAs, not TSIs. Hypothetically NNK can form from nicotine outside the plant, as such it's in accurate to call it an impurity. The 4mg patch has 8nanograms NNK/patch.
The amount found is NOT cause for concern because the FDA allows higher quantities in NRPs. A habitual gum user will get 2ng/4mg piece of gum of TSNAs, a Snus user 2010ng/g tobacco. NEITHER ELEVATES ONE'S RISK OF COMMON CANCERS.(Benowitz 2010)
Fine, I'm not interested in the semantics. The point is that the nicotine solutions also contain tobacco specific impurities as a consequence of manufacturing.
I'm not sure that Nicotrol or gum or patches can be directly compared to e-cigs. I would assume, in the absence of evidence, that the patterns of use are very different. If nothing else, one is usually part of a stop-smoking program and the other is likely a long-term smoking alternative.
"I would assume, in the absence of evidence, that the patterns of use are very different. If nothing else, one is usually part of a stop-smoking program and the other is likely a long-term smoking alternative."
If you read his comment, MattZuke5 refers specifically and only to habitual gum users. So there was no mention of the former, only the latter. Since his claim is that there's no elevation of cancer risk even in the long-term situation, your point seems moot.
"The point is that the nicotine solutions also contain tobacco specific impurities as a consequence of manufacturing."
You're just reveling your own ignorance. A TSNA "could" be an impurity from a plant, it could be a result of chemical reactions after the fact. Hypothetically NNK can be formed if the user wears a patch near an unvented stove. Nothing to do with how it's made, or where it comes from. Has everything to do with nitric acid reacting with nicotine.
"they are an unregulated risk reduction product."
As opposed to FDA approved regulated recreational product, tobacco cigarettes?
Besides, we have STRONG evidence that the role cigarettes play in cancer is PAHs over TSNAs. Getting cancer isn't the killer, it's keeping the cancer, and according to James E. Trosko's 30 year study, it's the PAHs that inhibit intercellular communication, allowing cancers to grow unimpeded by the immune system.
"present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification"
It's good you concede you misrepresented the report by not including that detail in your screen shot. However you continue to misrepresent the report by NOT sharing what was on the next page, NOT DETECTED AT 60C.
So unlike NRPs, there is a heating element between the user and the liquid, and the FDA found TSNAs in the liquid, not the vapor. I guess TSNAs are less likely to boil :P
I pointed this out to C0nc0rdance the day after he posted the video. I don't see why it's so difficult to concede that leaving out TSNA levels is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.
You've not really given any really good explaination for your objection to e-cigs for people who already smoke, and at the moment, I don't think that they're being marketed to people who don't smoke. Look at a package of a Finiti e-cig. It says right on the package, If you don't smoke, don't smoke Finiti, with a cig crossed out symbol. Do you not think that somebody who has been smoking for decades with no plan of quiting is better off switching?
" I don't think that they're being marketed to people who don't smoke"
Even better, my T-rex came with an advisory for pregnancy, something NRPs are lax about. There's data NRPs, specifically the patch, and Snus, are worse than smoking. I know I had to bump up my nicotine intake to 50% above my smoking habit to come close to addressing my cravings for a month, and from time to time for the next two.
GSK says simply "This medicine is believed to be safer than smoking"
I would propose that virtually any alternative to cigarettes represents a risk reduction, but some are better tested, safer, better regulated and have a proven track record of efficacy. Regulated NRTs underwent the FDA clinical trials, safety tests, post-market monitoring, and they invest heavily in QC. E-cigs have found a way to bypass those processes in favor of unregulated, high-profit products.
What do you have against CASAA? Do you think that the only information we should get about e-cigs is from companies who are going to lose money to the sale of e-cigs? Do you want them to use that money to get e-cigs banned so that people who are using e-cigs instead of smoking go back to smoking?
I don't feel that you've given a very balanced view of this subject.
CASAA is a pro-e-cig marketing/advocacy group. They don't disclose financials on their website, but I find them to be curiously well-supported for a "non-profit consumer advocacy" group. I also found that three of their board members are self-described "Internet marketers". That's an odd concentration.
I invite you to do your own research and share your findings. Google the organization, read the comments, and see if you see a similar pattern.
"hey don't disclose financials on their website, but I find them to be curiously well-supported for a "non-profit consumer advocacy" group."
Well-supported? Evidence?
AFAIK they don't have any money, which explains why it's not discussed. For example, they couldn't afford to send a member to Hawai'i or Utah to testify in front of their state representatives.
Here's an idea, why don't you ASK directly how much they gross.
So, are you involved with CASAA or not? I notice that you seem to use a lot of the same verbatim sound bites that Kristin was using.
Actually Jacinda Ross DID go to Utah to testify.
They seem to spend a lot of time opposing taxation and regulation. They have a brick and mortar office in a three story building in Mobile, AL (you can see it in the Contact Us on their page). They have a booth at VaperCon, use a commercial web development company and paid advisors.
"Actually Jacinda Ross DID go to Utah to testify"
I just did the google, she lives in Utah. She was not sent.
Like I said, I met one Cassa member once, at my health department.
"use a commercial web development company and paid advisors."
I know they use WebOperations, I see you can actually lease suite 303, and take over Casaa's suite 300, so it looks like the space is either donated, or the owner lets casaa use it. But you got me. Paid advisors?
To be clear, AFAIK they don't have any money. They could not afford to fly someone to Hawaii, nor Utah, but Jacinda did live in Utah. AFAIK she represented herself. They "might" have 2,500 sq FT in Alabama, but their suite is for lease, and the contact # is a mobile phone in DC.
Why don't you ASK. Looks to me like you're just trying to poison the well. I'd be shocked if CASAA can afford a lease.
I have no interest in what CASAA have to say unless they have access to primary research papers that I don't. My objection was to the misuse of my channel discussion by a professional marketing/advocacy group.
My only objection to e-cigs is that they entered the market untested, unregulated and with questionable marketing. Someday they may be proven to be safer alternatives, equivalent to FDA approved NRT, but today is not that day.
"My objection was to the misuse of my channel discussion by a professional marketing/advocacy group."
That's a stretch.
"Someday they may be proven to be safer alternatives,"
They already have. To be safer, less than 1% of their users need to drop dead per year. The FDA conceded not a single user or bystander has been harmed. The evidence is they're safer than Chantix (Varenicline).
"The FDA conceded not a single user or bystander has been harmed."
Please cite your source.
Why do you think the FDA is expressing so much concern?
Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality? Who benefits from unregulated drug delivery products?
"Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality?"
Appeal to a conspiracy.It helps to know the background of Ruyan, but the short is, to be approved, the FDA needs safety testing at a university,which requires passing the ethical board, who can't approve of testing because of the FDA
"Who benefits from unregulated drug delivery products?"
The consumers, and cottage industry. Keep in mind that Ruyan tried to play ball. They couldn't conduct research in the US, so they contracted to HealthNZ.The FDA refused to look at their safety report, their clinical trial. By all rights, they should have gotten a grant to conduct phase III clinical trials in the US, instead the FDA supported ultra low nicotine cigarettes (Century 22 - Spectrum).
The ONLY way to deploy e-cigs in the US was as a recreational product, which is fine, that's exactly how they were designed, for people unwilling, or unable to stop smoking. That is what they are.
Now if this was under the control of the FTC, there would be regulation, federal testing of the vapor testing for nicotine content. But the FDA doesn't think that's required for cigarettes, claiming this data was too confusing.
"Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality?"
Citation needed. You seem to confuse the idea of having cheap alternative products cheap accessible, and opposing "quality control". I have no clue as to casaa's position, my position is the FDA does NOT perform the same services the FTC did, leaving cigarettes VIRTUALLY unregulated, and holding virtual monopoly, both is bad for public health.
...This looks like a setup for a strawman argument, there is no indication of regulations are required, and asserting "those" people are opposed to unspecified regulations. Any sane person would be opposed to unspecified regulations.
Self-regulation has resulted in a product that your citation indicates exceeds FDA regulations, but oversight would not be unreasonable. But to date, the FDA, ALA, AHA, TFF, ANSRs haven't drafted a proposal, or inspected one mfg.
So in short, you present a strawman. No one has proposed regulations to oppose, except for age restrictions, which no one opposes, and indoor vaping bans, which are not a clean air act issue.
Oh, and Hawaii's 70% tax, which 10,000 people opposed. Cigarette taxes are there, in part, so cigarettes cost more than candy, so kids don't buy them. E-cigs already cost more than candy, and Hawaii's legislation didn't reflect a typical retail unit cost $70, raising it to $119.
This tax made no sense since one could mail order a unit avoiding the tax, effectively shutting down local businesses.
Let's look at the "Summary of Results" of the only safety test of e-cigs from FDA:
"DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed."
"DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."
You're being dishonest. While TSNAs were detected, they were less than the control sample (10mg nicotrol Inhaler), they were not detected at 60C (in the vapor)
HealthNZ safety testing had similar results. TSNAs were detected at 8.2 nanograms in 12-16mg cartridges. The Nicotine Patch has 8 nanograms per 8mg cartridge, specifically NNK. This was NOT detected in the vapor.
The FDA observed 2010ng/day does not elevate one's risk of common cancers.
"DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed"
In the liquid, less than NRPs, GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe), not detectable at 60C, I.e. in the vapor.
Potential exposure, but only if you crack open a cartridge and rub it on your chest. Even then, fewer TSNAs based on independent testing.
"My only objection to e-cigs is that they entered the market untested, unregulated and with questionable marketing"
As opposed to regulated FDA approved cigarettes?
E-cigarettes have been tested for safety, you're just being dishonest because you cited one test. Both the FDA and HealthNZ's research agree e-cigs have fewer carcinogens than NRPs. The unregulated recreational product uses more refined nicotine than the FDA requires in the pharma product.
"No, as opposed to nicotine replacement therapy/products. I should have thought that was obvious."
No, you're just oblivious. Cigarettes are legal. Cigarettes kill roughly 1% if it's userbase per year. They are FDA regulated recreational drug delivery devices. These are okay.
E-cigarettes are not, even though there is no evidence they harmed a single user or bystander. So long as less than .25% drop dead per year, this represents a max pot. of neutral.
Let's take the current "Call To Action in Hawaii" they issued. Kristin and company are opposing a bill that taxes e-cigarettes like any other tobacco product and prevents their sale to minors.
The cost to consumers will certainly go up a little, but more importantly, it will drive down profits for manufacturers. If CASAA isn't an industry sponsored group (and I'm not the only person questioning this), they are 'coincidentally' representing the interests of e-cig mfgs.
Then there's the board... I've chosen three to dig deeper on:
Kristin Noll-Marsh: real estate agent and "Internet marketer"
Drew Gliem, owner/promoter of Nhaler, internet e-cig company
Their scientific advisor, Carl V. Phillips, is a paid consultant for US Smokeless Tobacco (the principal mfg of smokeless tobacco in the US) He runs his own private business doing "harm reduction" consulting. Harm Reduct J. 2009 Jul 2;6:14.
I never once said that they should be banned or that they are as bad as cigarettes, I just don't think it's a good idea to give people the idea that they are harmless. Especially people who aren't already addicted.
"I just don't think it's a good idea to give people the idea that they are harmless."
And have I done this? No! I cite experts that make it clear that the big risk factors are with MI and Stroke, but not as bad as smoking, which account for roughly 3.5% of smoking related deaths/year.
I do suggest someone with at least 3 cessation attempts would be wise considering long term nicotine use OVER smoking, whether this be NRP, smokeless tobacco, or e-cigs.
I should also make it clear that there is STRONG evidence on the negative effects "nicotine" has on reproduction. There are studies in England and NL that suggest the patch is worse than smoking in birth defects, and Snus might actually be worse.
I strongly support cold turkey abstinence, this is the most popular method. I support counseling or consoling with NRPs, but have low double digit success rates. But for the 19% who won't or can't quit, we less deadly alternatives.
I'm not buying that e-cigs don't contribute to heart disease, and I feel that somebody is justified in feeling proud of being able to say that they've managed to beat their addiction to nicotine, so when somebody claims to be an ex-smoker when they're still using nicotine, I don't consider it to be the same as someone who has actually had the willpower to beat their addiction.
"I'm not buying that e-cigs don't contribute to heart disease"
You can not buy it as much as you like. If you don't accept the reality that TAR contributes contributes to heart disease, you've been living under a couch for 60 years. Again, we have metastudies from a century of data collected in Sweden on Snus. While nicotine alone isn't known, snus alone is. The AAPHP estimate of 98% less harmful is backed by hard data.
You already conceded that a pot smoker who eats brownies no longer smokes pot. You're operating under the misconception that cigarette addiction is all about the nicotine. If this was true, NRPs would be better than 10% effective in the short term.
Natural tobacco contains minor alkaloids that act as natural MAOIs, which have been observed to be the key in adolescent addiction.
"I don't consider it to be the same as someone who has actually had the willpower to beat their addiction."
Which is roughly 19% of the population. This is the observed reality you deny. Dishonestly misrepresenting the risks of nicotine only serves to reinforce cigarettes as the best choice. You claim it would be "better" if they quit nic, this could be true. But if they're not willing to quit cigarettes, your prohibitionist philosophy means death.
valken666: thanks for posting actual data instead of just unsubstantiated hypotheses and quotes in papers. C0nc0rdance, your effort on this topic has been disappointing.
So eliminating cancer, heart disease, death, and other national health concerns is just not that important because it's *really about* some nebulous sense of honor and pride from quitting nicotine? Sounds like the Catholic church's religious arguments for preaching against condom usage in Africa. It's really about controlling your urges people!
I've never seen a curb in a baggage claim area. :-P
The simple fact is, that not letting some inconsiderate dickwad smoke in the seat right next to me on the plane isn't going to force me to be stuck with 100+ smokers afterwards. They smoke outside.
You can't pretend to not be smoking on the plane, so I don't have to choose. It's staying illegal, deal with it. or better yet, actually stop your habit instead of just pretending you have.
So you concede to having no experience in airports.
"They smoke outside."
Yes, they all smoke outside, at the same time, right outside baggage claim, generating quit a lot of smoke. Every full 747 will have ~20% smokers, ~132 smokers. It's a legit complaint, more so if you have COPD or asthma.
"It's staying illegal, deal with it."
Just in the US, and it's unenforceable anyway. I do it anyway.
"You can't pretend to not be smoking on the plane"
Now in Europe, it's a different matter. They actually sell the e-cigs in airports and on the plane. They make a quick buck, and the observed affect is NOT having the baggage claim smoker's rush. And before you claim this doesn't bother anyone, 100+ smokers from each plane exactly where access to public transport is, right by the doors where everyone needs to go. If this doesn't bug you, you don't have a nose.
All in all, THANK YOU, I already made over 100 euro's, also feel a lot healthier, and this video didn't make me quit smoking of course, but it did give me that final push. Thanks a lot.
"Where do you live that people are allowed to smoke in the baggage claim area?"
Near and airport that makes it clear that's the ONLY place to smoke, Smoking is not permitted at ticketing check in, only on the curb at baggage claim, and this is normal from Seattle to Cancun,
"You never quit your nicotine addiction."
Quite true, I only quit smoking. 19% of the population will go to their graves smoking, a stat that remains unchanged for a decade.
I don't mind people using e-cigs instead of cigarettes, but I don't think it's right to delude people into thinking that they are safe and that nicotine addiction isn't bad just because e-cigs aren't likely to cause cancer.
"I don't think it's right to delude people into thinking that they are safe"
I don't think it's right deluding people into thinking it's more dangerous than it is.
"just because e-cigs aren't likely to cause cancer"
Or just about any other illness cigarette related. Main risk is MI and Stroke, but it's accepted that the risk is orders of magnitude less than smoking cigarettes.
Good to see you taking part in the conversation, and posting actual research information on the hazards of nicotine instead of just pointing out that the guys supporting these are part of an agency promoting e-cigs.
I actually think that there should be somebody standing up against the cigarette industry and big pharma to keep smokeless nicotine legal since they have so much $, but their mis-info needs corrected.
"out that the guys supporting these are part of an agency promoting e-cigs"
That was just C0ncordance poisoning the well. It's like saying I'm part of the American Lung Association since I posted there once or twice, or Americans for Non-Smoker's Rights.
It's dishonest, and disingenuous, and as others have pointed out he's trying to preserve his e-cred than admit he he removed vital information from his screen shot citations.
It's not only dishonest and disingenuous but it's ridiculous considering that the groups promoting e-cigarettes are largely comprised of ex-smokers, and that the e-cigarette industry is comprised mostly of small businesses and mom-and-pop type operations. It's just dumb to posit a nefarious and/or concerted effort yet that's what C0nc0rdance wants people to believe.
Would I rather sit next to someone with an e-cig on a plane or deal with 100+ smokers in the bagage handling area?
I'm suck in a plane seat for hours, right next to a person with poor air circulation, I'm never going to be stuck near a 100+ smokers in a confined space that I can't leave when I get off the plane. That's a ludicrous justification for thinking that you're justified in smoking on a plane, and yes, you're still smoking.
"I'm never going to be stuck near a 100+ smokers in a confined space that I can't leave when I get off the plane."
Baggage claim. It's a valid justification if you have COPD, Asthema, or any other of a number respiratory illnesses, or if you don't like cigarette stench.
"hat's a ludicrous justification for thinking that you're justified in smoking on a plane, and yes, you're still smoking."
A cheap e-cig costs $8. Several (3) orders of magnitute more would be $8,000, or something around 10,000. I don't think the other options are quite that expencive.
Sorry just nit-picking but an order of magnitude generally means around a multiple of 10 more.
I wanted to disprove your assertion based on the Nicorette Inhaler model, but I'm getting conflicting data on it's cost. Presuming a year long cessation program, yes, nicotine assistance, I'd "guess" the Inhaler would run $2910 (6/day). E-cigs (35c/ml, 2ml/day, 1 $1.33 carto/week, $80 starter kit), will run $405.50.
So just 1 order of magnitude. Maybe 2 if you take into account two NRPs at the same time.
$8 ecigs are typically disposable, equal in cost to NRPs.
The gum, the inhaler, and the patch cost several orders of magnitude more than a basic e-cigarette. And I guarantee you any measurements of nicotine in exhaled breath would match in use of either product. How much is big pharma paying you? You are speaking out against something you don't understand. I am one of thousands who has quit smoking successfully with an e-cigarette, and I've lowered my nicotine level significantly. Much further than I ever got with a scam like Nicorette.
Chantix causes SUICIDE. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
"Look he's a fair guy, if you have something to say then prove it"
It's easy enough to look up independent cessation rates using nic gum in 12 week programs, and you'll see numbers like 7%, or below 3% after 20 months. I wouldn't call it an our right scam, just there are no safety studies outside of 12 week programs. This is why doctors like Hurt (Mayo Clin) suggest using NRPs as long as it takes. We're just starting to understand smoking is more than nic addiction.
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
@LifeInNewJersey he addressed that. The problem is that many of the "nicotine free" brands still had some that showed up during testing.
This to me seems beyond odd because I know that it didn't come out of no-where unless someone Put it there. It's the kind of action that makes consumers feel like they can't trust the makers. I mean, is it simply bad shopkeeping or a nefariuos attempt to get people addicted??
" many of the "nicotine free" brands still had some that showed up during testing."
That statement is patently untrue. If you look at the chart, SE. Apple tested at .00035mg/100ml. This is likely cross contamination, either by the FDA or by S.E. One cartridge from one brand doesn't make a trend, nor does 285x less nicotine than 100g of eggplant make an addiction. Such low levels of cross contamination are typically allowed in the food, with deadly peanut oil.
Again, .00035mg/100ml puff at 60C. The FDA lost their samples, and this observation hasn't been made by anyone else. In perspective, .35mcg represents the same nicotine as 3.5g of egg plant (Castro and Monji), 22.9g of potato pulp (Davis), or 6.7g of pureed tomatoes (Castro and Moji).
Oh and FYI, apples contain nicotine too, and nicotine is still a common insecticide. But to be fair, at .35mcg, pesticide, lab error, or mfg crossing.
Don't worry guys, big tobacco will make sure that this is banned within the next year or so, and that the DEA will throw you in jail for possession of atomizing technology.
@C0nc0rdance If yr on right now, then an extra big thankyou for this one. Really was just what I needed to hear, and if successful, my immediate family will be the biggest benefactors. Thankyou for your uploads, and the time, effort, work and research you put into them. One of the best sources of quality fact based information on You Tube. Really. Thanks again. Jono. :)
Glad to be of service. My strongest recommendation is to find a physician you like/trust and ask them their advice. Alternatively, find the number for the local American Cancer Society or go to smokefree -dot- gov.
Except the American Cancer Society's position on e-cigarettes and other products is based on willful ignorance. They claim not to know what's in them, but refuse to accept lab results, nor do labs themselves.
Ironically, Smokefree suggest both candles, which have a higher HMIS health rating than e-cigs, and incense, which is packed full of PAHs and nitrosamines and have been shown to raise cancer risk. Not bad ideas, just add ventilation.
@C0nc0rdance Hi, notice how it has been 3 weeks since you made this video? I quit smoking 3 weeks ago, and it's no coincidence. I would suggest that this is actually partly due to electronic cigarettes. In a strange way, I have to thank them. After watching this video I thought "ZOMG, that guy at the airport is such a pathetic loser", and then I figured, well, 'normal' smoking isn't that much different, so I shouldquit before I start harassing people about how healthy a nicotine-addiction is.
That was absolutely excellent!!!!! Good job, and thankyou. Im (have been, anyway) currently shopping around and looking into these smokeleless cigs..... wow. thinking more now, may just have to be a cold turkey on em. thanks guys for the support, I know many reading this will have done it successfully. Cheers YT friends... :)
Ok, it's silly to claim that second hand smoke from these things is dangerous, but I still wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane sitting next to someone smoking one. Seems like somebody could use snus or something when they're in an enclosed space.
"Seems like somebody could use snus or something when they're in an enclosed space."
Well, it's not smoke, it's vapor or more aptly mist, and if you're on a plane, they use propylene glycol by the tanker truck full for deicing. You're exposed to it by the ton as the air is cycled from the outside. It's a non issue as it's been in use in hospitals since 1942. The only other additive is typically Lorann or Capella flavoring. Do we ban asthma inhalers?
But your entitled to your opinion. My GF has asthma. She can say she'd rather be in a bar with 100 people using personal vaporizers than deal with one smoker outside the door. She said this when I took her to an event with 100 vapers.
So it's up to you, deal with vapor on the plane, or deal with 100+ smokers outside baggage claim. Nicotine being self regulating, getting it on the plane adds an incentive to not light up after.
It's not silly at all. There's not a lot of data yet, but based on what we know of secondhand smoke, there's no reason to doubt you would absorb substantial nicotine during that proximity.
Tob Control. 2012 Jan 24.
"Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees."
C0nC0rdance was right, you have an agenda to promote this product. Either that or your in complete denial about the dangers of an addiction you can't control.
Either way, you obviously have no intrest in having an honest discussion about this subject and just want to spread dangerous lies.
"Either way, you obviously have no intrest in having an honest discussion about this subject and just want to spread dangerous lies."
Yet you don't point out what the lie is. Again, we have a century of epidemiological data from Sweden, and a low morbidity and morality rate. We don't know the long term affects of nicotine alone, but based on a century of data from Sweden, we have a good indication what the risks are with smokeless tobacco. 98% according to the AAPHP
"Either that or your in complete denial about the dangers of an addiction you can't control."
Or your in denial about the status quo. 19% of the population will die SMOKING, unwilling or unable to quit. Keeping the cigarette monopoly presuming scare tactics will promote cessation DOESN'T WORK. Dishonestly asserting risks about nicotine only serves to reinforcing SMOKING as an equal risk proposition. This dishonesty costs lives. Harm reduction saves lives.
Im perfectly happy having an honest discussion, just you assert "risks" with nicotine use, without being specific as to what they are.You're appealing to a hypothetical ideal that has been demonstrated as unobtainable. Driving cars is risky, but we don't ban cars, we use harm reduction devices like seat belts. Cigarette addiction exists in the here and now, and dishonestly promoting nicotine as having equal risks serves to reinforce cigarette use. Cigarettes more deadly period!
I can't say for sure that this is an agency fronting for an industry, but there's a pattern to their activities across the Internet. The "Board Members" cut and paste onto forums, and the same messages and language are consistently repeated.
The CASAA "News" section exclusively covers e-cigarettes and their actions to prevent regulation of any kind. Even if they aren't astroturf, their advocacy crosses a line into viral marketing.
Another interesting example. They have an entire article on how nicotine is purely beneficial, with no adverse health effects. When I compare their facts with the National Heart and Lung Institute or American Cancer Institute, I find that one of the two sides is badly distorting the truth. It only takes a few moments in the literature to determine that it's CASAA.
@C0nc0rdance "It only takes a few moments in the literature to determine that it's CASAA." Your opinion is not enough to prove that someone is lying. You need facts and evidence. That is, if you want to be listened, at least by me, and it's a good habit to have. Cheers, good work otherwise.
"For one thing, nicotine does not cause intoxication. It does not impair judgement, motor skills, or the ability to get along with others. In fact, it improves these abilities."
"A wide variety of toxicants have been found to impair cognitive function... Others such as alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine are widely used drugs of abuse."
"Addictive properties of smoking [via nicotine] are thought to have a pronounced effect at a young age, thereby increasing vulnerability to a life-long addiction and decreasing the likelihood of smoking cessation during adulthood."
"Effects of nicotine on critical components of reward pathways and circuits involved in learning, memory and mood are likely to contribute to increased addictive properties and long-term behavioral problems seen in adolescent smokers."
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002 May-Jun;24(3):369-84.
Nicotine and the adolescent brain: insights from an animal model.
"Adolescent nicotine exposure thus elicits region- and gender-selective effects that differ substantially from those in adults, effects that may contribute to increased addictive properties and lasting deficits in behavioral performance."
Brain Res. 1999 Dec 18;851(1-2):9-19.
Adolescent nicotine exposure causes persistent upregulation of nicotinic cholinergic receptors in rat brain regions.
"Drug-induced loss of inhibitory control may be critically involved both in the initial and later stages of addiction. Neuroadaptations occurring during chronic exposure to and/or withdrawal from nicotine render animals more sensitive to the disinhibitory effects of the drug. Longer-term changes in behaviour may play an important role in the increased susceptibility to relapse in those with a history of nicotine abuse."
"Present findings support the hypothesis that heightened impulsivity in smokers may in part be a consequence of the direct acute effects of nicotine. As such, drug-induced changes in impulsivity may play a critical role in the transition to and maintenance of nicotine dependence."
un-subbed TAKE YOUR BLINDERS OFF! LEARN WHAT SCIENCE IS! FUCK!!
slowmopoke 12 hours ago
I'm glad this video is back up. While I am a nicotine addict myself (around 20 cigs a day), I have not tried out e-cigs, simply because there are not enough studies yet to come to solid conclusions whether they are better than conventional cigarettes. The ultimate goal for me is to eventually quit, but as already mentioned in your video, quitting is hard. The longest I lasted without was a period of 3 years, and still fell back and started again. Thanks for this video. :-)
FelidaTheG33k 1 day ago
I'm glad to see this video back up....
santora1957 2 days ago 4
In my experience, the eCig has helped me reduce the amount of times I want nicotine in a day. On a typical work day, I usually smoke 6-12 cigarettes - Not a heavy smoker, but still enough to hate the things. The eCig satisfies me, and once I get out of the habit of taking smoke breaks, stepping outside, etc (My boss does not mind their use inside) I find that I am using it a similar number of times, but usually only one or two drags. Less cancer, less nicotine. Seems like a good thing to me.
Garylisk 3 days ago
American Association of Public Health Physicians Statement Re: E-cigarettes:
"A cigarette smoker can reduce his or her risk of future tobacco-related death by 98% or
better by switching to a low risk smokeless tobacco product. He or she could cut that risk by 99.9% or better by switching to a nicotine-only delivery product like one of the pharmaceutical products or E-cigarettes."
This seems like the real issue that needs to be addressed, not fluff about gov't agency approval. C0nc0rdance?
turbozed 3 days ago
You have WAY to much time on your hands.
CitySolitare 4 days ago
How much nicotine do you believe is in the vapor exhaled from the person using the e-cigarette? As in 2nd hand nicotine exposure.
phroz3n 4 days ago
You talk a lot about education, information, and honesty yet your video is replete with alarmist half truths and speculation. Shame on you.
For those that can't figure out who has an agenda and who doesn't, look up the statement on e-cigs from American Association of Public Health Physicians. The whole site may wipe some of the inaccurate rhetoric off of you.
And if you REALLY care, buy an e-cigarette and give it to a current smoker.
JD4x4 5 days ago
Shit, might as well just smoke regular ones. Goddamned govt. has to stick it's "regulation" on every fucking thing. Jesus on a fucking pogo stick...
Bllackguard666 5 days ago
I hope you or those sensitive to nicotine also stay away from Tomatoes, Potatoes, eggplant, peppers, tea and Cauliflower, because they also contain nicotine.
The correlation you cite between nicotine users and schizophrenia is a mistake based upon cause and effect. While a high number of schizophrenics have been known to use nicotine, it is believed they are self medicating as nicotine has been shown to help treat schizophrenia. It has also been shown to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
WelderInOk 5 days ago 2
@WelderInOk Thank you. I was just thinking about this then I saw you beat me to it. :D I smoke an no fucking govt., rightwinger, religious, fundamentalist is going to stop my right. Fuck them. For the people who don't like my smoke, stand away from our smoking areas.
Bllackguard666 5 days ago
@WelderInOk Sadly, banning those other nicotine containing plants may actually happen if more States follow Maryland's misguided and over-reactive request to re-evaluate the GRAS list. No joke, I'm afraid. Look up HJ2 at mlis(dot)state(dot)md(dot)us
JD4x4 5 days ago
Please dont you have someting better to do.... No regulations..................or taxes... I use 100% VG USA MADE E-LIQUID.... We like our NICOTINE.... Personal freedoms are suffering because of cry babys like you.....
TheDerek666 5 days ago
So come on , what exactly is your job/title in the FDA, official parrot? Perhaps you're a pharmaceutical lobbyist? I can get over your smarmy condescending tone but you gotta fess up to your affiliations.
Nah, never mind I actually *can't* get over your tone but at least this video of lies was good for a chuckle.
Scottitude 5 days ago
@Scottitude Condescending? William Lane Craig is condescending. C0nc0rdance is just well spoken. If you disagree with him, check his clearly documented sources and point out how he was wrong or lying.
FALCO64125 5 days ago
@FALCO64125 It's the same FDA/BT/BP rhetoric every "anti" spews in billowing clouds of "facts" based on incomplete and flawed "research" in the name of "science".
The FACT is that PVs (or e-cigs as the subscription thieves and ignorant call them) are the most effective method for harm reduction and for many, smoking cessation, in existence.
And yes, condescending. And smarmy. Sorry, but I haven't and won't drink your Kool-Aid; I'll think and experience life for myself, thank you.
Scottitude 5 days ago
very unique i will say...your tone of voice, the terms used, hearing you turn your cue cards, some of your research is done, plus mentioning marry-jane, and hearing you talk about the gum, patch, or inhaler, which are extremely higher priced and lay in bed with the big tobacco companies....so my question is: how much money does your business stand to loose as smokers switch to a safer alternative to e-cigarettes? How much vested interest do you personally have when you made this video?
DaemonRealms 6 days ago
As a side note: My wife and son are highly allergic to cigarette smoke, so my use of the gum or patch meant i could not hug or kiss my wife, then nic inhaler meant i could not sit at the kitchen table with my son. Also your research fails to point out that nicotine is in the coffee you drink, the vegetables you consume (in natural occurring format) and in the vitamins you ingest.
DaemonRealms 6 days ago
@DaemonRealms He actually does not own any business at all and will not lose any money at all because of Electronic Cigarettes. I am pretty sure he works in a hospital though I do not remember what his exact profession is. You really should not make random assumptions about the creator just because you disagree with his views.
Personally I will wait for more information before I jump on the E-Cig bandwagon so to speak.
XxSequndaEtapaXx 4 days ago
@XxSequndaEtapaXx Interesting you said about the hospital, as he states he was going to a scientific conference to make a short topic of his current project...and is it not a novelty that this video is made, then there is a planted story of the e-cig that supposedly exploded (but nooooo one can identify it), which was followed by another planted story of someone on a plane and a e-cig? but all that aside my opinion still stands: who has the most to loose over e-cigarette's?
MeOutTech 4 days ago
It is unique to say that when it comes to a e-cigarette, big tobacco companies, and the so called "stop cession" companies do. Another, seeing as this video was up this current year (2012), why is it that Vegetable Glycerin (natural occurring) is not mentioned?
- = ~ update and another 'planted story': UTAH: senator says that smoking a cigarette is healthier for you as you know how much nicotine you are getting....oddly on the pack of smokes beside me it says nicotine: 1.0-2.4 yeah
MeOutTech 4 days ago
states right there EXACTLY how much nicotine i am taking in right there, pin points it too...now what about the other 4,000+ chemicals in a smoke compared to the 3 or 4 chemicals in a e-cigarette....
MeOutTech 4 days ago
In relation to personal vaporizers (PV), would you rather have smokers continue using cigarettes if they cannot quit using regulated, ineffective, NRT, or switch to a personal vaporizer with whatever level of nicotine? However you may feel, about PV, I don't think there is anyone out there that would say vaping is worse for your health than smoking cigarettes. If you don't smoke, then I KNOW you won't understand how difficult it is to quit the HABIT. for me at least it isn't the nicotine, it
NaJoTro 1 week ago
@professor88p
Well, find some facts and start countering if you feel so strongly that C0nc0rdance is wrong and that MattZuke5's arguements aren't good enough to support your views on the subject.
It's a bit lame to just make a post wishing that other people would come up with good information supporting your beliefs instead of countering arguements yourself.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
MattZuke:
Have you considered making a video response to C0nc0rdance? You'd probably get a bigger audience instead of those just trolling the comments in this video. IMO the only issues worth considering here are the relative harm levels of smoking versus smoking alternatives and the overall benefit to public health from these options. C0nc0rdance does a disservice to the debate by distracting us with conjecture about FDA intentions and positing some sinister propaganda campaign.
turbozed 2 weeks ago
I like to come back to this video once in a while to see every single argument you attempt to make against e-cigs gets countered with actual facts. Even the data you cite goes against your "opinion". You're starting to remind me of nephilimfree.
professor88p 2 weeks ago
@professor88p I fail to see how he was anything but impartial on the subject. He provides references to all the evidence he cites, and at the end of the video suggests that you stick to methods of nicotine addiction treatment that have been properly tested, or better yet consult your doctor. You seem to be knocking down a straw-man. Am I missing something?
gamegloss 6 days ago
hehe don't need that shit! I quit smoking 2 weeks ago XD
assalane 2 weeks ago
I know of a number of people who simply switched from conventional cigs to e-cigs. You neglected to mention that e-liquids are sold with differing levels of nicotine-- some are as high as conventional cigarettes, others have none. Also, I strongly suggest you do more research on the variety of e-cigs. They are currently available from a number of (foreign) manufacturers, and that would raise concern in my mind about differences in quality. Same goes, perhaps more importantly, for the e-liquids.
usc90Productions 2 weeks ago
I have a question, say If I had an empty e cig filter with no nicotine or whatever substance, and no heater part, and just the empty filter and the cig part that lights up, so I can experience the light and habit of puttin it to my mouth and sucking pure air back, is that ok?
proofandevidence 2 weeks ago
However, I am against completely banning them, and since there are powerful groups that stand to lose money to e-cigs, they need some defense.
As far as long term studies go, we'll have to wait until they've been out awhile and people should be able to choose to take the chance to use them if they want.
I am bothered that the easily availabe disposables come from China, since they even have lead in toys.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
I'm also bother by CASAA's resistance to even reasonable regulations like not using them on planes. It's insane that they're claiming that fines for using them on planes is cruel and unusual punishment. There is no obligation to prove that something is dangerous to restrict it's use in public areas. Many things are resticted just because they are an annoyance. They also to seem think marketing of smokeless products that is appealing to children is ok, even though that's when ppl normally start.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
I might have tarred MattZuke with the wrong brush, but I found him in a forum saying "At CASAA, we..." so I assumed he's affiliated.
I'm suspicious of the anti-regulation stance they've taken, but it's just that: suspicion. FDA regulation as a medical device would have given more control over advertising, manufacturing standards (cGMP), and point of sale. Right now, they're being sold in gas stations along with Copenhagen and Marlboros. Makes me uneasy.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
"but I found him in a forum saying "At CASAA, we..."
You'll also find me on a American Lung Association forum, and I've even bought Easter Seals. Doesn't make me a member. of the ALA
"I'm suspicious of the anti-regulation stance they've taken,"
Be as suspicious as you like, but if you have no evidence, how can this be what science says about e-cigarettes.
"FDA regulation as a medical device"
Would make the cost equal or greater than cigarettes, like NRPs.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"they're being sold in gas stations along with Copenhagen and Marlboros. Makes me uneasy."
Given the target market is 40yo smoker, with at least one cessation attempt under their belt, why do you feel uneasy? After Judge Leon's ruling Njoy opted to not sell candy flavored e-cigs at gas stations, Blu does the same thing
Now if you were to say tobacco products and e-cigs shouldn't be sold at gas stations, I'd agree. I support dedicated shops, easier to police.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"I'm also bother by CASAA's resistance to even reasonable regulations like not using them on planes"
It's not a safety issue. If the airline wants to ban them, let the airline ban them, but a government imposed ban ban suggests a safety issue, which serves to poison the well without objective evidence.
"Many things are resticted just because they are an annoyance."
It's not the role of the FAA to regulate annoying behavior, only passenger safety.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
Thankyou for your response. It gives me a better understanding of your objections to e-cigs and CASAA than just pointing out that nicotine addiction is unhealthy.
I am bothered by CASAA's seemingly defeatist attitude of trying to get people to quit smoking, and how switching to e-cigs seems to be considered the same as quiting. (cont.)
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
I'm an e-cig user that quit cigarettes on day 1, after smoking a pack a day for 17 years. I don't feel concordance did a good job here. The FDA's investigation into e-cigs is so dated, biased, and mispresented (by the FDA themselves) that it isn't fit to mention. If you want ALL the studies, articles, science and facts related to e-cigs, head over to ECF's forums (google it). E-cigs didn't work for my gf, but works for so many. All smokers should at least try. Non-smokers, stay away.
OrthodoxAtheist 2 weeks ago
@rustybike5
Yeah, exagerating the dangers and misrepresenting the facts just makes it less likely that people will take him seriously, and he's only comparing e-cigs to not smoking at all and ignoring the fact that e-cigs can be safer and the only real issue I see is that they can reduce the number of people who try to end their addiction, but people should be given the option.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"and the only real issue I see is that they can reduce the number of people who try to end their addiction,"
This is a valid statement. However, keep in mind that close to 1/3 of nicotine gum users are habitual users, and there has been NO change in the number of smokers for roughly a decade. Roughly an equal amount start smoking as die.
The ONLY issue with nicotine gum is more smokers are not opting to use it instead of cigarettes.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
I had to stop watching. Ecigs contain tar?? That study was flawed (sample size) from the start, and parroted by so many with their own agendas. Dislike.
rustybike5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
I forget who made the comment, can't see what you're replying to on my phone, but the claim was 3 orders of magnitude which is ten times as much as 2 orders, and if you're one of those lucky people who actually has insurance in the States, perscriptions are much less, and I'm guessing you picked out one of the most expensive meds with no generic for your example.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
judegrover 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
judegrover 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"I'm guessing you picked out one of the most expensive meds with no generic for your example."
Ah, no. The ALA has data who covers what. Generic NRPs don't exist, except store branded NRPs that cost more, or the host of products like nicotine suntan lotion. Respectfully, you're pulling skepticism out of your arse.
It takes 7-11 cessation attempts, and 19% die smoking. Insurance at best will cover the FDA approved 12 week program, only 3% eff. after 20 months.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
Only Texas and New Mexico cover the inhaler, which costs ~$200/pop last time I checked.
Disposable e-cigs are roughly equal in cost to NRPs, or real cigs. They're wicked expensive.
Yeah, someone was pulling numbers from their ass, ~1 order of magnitude between E-cigs and NRPs, maybe ~2 , or close to it, for dual NRP use.
Google "tobacco control does your state make the grade" for some indication what insurance covers.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
From an insurance perspective, cessation is a net loss propitiation. Smoking ends the lives of roughly 33%-50% of it's users, at a rate of roughly 1%/year. Heart disease covers a bulk of them, often untreatable, or lung cancer, typically untreatable. Lung cancer is the ultimate win to insurance, diagnosis means you're likely to have a year at best.
And NRPs are not that effective over doing nothing, the best shot is counseling + NRPs for nicotine cessation.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
Personally I'd rather have the person next to me smoking an e-cig rather than a real cigarette, at the very least. The lesser of two evils. The hipster angle is a valid point, but there are nicotine-free e-cigs. At least if you trust the manufacturer. Hurray lax requirements for manufacturing and testing -_-
MKirro 2 weeks ago
"Personally I'd rather have the person next to me smoking an e-cig rather than a real cigarette, at the very least."
My GF has asthma, she'd rather be indoors with 100 people using e-cigs than have to deal with 1-2 people outside with real ones.
"At least if you trust the manufacturer."
This is Concordance's dishonesty, the unrelated recreational product was shown by the FDA tests as having fewer tobacco impurities than the pharmaceutics product. This was edited out of his screenshot.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
I would say you are misrepresenting the findings with:
"fewer tobacco impurities than the pharmaceutics product"
What the report says is:
"present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification" (no more than 0.5%)
The specification is a lot failure test under 21CFR11, not the content. The amount of TSI is cause for concern because e-cigarettes are not a nicotine replacement therapy, they are an unregulated risk reduction product.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"The amount of TSI is cause for concern"
It's TSNAs, not TSIs. Hypothetically NNK can form from nicotine outside the plant, as such it's in accurate to call it an impurity. The 4mg patch has 8nanograms NNK/patch.
The amount found is NOT cause for concern because the FDA allows higher quantities in NRPs. A habitual gum user will get 2ng/4mg piece of gum of TSNAs, a Snus user 2010ng/g tobacco. NEITHER ELEVATES ONE'S RISK OF COMMON CANCERS.(Benowitz 2010)
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
Fine, I'm not interested in the semantics. The point is that the nicotine solutions also contain tobacco specific impurities as a consequence of manufacturing.
I'm not sure that Nicotrol or gum or patches can be directly compared to e-cigs. I would assume, in the absence of evidence, that the patterns of use are very different. If nothing else, one is usually part of a stop-smoking program and the other is likely a long-term smoking alternative.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
"I would assume, in the absence of evidence, that the patterns of use are very different. If nothing else, one is usually part of a stop-smoking program and the other is likely a long-term smoking alternative."
If you read his comment, MattZuke5 refers specifically and only to habitual gum users. So there was no mention of the former, only the latter. Since his claim is that there's no elevation of cancer risk even in the long-term situation, your point seems moot.
turbozed 2 weeks ago
"The point is that the nicotine solutions also contain tobacco specific impurities as a consequence of manufacturing."
You're just reveling your own ignorance. A TSNA "could" be an impurity from a plant, it could be a result of chemical reactions after the fact. Hypothetically NNK can be formed if the user wears a patch near an unvented stove. Nothing to do with how it's made, or where it comes from. Has everything to do with nitric acid reacting with nicotine.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm not sure that Nicotrol or gum or patches can be directly compared to e-cigs"
Yes they can, they both deliver nicotine to the user @ levels.
"nothing else, one is usually part of a stop-smoking program and the other is likely a long-term smoking alternative"
Conjecture isn't evidence
tinyurl(.)com / GSK-wearpatch
tinyurl(.)com / fda-on-snus
The e-cig is effectively an NRP, deployed as a CRP, but can be used in NRT. NRPs deployed for NRT can, and often are, used as CRPs.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
"they are an unregulated risk reduction product."
As opposed to FDA approved regulated recreational product, tobacco cigarettes?
Besides, we have STRONG evidence that the role cigarettes play in cancer is PAHs over TSNAs. Getting cancer isn't the killer, it's keeping the cancer, and according to James E. Trosko's 30 year study, it's the PAHs that inhibit intercellular communication, allowing cancers to grow unimpeded by the immune system.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification"
It's good you concede you misrepresented the report by not including that detail in your screen shot. However you continue to misrepresent the report by NOT sharing what was on the next page, NOT DETECTED AT 60C.
So unlike NRPs, there is a heating element between the user and the liquid, and the FDA found TSNAs in the liquid, not the vapor. I guess TSNAs are less likely to boil :P
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
I pointed this out to C0nc0rdance the day after he posted the video. I don't see why it's so difficult to concede that leaving out TSNA levels is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.
turbozed 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
You've not really given any really good explaination for your objection to e-cigs for people who already smoke, and at the moment, I don't think that they're being marketed to people who don't smoke. Look at a package of a Finiti e-cig. It says right on the package, If you don't smoke, don't smoke Finiti, with a cig crossed out symbol. Do you not think that somebody who has been smoking for decades with no plan of quiting is better off switching?
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
" I don't think that they're being marketed to people who don't smoke"
Even better, my T-rex came with an advisory for pregnancy, something NRPs are lax about. There's data NRPs, specifically the patch, and Snus, are worse than smoking. I know I had to bump up my nicotine intake to 50% above my smoking habit to come close to addressing my cravings for a month, and from time to time for the next two.
GSK says simply "This medicine is believed to be safer than smoking"
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
There are still some red flags about e-cigs.
1. The product has never undergone a serious safety review.
2. The FDA and several harm reduction agencies have expressed serious concerns.
3. There are fewer than a dozen studies published, and none on long-term effects.
4. The product has enjoyed incredible growth and diversification of manufacture with no oversight or regulation.
5. What little we do know about present manufacturing quality is not good.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
I would propose that virtually any alternative to cigarettes represents a risk reduction, but some are better tested, safer, better regulated and have a proven track record of efficacy. Regulated NRTs underwent the FDA clinical trials, safety tests, post-market monitoring, and they invest heavily in QC. E-cigs have found a way to bypass those processes in favor of unregulated, high-profit products.
Better than smoking, riskier than NRT.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdanace
What do you have against CASAA? Do you think that the only information we should get about e-cigs is from companies who are going to lose money to the sale of e-cigs? Do you want them to use that money to get e-cigs banned so that people who are using e-cigs instead of smoking go back to smoking?
I don't feel that you've given a very balanced view of this subject.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
CASAA is a pro-e-cig marketing/advocacy group. They don't disclose financials on their website, but I find them to be curiously well-supported for a "non-profit consumer advocacy" group. I also found that three of their board members are self-described "Internet marketers". That's an odd concentration.
I invite you to do your own research and share your findings. Google the organization, read the comments, and see if you see a similar pattern.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"hey don't disclose financials on their website, but I find them to be curiously well-supported for a "non-profit consumer advocacy" group."
Well-supported? Evidence?
AFAIK they don't have any money, which explains why it's not discussed. For example, they couldn't afford to send a member to Hawai'i or Utah to testify in front of their state representatives.
Here's an idea, why don't you ASK directly how much they gross.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
So, are you involved with CASAA or not? I notice that you seem to use a lot of the same verbatim sound bites that Kristin was using.
Actually Jacinda Ross DID go to Utah to testify.
They seem to spend a lot of time opposing taxation and regulation. They have a brick and mortar office in a three story building in Mobile, AL (you can see it in the Contact Us on their page). They have a booth at VaperCon, use a commercial web development company and paid advisors.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"Actually Jacinda Ross DID go to Utah to testify"
I just did the google, she lives in Utah. She was not sent.
Like I said, I met one Cassa member once, at my health department.
"use a commercial web development company and paid advisors."
I know they use WebOperations, I see you can actually lease suite 303, and take over Casaa's suite 300, so it looks like the space is either donated, or the owner lets casaa use it. But you got me. Paid advisors?
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
To be clear, AFAIK they don't have any money. They could not afford to fly someone to Hawaii, nor Utah, but Jacinda did live in Utah. AFAIK she represented herself. They "might" have 2,500 sq FT in Alabama, but their suite is for lease, and the contact # is a mobile phone in DC.
Why don't you ASK. Looks to me like you're just trying to poison the well. I'd be shocked if CASAA can afford a lease.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
I have no interest in what CASAA have to say unless they have access to primary research papers that I don't. My objection was to the misuse of my channel discussion by a professional marketing/advocacy group.
My only objection to e-cigs is that they entered the market untested, unregulated and with questionable marketing. Someday they may be proven to be safer alternatives, equivalent to FDA approved NRT, but today is not that day.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"My objection was to the misuse of my channel discussion by a professional marketing/advocacy group."
That's a stretch.
"Someday they may be proven to be safer alternatives,"
They already have. To be safer, less than 1% of their users need to drop dead per year. The FDA conceded not a single user or bystander has been harmed. The evidence is they're safer than Chantix (Varenicline).
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
"The FDA conceded not a single user or bystander has been harmed."
Please cite your source.
Why do you think the FDA is expressing so much concern?
Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality? Who benefits from unregulated drug delivery products?
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"Please cite your source."
FDA VS SE & Njoy Jan 14 2010
Google SE-vs-FDA-Opinion(DOT) pdf
Sorry, no evidence of harm = no case
"Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality?"
Appeal to a conspiracy.It helps to know the background of Ruyan, but the short is, to be approved, the FDA needs safety testing at a university,which requires passing the ethical board, who can't approve of testing because of the FDA
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"Who benefits from unregulated drug delivery products?"
The consumers, and cottage industry. Keep in mind that Ruyan tried to play ball. They couldn't conduct research in the US, so they contracted to HealthNZ.The FDA refused to look at their safety report, their clinical trial. By all rights, they should have gotten a grant to conduct phase III clinical trials in the US, instead the FDA supported ultra low nicotine cigarettes (Century 22 - Spectrum).
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"unregulated drug delivery"
The ONLY way to deploy e-cigs in the US was as a recreational product, which is fine, that's exactly how they were designed, for people unwilling, or unable to stop smoking. That is what they are.
Now if this was under the control of the FTC, there would be regulation, federal testing of the vapor testing for nicotine content. But the FDA doesn't think that's required for cigarettes, claiming this data was too confusing.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
"Why do you think CASAA and other advocacy groups are opposing regulations governing manufacturing quality?"
Citation needed. You seem to confuse the idea of having cheap alternative products cheap accessible, and opposing "quality control". I have no clue as to casaa's position, my position is the FDA does NOT perform the same services the FTC did, leaving cigarettes VIRTUALLY unregulated, and holding virtual monopoly, both is bad for public health.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
...This looks like a setup for a strawman argument, there is no indication of regulations are required, and asserting "those" people are opposed to unspecified regulations. Any sane person would be opposed to unspecified regulations.
Self-regulation has resulted in a product that your citation indicates exceeds FDA regulations, but oversight would not be unreasonable. But to date, the FDA, ALA, AHA, TFF, ANSRs haven't drafted a proposal, or inspected one mfg.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
So in short, you present a strawman. No one has proposed regulations to oppose, except for age restrictions, which no one opposes, and indoor vaping bans, which are not a clean air act issue.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
Oh, and Hawaii's 70% tax, which 10,000 people opposed. Cigarette taxes are there, in part, so cigarettes cost more than candy, so kids don't buy them. E-cigs already cost more than candy, and Hawaii's legislation didn't reflect a typical retail unit cost $70, raising it to $119.
This tax made no sense since one could mail order a unit avoiding the tax, effectively shutting down local businesses.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
Let's look at the "Summary of Results" of the only safety test of e-cigs from FDA:
"DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed."
"DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
You're being dishonest. While TSNAs were detected, they were less than the control sample (10mg nicotrol Inhaler), they were not detected at 60C (in the vapor)
HealthNZ safety testing had similar results. TSNAs were detected at 8.2 nanograms in 12-16mg cartridges. The Nicotine Patch has 8 nanograms per 8mg cartridge, specifically NNK. This was NOT detected in the vapor.
The FDA observed 2010ng/day does not elevate one's risk of common cancers.
Sorry!
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5 "you're being dishonest" You're being retarded.
mmmmmarcus 5 days ago
@C0nc0rdance
"DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed"
In the liquid, less than NRPs, GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe), not detectable at 60C, I.e. in the vapor.
Potential exposure, but only if you crack open a cartridge and rub it on your chest. Even then, fewer TSNAs based on independent testing.
Sorry :P
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"My only objection to e-cigs is that they entered the market untested, unregulated and with questionable marketing"
As opposed to regulated FDA approved cigarettes?
E-cigarettes have been tested for safety, you're just being dishonest because you cited one test. Both the FDA and HealthNZ's research agree e-cigs have fewer carcinogens than NRPs. The unregulated recreational product uses more refined nicotine than the FDA requires in the pharma product.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
"As opposed to regulated FDA approved cigarettes?"
No, as opposed to nicotine replacement therapy/products. I should have thought that was obvious.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
"No, as opposed to nicotine replacement therapy/products. I should have thought that was obvious."
No, you're just oblivious. Cigarettes are legal. Cigarettes kill roughly 1% if it's userbase per year. They are FDA regulated recreational drug delivery devices. These are okay.
E-cigarettes are not, even though there is no evidence they harmed a single user or bystander. So long as less than .25% drop dead per year, this represents a max pot. of neutral.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
Let's take the current "Call To Action in Hawaii" they issued. Kristin and company are opposing a bill that taxes e-cigarettes like any other tobacco product and prevents their sale to minors.
The cost to consumers will certainly go up a little, but more importantly, it will drive down profits for manufacturers. If CASAA isn't an industry sponsored group (and I'm not the only person questioning this), they are 'coincidentally' representing the interests of e-cig mfgs.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Kristin and company are opposing a bill that taxes e-cigarettes like any other tobacco product and prevents their sale to minors."
You're being dishonest. They opposed a 70% tax. They didn't oppose minor regulation.
"The cost to consumers will certainly go up a little"
Yeah, 70%, on a $70-$100 device, which Hawaii agreed was "problematic".
"If CASAA isn't an industry sponsored group"
You have NO clue what the industry is. It's mainly cottage industry.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
Then there's the board... I've chosen three to dig deeper on:
Kristin Noll-Marsh: real estate agent and "Internet marketer"
Drew Gliem, owner/promoter of Nhaler, internet e-cig company
Their scientific advisor, Carl V. Phillips, is a paid consultant for US Smokeless Tobacco (the principal mfg of smokeless tobacco in the US) He runs his own private business doing "harm reduction" consulting. Harm Reduct J. 2009 Jul 2;6:14.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
"prohibitionist philosophy"
I never once said that they should be banned or that they are as bad as cigarettes, I just don't think it's a good idea to give people the idea that they are harmless. Especially people who aren't already addicted.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"I just don't think it's a good idea to give people the idea that they are harmless."
And have I done this? No! I cite experts that make it clear that the big risk factors are with MI and Stroke, but not as bad as smoking, which account for roughly 3.5% of smoking related deaths/year.
I do suggest someone with at least 3 cessation attempts would be wise considering long term nicotine use OVER smoking, whether this be NRP, smokeless tobacco, or e-cigs.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
I should also make it clear that there is STRONG evidence on the negative effects "nicotine" has on reproduction. There are studies in England and NL that suggest the patch is worse than smoking in birth defects, and Snus might actually be worse.
I strongly support cold turkey abstinence, this is the most popular method. I support counseling or consoling with NRPs, but have low double digit success rates. But for the 19% who won't or can't quit, we less deadly alternatives.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
"flip a fag and drive"
ROFL
I'm sorry, but the visual I get for that one has me in tears.
In the US, we never use fag for cigarette.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@turbozed
I'm not buying that e-cigs don't contribute to heart disease, and I feel that somebody is justified in feeling proud of being able to say that they've managed to beat their addiction to nicotine, so when somebody claims to be an ex-smoker when they're still using nicotine, I don't consider it to be the same as someone who has actually had the willpower to beat their addiction.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Primalxbeast
"I'm not buying that e-cigs don't contribute to heart disease"
You can not buy it as much as you like. If you don't accept the reality that TAR contributes contributes to heart disease, you've been living under a couch for 60 years. Again, we have metastudies from a century of data collected in Sweden on Snus. While nicotine alone isn't known, snus alone is. The AAPHP estimate of 98% less harmful is backed by hard data.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"ex-smoker when they're still using nicotine,"
You already conceded that a pot smoker who eats brownies no longer smokes pot. You're operating under the misconception that cigarette addiction is all about the nicotine. If this was true, NRPs would be better than 10% effective in the short term.
Natural tobacco contains minor alkaloids that act as natural MAOIs, which have been observed to be the key in adolescent addiction.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"I don't consider it to be the same as someone who has actually had the willpower to beat their addiction."
Which is roughly 19% of the population. This is the observed reality you deny. Dishonestly misrepresenting the risks of nicotine only serves to reinforce cigarettes as the best choice. You claim it would be "better" if they quit nic, this could be true. But if they're not willing to quit cigarettes, your prohibitionist philosophy means death.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
valken666: thanks for posting actual data instead of just unsubstantiated hypotheses and quotes in papers. C0nc0rdance, your effort on this topic has been disappointing.
turbozed 2 weeks ago
@TheSngcoach
So you actually quit, unlike these posers coming on here saying they've quit but who are still using nicotine?
Grats, I hope you're able to keep it up.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
So eliminating cancer, heart disease, death, and other national health concerns is just not that important because it's *really about* some nebulous sense of honor and pride from quitting nicotine? Sounds like the Catholic church's religious arguments for preaching against condom usage in Africa. It's really about controlling your urges people!
turbozed 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
I've never seen a curb in a baggage claim area. :-P
The simple fact is, that not letting some inconsiderate dickwad smoke in the seat right next to me on the plane isn't going to force me to be stuck with 100+ smokers afterwards. They smoke outside.
You can't pretend to not be smoking on the plane, so I don't have to choose. It's staying illegal, deal with it. or better yet, actually stop your habit instead of just pretending you have.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"I've never seen a curb in a baggage claim area."
So you concede to having no experience in airports.
"They smoke outside."
Yes, they all smoke outside, at the same time, right outside baggage claim, generating quit a lot of smoke. Every full 747 will have ~20% smokers, ~132 smokers. It's a legit complaint, more so if you have COPD or asthma.
"It's staying illegal, deal with it."
Just in the US, and it's unenforceable anyway. I do it anyway.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"You can't pretend to not be smoking on the plane"
Now in Europe, it's a different matter. They actually sell the e-cigs in airports and on the plane. They make a quick buck, and the observed affect is NOT having the baggage claim smoker's rush. And before you claim this doesn't bother anyone, 100+ smokers from each plane exactly where access to public transport is, right by the doors where everyone needs to go. If this doesn't bug you, you don't have a nose.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
All in all, THANK YOU, I already made over 100 euro's, also feel a lot healthier, and this video didn't make me quit smoking of course, but it did give me that final push. Thanks a lot.
TheSngcoach 2 weeks ago
MattZuke5
Where do you live that people are allowed to smoke in the baggage claim area?
Like I said earlier, you can't just put your pot in brownies and claim you're no longer using just because you're not smoking it.
You never quit your nicotine addiction.
In my book, only people who had the willpower to fight their addiction get classified as ppl who quit.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Primalxbeast
"Where do you live that people are allowed to smoke in the baggage claim area?"
Near and airport that makes it clear that's the ONLY place to smoke, Smoking is not permitted at ticketing check in, only on the curb at baggage claim, and this is normal from Seattle to Cancun,
"You never quit your nicotine addiction."
Quite true, I only quit smoking. 19% of the population will go to their graves smoking, a stat that remains unchanged for a decade.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"you can't just put your pot in brownies and claim you're no longer using just because you're not smoking it"
But you can make the valid claim you don't smoke pot. Just as someone who uses a THC vaporizer is not smoking pot.
I do not smoke, I don't use tobacco, I use a nicotine vaporizer.
I'm glad you concede this point.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
I don't mind people using e-cigs instead of cigarettes, but I don't think it's right to delude people into thinking that they are safe and that nicotine addiction isn't bad just because e-cigs aren't likely to cause cancer.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Primalxbeast
"I don't think it's right to delude people into thinking that they are safe"
I don't think it's right deluding people into thinking it's more dangerous than it is.
"just because e-cigs aren't likely to cause cancer"
Or just about any other illness cigarette related. Main risk is MI and Stroke, but it's accepted that the risk is orders of magnitude less than smoking cigarettes.
Tinyurl(dot)com / FDA-on-Snus
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@evelwnm
Gee, maybe because coffee isn't as dangerous as cigarettes, and decaf has the addictive substance removed while most e-cigs still have nicotine.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@C0ncordance
Good to see you taking part in the conversation, and posting actual research information on the hazards of nicotine instead of just pointing out that the guys supporting these are part of an agency promoting e-cigs.
I actually think that there should be somebody standing up against the cigarette industry and big pharma to keep smokeless nicotine legal since they have so much $, but their mis-info needs corrected.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"out that the guys supporting these are part of an agency promoting e-cigs"
That was just C0ncordance poisoning the well. It's like saying I'm part of the American Lung Association since I posted there once or twice, or Americans for Non-Smoker's Rights.
It's dishonest, and disingenuous, and as others have pointed out he's trying to preserve his e-cred than admit he he removed vital information from his screen shot citations.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
It's not only dishonest and disingenuous but it's ridiculous considering that the groups promoting e-cigarettes are largely comprised of ex-smokers, and that the e-cigarette industry is comprised mostly of small businesses and mom-and-pop type operations. It's just dumb to posit a nefarious and/or concerted effort yet that's what C0nc0rdance wants people to believe.
turbozed 2 weeks ago
@sheik124
You haven't quit until you're no longer using nicotine.
This is one of the things that bother me about the e-cig. People switch to them and claim they've quit when they're still addicted.
I think they should be legal, and probably help some people quit, but nicotine addiction is still bad regardless of how you get it.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast Why is it that when someone switches to decaf coffee....no one ever asks when they plan to stop drinking coffee all together?
evelwmn 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
Would I rather sit next to someone with an e-cig on a plane or deal with 100+ smokers in the bagage handling area?
I'm suck in a plane seat for hours, right next to a person with poor air circulation, I'm never going to be stuck near a 100+ smokers in a confined space that I can't leave when I get off the plane. That's a ludicrous justification for thinking that you're justified in smoking on a plane, and yes, you're still smoking.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm never going to be stuck near a 100+ smokers in a confined space that I can't leave when I get off the plane."
Baggage claim. It's a valid justification if you have COPD, Asthema, or any other of a number respiratory illnesses, or if you don't like cigarette stench.
"hat's a ludicrous justification for thinking that you're justified in smoking on a plane, and yes, you're still smoking."
No, I quit smoking 1 year ago.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Sheik124
A cheap e-cig costs $8. Several (3) orders of magnitute more would be $8,000, or something around 10,000. I don't think the other options are quite that expencive.
Sorry just nit-picking but an order of magnitude generally means around a multiple of 10 more.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
I wanted to disprove your assertion based on the Nicorette Inhaler model, but I'm getting conflicting data on it's cost. Presuming a year long cessation program, yes, nicotine assistance, I'd "guess" the Inhaler would run $2910 (6/day). E-cigs (35c/ml, 2ml/day, 1 $1.33 carto/week, $80 starter kit), will run $405.50.
So just 1 order of magnitude. Maybe 2 if you take into account two NRPs at the same time.
$8 ecigs are typically disposable, equal in cost to NRPs.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
nice vid, thx :)
i would love to see an video about non substance based drugs like World of warcraft from you
Glaubensfrei 2 weeks ago
i guess i should phrase it non substance based addictions ;)
Glaubensfrei 2 weeks ago
The gum, the inhaler, and the patch cost several orders of magnitude more than a basic e-cigarette. And I guarantee you any measurements of nicotine in exhaled breath would match in use of either product. How much is big pharma paying you? You are speaking out against something you don't understand. I am one of thousands who has quit smoking successfully with an e-cigarette, and I've lowered my nicotine level significantly. Much further than I ever got with a scam like Nicorette.
sheik124 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chantix causes SUICIDE. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
sheik124 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
sheik124 2 weeks ago
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
sheik124 2 weeks ago
@sheik124 you know that saying the same thing over and over again without quantifying it with Any sort of proof won't fly with him right??
Look he's a fair guy, if you have something to say then prove it
ryoshi100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryoshi100
"Look he's a fair guy, if you have something to say then prove it"
It's easy enough to look up independent cessation rates using nic gum in 12 week programs, and you'll see numbers like 7%, or below 3% after 20 months. I wouldn't call it an our right scam, just there are no safety studies outside of 12 week programs. This is why doctors like Hurt (Mayo Clin) suggest using NRPs as long as it takes. We're just starting to understand smoking is more than nic addiction.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
You are a tool, your "science" is not true. Tar cannot be found in e-juice, you state yourself that they are TSNAs! They are two very different things. There is no "smoke" from an electronic cigarette. There is no nicotine exhaled in any of the "second-hand vapor." Let us enjoy our nicotine without the tar and the carbon monoxide. Nicotine absorbed in the digestive tract? YOU DON'T EAT THE JUICE. It's absorbed in the mucosa of the nose and mouth. Educate yourself.
sheik124 2 weeks ago
Just the act of smoking itself, is so bad for your skin, lungs, throat, gums, and soft mucus tissues.
I've seen someone I know have their health dramatically, and visibly, improve, from switching to vapor.
AnonymousElektron 2 weeks ago
Is it dangerous to smoke ecigs that have no nicotine?
LifeInNewJersey 2 weeks ago
@LifeInNewJersey he addressed that. The problem is that many of the "nicotine free" brands still had some that showed up during testing.
This to me seems beyond odd because I know that it didn't come out of no-where unless someone Put it there. It's the kind of action that makes consumers feel like they can't trust the makers. I mean, is it simply bad shopkeeping or a nefariuos attempt to get people addicted??
ryoshi100 2 weeks ago
@ryoshi100
" many of the "nicotine free" brands still had some that showed up during testing."
That statement is patently untrue. If you look at the chart, SE. Apple tested at .00035mg/100ml. This is likely cross contamination, either by the FDA or by S.E. One cartridge from one brand doesn't make a trend, nor does 285x less nicotine than 100g of eggplant make an addiction. Such low levels of cross contamination are typically allowed in the food, with deadly peanut oil.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
"inefariuos attempt to get people addicted"
Again, .00035mg/100ml puff at 60C. The FDA lost their samples, and this observation hasn't been made by anyone else. In perspective, .35mcg represents the same nicotine as 3.5g of egg plant (Castro and Monji), 22.9g of potato pulp (Davis), or 6.7g of pureed tomatoes (Castro and Moji).
Oh and FYI, apples contain nicotine too, and nicotine is still a common insecticide. But to be fair, at .35mcg, pesticide, lab error, or mfg crossing.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
Don't worry guys, big tobacco will make sure that this is banned within the next year or so, and that the DEA will throw you in jail for possession of atomizing technology.
AnonymousElektron 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance If yr on right now, then an extra big thankyou for this one. Really was just what I needed to hear, and if successful, my immediate family will be the biggest benefactors. Thankyou for your uploads, and the time, effort, work and research you put into them. One of the best sources of quality fact based information on You Tube. Really. Thanks again. Jono. :)
jeebersjumpincryst 2 weeks ago
@jeebersjumpincryst
Glad to be of service. My strongest recommendation is to find a physician you like/trust and ask them their advice. Alternatively, find the number for the local American Cancer Society or go to smokefree -dot- gov.
Thanks for commenting.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance
Except the American Cancer Society's position on e-cigarettes and other products is based on willful ignorance. They claim not to know what's in them, but refuse to accept lab results, nor do labs themselves.
Ironically, Smokefree suggest both candles, which have a higher HMIS health rating than e-cigs, and incense, which is packed full of PAHs and nitrosamines and have been shown to raise cancer risk. Not bad ideas, just add ventilation.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance Hi, notice how it has been 3 weeks since you made this video? I quit smoking 3 weeks ago, and it's no coincidence. I would suggest that this is actually partly due to electronic cigarettes. In a strange way, I have to thank them. After watching this video I thought "ZOMG, that guy at the airport is such a pathetic loser", and then I figured, well, 'normal' smoking isn't that much different, so I shouldquit before I start harassing people about how healthy a nicotine-addiction is.
TheSngcoach 2 weeks ago
That was absolutely excellent!!!!! Good job, and thankyou. Im (have been, anyway) currently shopping around and looking into these smokeleless cigs..... wow. thinking more now, may just have to be a cold turkey on em. thanks guys for the support, I know many reading this will have done it successfully. Cheers YT friends... :)
jeebersjumpincryst 2 weeks ago
good job, man. thanks.
ladicius 2 weeks ago
Ok, it's silly to claim that second hand smoke from these things is dangerous, but I still wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane sitting next to someone smoking one. Seems like somebody could use snus or something when they're in an enclosed space.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"Seems like somebody could use snus or something when they're in an enclosed space."
Well, it's not smoke, it's vapor or more aptly mist, and if you're on a plane, they use propylene glycol by the tanker truck full for deicing. You're exposed to it by the ton as the air is cycled from the outside. It's a non issue as it's been in use in hospitals since 1942. The only other additive is typically Lorann or Capella flavoring. Do we ban asthma inhalers?
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
"stuck on a plane sitting next to someone"
But your entitled to your opinion. My GF has asthma. She can say she'd rather be in a bar with 100 people using personal vaporizers than deal with one smoker outside the door. She said this when I took her to an event with 100 vapers.
So it's up to you, deal with vapor on the plane, or deal with 100+ smokers outside baggage claim. Nicotine being self regulating, getting it on the plane adds an incentive to not light up after.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
It's not silly at all. There's not a lot of data yet, but based on what we know of secondhand smoke, there's no reason to doubt you would absorb substantial nicotine during that proximity.
Tob Control. 2012 Jan 24.
"Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees."
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
I wish people wouldn't mark comments as spam. I can't look at any of those comments on my phone.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
@MattZuke5
C0nC0rdance was right, you have an agenda to promote this product. Either that or your in complete denial about the dangers of an addiction you can't control.
Either way, you obviously have no intrest in having an honest discussion about this subject and just want to spread dangerous lies.
Primalxbeast 2 weeks ago
"Either way, you obviously have no intrest in having an honest discussion about this subject and just want to spread dangerous lies."
Yet you don't point out what the lie is. Again, we have a century of epidemiological data from Sweden, and a low morbidity and morality rate. We don't know the long term affects of nicotine alone, but based on a century of data from Sweden, we have a good indication what the risks are with smokeless tobacco. 98% according to the AAPHP
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
"Either that or your in complete denial about the dangers of an addiction you can't control."
Or your in denial about the status quo. 19% of the population will die SMOKING, unwilling or unable to quit. Keeping the cigarette monopoly presuming scare tactics will promote cessation DOESN'T WORK. Dishonestly asserting risks about nicotine only serves to reinforcing SMOKING as an equal risk proposition. This dishonesty costs lives. Harm reduction saves lives.
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
Im perfectly happy having an honest discussion, just you assert "risks" with nicotine use, without being specific as to what they are.You're appealing to a hypothetical ideal that has been demonstrated as unobtainable. Driving cars is risky, but we don't ban cars, we use harm reduction devices like seat belts. Cigarette addiction exists in the here and now, and dishonestly promoting nicotine as having equal risks serves to reinforce cigarette use. Cigarettes more deadly period!
MattZuke5 2 weeks ago
@Primalxbeast
I can't say for sure that this is an agency fronting for an industry, but there's a pattern to their activities across the Internet. The "Board Members" cut and paste onto forums, and the same messages and language are consistently repeated.
The CASAA "News" section exclusively covers e-cigarettes and their actions to prevent regulation of any kind. Even if they aren't astroturf, their advocacy crosses a line into viral marketing.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
Another interesting example. They have an entire article on how nicotine is purely beneficial, with no adverse health effects. When I compare their facts with the National Heart and Lung Institute or American Cancer Institute, I find that one of the two sides is badly distorting the truth. It only takes a few moments in the literature to determine that it's CASAA.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance "It only takes a few moments in the literature to determine that it's CASAA." Your opinion is not enough to prove that someone is lying. You need facts and evidence. That is, if you want to be listened, at least by me, and it's a good habit to have. Cheers, good work otherwise.
valken666 2 weeks ago
@valken666
Here's CASAA's article: "Nicotine Effects:
"For one thing, nicotine does not cause intoxication. It does not impair judgement, motor skills, or the ability to get along with others. In fact, it improves these abilities."
"A wide variety of toxicants have been found to impair cognitive function... Others such as alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine are widely used drugs of abuse."
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1993 May-Jun;15(3):203-6.
Do they not understand what intoxication is?
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
"Addictive properties of smoking [via nicotine] are thought to have a pronounced effect at a young age, thereby increasing vulnerability to a life-long addiction and decreasing the likelihood of smoking cessation during adulthood."
Biochem Pharmacol. 2011 Oct 15;82(8):1008-14.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
"Effects of nicotine on critical components of reward pathways and circuits involved in learning, memory and mood are likely to contribute to increased addictive properties and long-term behavioral problems seen in adolescent smokers."
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002 May-Jun;24(3):369-84.
Nicotine and the adolescent brain: insights from an animal model.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
"Adolescent nicotine exposure thus elicits region- and gender-selective effects that differ substantially from those in adults, effects that may contribute to increased addictive properties and lasting deficits in behavioral performance."
Brain Res. 1999 Dec 18;851(1-2):9-19.
Adolescent nicotine exposure causes persistent upregulation of nicotinic cholinergic receptors in rat brain regions.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
"Drug-induced loss of inhibitory control may be critically involved both in the initial and later stages of addiction. Neuroadaptations occurring during chronic exposure to and/or withdrawal from nicotine render animals more sensitive to the disinhibitory effects of the drug. Longer-term changes in behaviour may play an important role in the increased susceptibility to relapse in those with a history of nicotine abuse."
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Jan;219(2):453-68.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago
"Present findings support the hypothesis that heightened impulsivity in smokers may in part be a consequence of the direct acute effects of nicotine. As such, drug-induced changes in impulsivity may play a critical role in the transition to and maintenance of nicotine dependence."
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Oct;217(4):455-73. Epub 2011 Apr 19.
Acute nicotine increases both impulsive choice and behavioural disinhibition in rats.
C0nc0rdance 2 weeks ago