Now I get that their hearts are in the right place, smoking is bad for you in so many ways. I smoked for thirty years and not one of the scare adverts or posters ever convinced me to give up. Call me weak willed or even stupid, but none of that ever made a dent. Helping people to wean themselves off cigarettes is the way. My brother managed to give up by using e-cigarettes and badgered me to try it. 3 months on I no longer smoke and through the whole process never felt the need for a cigarette.
If you’ve never smoked you won’t know how difficult it can be to kick the habit - and I have come to see it really is a habit. I realised this way back in 2000 when smoking was largely banned in Australia in public places. I could never be bothered to go outside to smoke and essentially never smoked until after work.
The use of e-cigarettes, which cannot be worse than sucking in smoke with all its toxins, has worked for me. But some are trying to ban this alternative for smokers, why?
My question is why spend endless amounts of money trying to scare people and prevent them having alternatives, why not channel that money into ways to assist people to stop smoking?
There are numerous smoking cessation programs, hotlines and support for smokers wanting to quit. They are offered by physicians, organizations like the American Lung Association and employers. Example.
Not all anti-smoking advertising is effective. But I don’t see how people can be informed about the myriad health hazards of smoking without offending some of them (particularly those in denial).
E-cigs are inevitably going to face some regulation because they are nicotine delivery systems that are being advertised as safe (and even sexy) though there are concerns about their byproducts and their role in encouraging continued nicotine addiction (nicotine is harmful in its own right). There are effective smoking withdrawal medications that don’t involve cigarette substitutes which contaminate the air that others breathe.
In my case, only those who insist in particularly aromatic bouqets for their e-cig fluid are directly annoying, especially one near me who assumes this technology means license to chain-vape.
In my experience, support programs by themselves don’t work. That’s just my experience, but I’ve known hundreds of smokers and quitters.
Everyone I know who has quit for any appreciable length of time has done it in one (or more) of three ways: Drugs (nicotine patches, Zyban, Chantix), hypnotism, and/or cold turkey (without structured support).
The support programs put money in the pockets of physicians and counselors that IMHO would be better spent helping smokers pay for something that might actually work.
I’d like to see a survey of quitters to see if my experience is accurate, or if it’s just my experience.
The plume they make is hard to differentiate from conventional smoke. When that plume emanates from the other end of a train car or bus, it’s disconcerting. When that plume starts to emit some air freshener scent that blankets the area, no one but the vaper thinks it’s awesome. Same as if someone got on public transit and started spritzing Glade all over.
Given that it’s an addictive drug, the first step in getting them to quit is giving them a strong enough motivation to fight the compulsion of the addiction. And fear is not only a good motivator, it’s fairly good at breaking through denial and in this case it has the added advantage of being true; smoking really is very bad for you. That makes it more effective in the long run than some argument that they will discover to be false or arguable either way once they look into it.
In other words, offering help is useless if they aren’t motivated to even try to quit in the first place.
What Drr Trihs said. Speaking only for myself, it took a health scare to make me finally quit, after decades of smoking. It turned out to be benign, but the memory of that initial reaction to the “it’s possible” diagnosis was enough to say to myself “quit playing around and just stop.”
I also used an e-cig for about a month and tapered off to the point where it didn’t matter any more.
It’s been 2 years now and I feel great. Sleep better, didn’t gain any weight and my stuff doesn’t stink any more!
In public health terms, increasing taxes on cigarettes is the absolute easiest, cheapest, most effective way to reduce mortality. That’s what really works.
I had no idea they were doing such a disgusting thing.
As a recovering smoker who still struggles against the addiction, I would rather be surrounded by tobacco cigarettes than nasty scent spewing alternatives.
This is much more complicated than most people realize but it really is mainly about the money. This website presents a pretty good basic understanding of what’s going on with ecigs.
Claims that e-cig regulation is being set up to protect the “smoking industry” would be a lot more believable if it wasn’t for the fact that tobacco companies are eagerly leaping into the e-cig market.
Any regulations/limitations on e-cig use will hurt the mainline tobacco firms like R.J. Reynolds and Altria.
Some of the reasons why people are trying to get e-cigs banned or restricted:
They are currently being aggressively marketed to non-smokers, including children.
They are being marketed as ‘healthy’ (as an absolute term) - they are, probably, less unhealthy than normal tobacco cigarettes, but they are not ‘healthy’.
They are, by and large, unregulated and untested - sure, breathing in a vapour of propylene glycol, glycerin, water and flavourings might be less bad for you than smoking, but for a significant portion of the market, there’s no way to be sure that’s what you’re getting - e-cig juice sold on market stalls, imported from God Knows Where, could contain anything. It only needs to be adulterated with something as seemingly innocuous as vegetable oil to be dangerous.
The cigarette companies are funding the groups who are lobbying for local “think of the children” regulations. The idea is to stop online and independent sales and to restrict ecig sales to venues that already sell cigarettes … where big tobacco already has infrastructure in place.
All the major tobacco companies already have ecig brands. They don’t want to ban them, they want to control them. They are all selling outdated, older models that don’t really work very well but are very cheap to produce.
The big pharma companies want an outright ban since ecigs compete directly with their nicotine replacement products. One of their tactics is spreading the “unknown foreign chemical concoction” scare, but since there is no USA producer of nicotine, they buy theirs from the same (mostly Chinese) makers as the ecig liquid sellers.
Show us a single ad aimed at children, please. Is fruit flavored vodka aimed at children?
The aim of ecigs is Harm Reduction. They are not claimed to be Healthy, just less dangerous than cigarettes.
But really, I’m talking about the places they are sold. Market traders have no qualms selling these devices directly to children. And reps at more professional-looking stalls in shopping centres in the UK are routinely flagging down passers-by (usually adults) to try to sell them e-cigarettes, without any connection to whether the people are smokers.
No, because the marketing of alcohol to children is already prohibited. Already regulated.
And more importantly, on the vast number of unregulated point-of-sale materials used by the people selling them - often hand-drawn (in the case of market traders) or locally-printed (in the case of brick and mortar e-cig shops)
