Policy on E-cigs

[JasonV1]

Just a matter of time until the ecigs are subject to heavy regulation, for reasons that include: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

 

The research showed (the tested) ecig vapors were potentially worse than regular cigarette use. Worth noting that he issue was with the higher voltage units, but just a reminder that lack of smoke doesn't necessarily mean healthier and further study is needed.

 

Maybe the blanket ban by Royal isn't as extreme as some may think, not that they are enforcing it anyway in my experience (for ecigs at least).

[MalervyC]

The ingredients in the 'juice' are: Vegetable oil base, water, flavoring (just like those used for sugar free foods), and nicotine. Aside from nicotine, the rest are common household items.

 

No way is the 'juice' more dangerous, especially if you make it yourself (like my husband does). Also, it doesn't contain NEARLY as many ingredients or chemicals as cigarettes do.

 

I understand people being anti anything that has to do with smoking/vaping but I am a believer that it's Better than cigarettes. My husband does not cough or get sick as often as he used to. By not smoking cigarettes, his blood pressure is better and his health has improved. I know this isn't because of vaping, but rather because he quit smoking cigarettes. The financial impact is tremendous as well - let me tell you!!

 

I don't expect everyone to support his vaping, but I do because I have seen first hand the quality of life that he has now. He's on the lowest level of nicotine and I hoping within the next few months he's off vaping completely.

 

Just one person's POV - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 😃

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[MalervyC]

And for the record, I agree that e-cigs should be banned from public places...but I also support the creation of a vape area so those that don't smoke aren't subjected to the thing they are trying to avoid.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Silverman]

Jason just so everyone knows. That article was proven false. Someone started passing around the information and then more Media jumped on the bandwagon without doing any research. Like usual the Media is trying to make something out of nothing. I wast going to say anything till I read that. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. People are always scared of stuff they know nothing about. This thread speaks volumes on that. Ill say it again. I could be standing next to you and hitting my e cig and you would never know. Unless you were in my business and trying to figure out what I was doing. We all know no one in these forums get in anyone's business right?

[maryjaden]

On a side note to the issue of reviving an old thread. There are new people that join cc and may find this information useful, interesting and entertaining. With that said.....I am going to put on my robe and slippers to go smoke my e-cig in the MDR on formal night with my screaming child.

[tserface]

On a side note to the issue of reviving an old thread. There are new people that join cc and may find this information useful, interesting and entertaining. With that said.....I am going to put on my robe and slippers to go smoke my e-cig in the MDR on formal night with my screaming child.

 

 

:D

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[jstraw20]

Just a matter of time until the ecigs are subject to heavy regulation, for reasons that include: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

 

Again with this "study"

 

All e cig users following this thread please respond if you vape at 5 volts or higher.

 

Cue the crickets.

 

 

 

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Forums mobile app

Edited January 25, 2015 by jstraw20

[LetsGetWet!]

You have every right to voice your opinion, of course, but I'm curious... why do you care if people continue to discuss this topic? I'm curious because it's likely my fault. I found what I thought was some new relevant information and rather than start a new thread I just posted to this one which kind of got it going again. My goal was to post information that might support the policy and it seemed, at least to me, like a reasonable place to post it.

 

Did I break some Cruise Critic rule? If I I humbly apologize and I'll start my own thread next time rather than use an existing one.

 

Tom

 

My response that you quoted was aimed primarily at those bringing in the extraneous stuff like e-cigarettes vs. laptops & cellphones as fire hazards.

 

I certainly don't claim to set Cruise Critic rules, and if you go back to when you revived the thread, I actually posted in support of you after someone else attacked you for reviving the thread.

 

Carry on! :)

[LetsGetWet!]

Just a matter of time until the ecigs are subject to heavy regulation, for reasons that include: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

Again with this "study"

 

All e cig users following this thread please respond if you vape at 5 volts or higher.

 

Cue the crickets.

Sure, go ahead and join the e-cig industry who's been working very hard to debunk this study since it is rather damaging. After all, it's just the New England Journal of Medicine, no credibility there right? :rolleyes:

 

The study points out that the e-cigarettes they used come with "variable voltage batteries" which are presumably provided to allow users to adjust the voltage as they desire. The study found almost no formaldehyde at the extreme low end of the voltage range and quite high levels of formaldehyde at the extreme high end of the voltage range. The industry's attempts to totally discredit the study - which you've been dutifully parroting for them - hinge on claims that very few will set the voltage at the extreme upper limit.

 

What they conveniently ignore is - does every user simply set the voltage at the extreme low end? That's just as unlikely as them all setting it at the extreme upper limit, because there's a reason the industry manufacturers them with "variable voltage batteries." The added circuitry definitely adds extra cost, so they wouldn't do it if no one wanted it or used it.

 

The formaldehyde levels will (obviously) vary from the very low levels to the very high levels they documented as the voltage levels are varied from the extreme lower limit to the extreme upper limit.

 

Any evidence that all the users set the voltage as low as it will possibly go and never use the adjustability that they paid extra for?

 

Cue the crickets... (But I'm sure the e-cig industry appreciates you continuing to parrot their attempts to completely discredit The New England Journal of Medicine.)

[MalervyC]

Who is using formaldehyde?!?!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[twindaddy]

As I said a few pages back, now we are going. Junk studies posted back and forth, we are in business now.

 

You could say this thread is finally...smokin'!

[wingatesl]

Sure, go ahead and join the e-cig industry who's been working very hard to debunk this study since it is rather damaging. After all, it's just the New England Journal of Medicine, no credibility there right? :rolleyes:

 

The study points out that the e-cigarettes they used come with "variable voltage batteries" which are presumably provided to allow users to adjust the voltage as they desire. The study found almost no formaldehyde at the extreme low end of the voltage range and quite high levels of formaldehyde at the extreme high end of the voltage range. The industry's attempts to totally discredit the study - which you've been dutifully parroting for them - hinge on claims that very few will set the voltage at the extreme upper limit.

 

What they conveniently ignore is - does every user simply set the voltage at the extreme low end? That's just as unlikely as them all setting it at the extreme upper limit, because there's a reason the industry manufacturers them with "variable voltage batteries." The added circuitry definitely adds extra cost, so they wouldn't do it if no one wanted it or used it.

 

The formaldehyde levels will (obviously) vary from the very low levels to the very high levels they documented as the voltage levels are varied from the extreme lower limit to the extreme upper limit.

 

Any evidence that all the users set the voltage as low as it will possibly go and never use the adjustability that they paid extra for?

 

Cue the crickets... (But I'm sure the e-cig industry appreciates you continuing to parrot their attempts to completely discredit The New England Journal of Medicine.)

 

 

Actually, the "extreme high limit" isn't even possible on most devices. Regardless of voltage, it comes down to the temperature at which the liquid is vaporized. It is just not possible to get their results in a device that is being used normally. If you are truly interested, please start here http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 and start working from there. I doubt you will though.

 

Also, the article we are talking about was a letter to the editor only and was based on a lot of assumptions. Many of them wrong.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LetsGetWet!]

As I said a few pages back, now we are going. Junk studies posted back and forth, we are in business now.

 

You could say this thread is finally...smokin'!

Well, if one labels the New England Journal of Medicine a source of "junk studies", then you're correct. I'd argue their credibility is pretty high, and long-established.

Actually, the "extreme high limit" isn't even possible on most devices. Regardless of voltage, it comes down to the temperature at which the liquid is vaporized. It is just not possible to get their results in a device that is being used normally. If you are truly interested, please start here http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 and start working from there. I doubt you will though.

 

Also, the article we are talking about was a letter to the editor only and was based on a lot of assumptions. Many of them wrong.

And in comparison to the New England Journal of Medicine, we have Clive Bates. Here's a little background I quickly found on Clive Bates:

 

"Clive Bates, a private consultant and well-established e-cigarette advocate, has organized a remarkable letter to WHO Director General on 26 May 2014 signed by 53 public health specialists criticising WHO for not enthusiastically embracing e-cigarettes as a harm reduction technique.[1]

 

The most notable thing about the letter, which contains several sweeping scientific statements, is that it does not contain a single reference to the scientific literature, particularly the substantial literature that does not support the political position the letter advocates."

 

The link (from the University of California, San Francisco: http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/some-comments-may-26-letter-public-health-specialists-who-director-general-margaret-chan

 

That 5 volt limit IS possible on (a lot of) devices. Again, its not free to add circuitry to allow variable voltage, it makes the product more expensive. If users don't use it and leave it on the lowest possible voltage for safety, care to explain why the manufacturers spend more putting the function in, and users pay more to purchase devices with the function??

[gerif]

Who is using formaldehyde?!?!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I actually read this study recently. The chemicals used in the ecigs formed formaldehyde at higher voltages. Scarey IMO. It will be years before we know the full impact.

[wingatesl]

Well, if one labels the New England Journal of Medicine a source of "junk studies", then you're correct. I'd argue their credibility is pretty high, and long-established.

 

And in comparison to the New England Journal of Medicine, we have Clive Bates. Here's a little background I quickly found on Clive Bates:

 

"Clive Bates, a private consultant and well-established e-cigarette advocate, has organized a remarkable letter to WHO Director General on 26 May 2014 signed by 53 public health specialists criticising WHO for not enthusiastically embracing e-cigarettes as a harm reduction technique.[1]

 

The most notable thing about the letter, which contains several sweeping scientific statements, is that it does not contain a single reference to the scientific literature, particularly the substantial literature that does not support the political position the letter advocates."

 

The link (from the University of California, San Francisco: http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/some-comments-may-26-letter-public-health-specialists-who-director-general-margaret-chan

 

That 5 volt limit IS possible on (a lot of) devices. Again, its not free to add circuitry to allow variable voltage, it makes the product more expensive. If users don't use it and leave it on the lowest possible voltage for safety, care to explain why the manufacturers spend more putting the function in, and users pay more to purchase devices with the function??

 

 

So what you are saying is that questions are not allowed. The article I linked was nothing more than questions posed about the study. That is why I suggested reading the content. You decided to attack the person asking the questions instead.

 

I also said that is not about voltage, it is about temperature and equipment design. As long as the device does not overheat the liquid there is not a measurable amount of formaldehyde produced. They state that in the letter as well. It is possible to create carcinogens by cooking food too much as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wingatesl]

I actually read this study recently. The chemicals used in the ecigs formed formaldehyde at higher voltages. Scarey IMO. It will be years before we know the full impact.

 

 

Your body naturally produces formaldehyde as well. Almost everything can form formaldehyde at high temps

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LMaxwell]

Bottomline. Ecigs are mostly unregulated. With that comes unknown risks. Royal has no reason to sacrifice guest comfort and safety on an unknown and unregulated product. Thus Ecigs are treated the same as cigarettes. It's takes a lot of mental gymnastics to convince oneself that an Ecig is totally harmless.

 

I do recognize that many people use ecig to wean off of tobacco cigarettes and feel a bit bad that those have to share the cigarette smoking areas but using an ecig is a choice just like smoking tobacco is a choice, just like smoking nothing at all is a choice.

[wingatesl]

Bottomline. Ecigs are mostly unregulated. With that comes unknown risks. Royal has no reason to sacrifice guest comfort and safety on an unknown and unregulated product. Thus Ecigs are treated the same as cigarettes. It's takes a lot of mental gymnastics to convince oneself that an Ecig is totally harmless.

 

I do recognize that many people use ecig to wean off of tobacco cigarettes and feel a bit bad that those have to share the cigarette smoking areas but using an ecig is a choice just like smoking tobacco is a choice, just like smoking nothing at all is a choice.

 

 

I don't know of anyone suggesting they are harmless. No amount of regulation will prove them to be harmful or otherwise. The only reason for regulation is to tax.

 

I believe it is important to discuss the topic in all areas where smoking is concerned. Hopefully people will begin to do their own research and not just blindly accept something they see on the news.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LetsGetWet!]

Bottomline. Ecigs are mostly unregulated. With that comes unknown risks. Royal has no reason to sacrifice guest comfort and safety on an unknown and unregulated product. Thus Ecigs are treated the same as cigarettes. It's takes a lot of mental gymnastics to convince oneself that an Ecig is totally harmless.

 

I do recognize that many people use ecig to wean off of tobacco cigarettes and feel a bit bad that those have to share the cigarette smoking areas but using an ecig is a choice just like smoking tobacco is a choice, just like smoking nothing at all is a choice.

Well stated bottom line, I agree completely.

I don't know of anyone suggesting they are harmless. No amount of regulation will prove them to be harmful or otherwise. The only reason for regulation is to tax.

False - regulation is often to promote public health & safety, whether you agree or disagree with the regulations. When municipalities prohibit smoking in workplaces or restaurants there is no tax being collected.

Hopefully people will begin to do their own research and not just blindly accept something they see on the news.

Since the average person can't perform their own studies, "our own research" is necessarily limited to seeing what studies have been performed, published & critiqued. Part of that intelligent research is also evaluating the credibility & objectivity of those putting out the information, since one can literally find anything on the internet to support any position one likes. As part of that research I'll stand by my position that I ascribe more credibility to The New England Journal of Medicine than I do to Clive Bates.

[wingatesl]

Well stated bottom line, I agree completely.

 

False - regulation is often to promote public health & safety, whether you agree or disagree with the regulations. When municipalities prohibit smoking in workplaces or restaurants there is no tax being collected.

 

Since the average person can't perform their own studies, "our own research" is necessarily limited to seeing what studies have been performed, published & critiqued. Part of that intelligent research is also evaluating the credibility & objectivity of those putting out the information, since one can literally find anything on the internet to support any position one likes. As part of that research I'll stand by my position that I ascribe more credibility to The New England Journal of Medicine than I do to Clive Bates.

 

 

Right, but you try to discredit bates and ignore the questions that he posed. That is not intelligent research.

As for the NEJM, this will not be the first time they have published information that benefits a pharmaceutical company and ignored relevant information. Where is that Bates BS radar on them?

 

In this case, the writer intentionally mis-used a device to get a result that was noteworthy.

 

In your smoking in the workplace example there are no taxes collected and I am sure we can all come up with more. I am sure we all can come up with many that go the other way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awhcruiser]

Why was this two month old thread dug up?

[wingatesl]

Why was this two month old thread dug up?

 

 

It is still relevant.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jstraw20]

The study correctly pointed out that vaping at high temperatures (typically requiring voltages high than 5 volts) can create formaldehyde. The followup articles engaged in sensationalist rhetoric. It would be the same as stating that all cars are deadly because if you floor the accelerator with your eyes closed you'll crash into something.

 

At no point did I mention any third person articles, I sought a link back to the source study itself and another poster kindly provided one.

 

The only link I posted was to a recent study done by the AHA. I guess they are now considered mouth pieces for the e-cig industry:rolleyes:

 

Any other points made by me are my own own, based on my personal experience and those of other users of e-cigs that I know. I don't "parrot" for any industry and I find that accusation to be completely baseless and insulting.

 

 

 

You can continue to attempt to vilify me until the thread gets locked but I'm not the one engaging in sensationalism here.

[wingatesl]

The study correctly pointed out that vaping at high temperatures (typically requiring voltages high than 5 volts) can create formaldehyde. The followup articles engaged in sensationalist rhetoric. It would be the same as stating that all cars are deadly because if you floor the accelerator with your eyes closed you'll crash into something.

 

At no point did I mention any third person articles, I sought a link back to the source study itself and another poster kindly provided one.

 

The only link I posted was to a recent study done by the AHA. I guess they are now considered mouth pieces for the e-cig industry:rolleyes:

 

Any other points made by me are my own own, based on my personal experience and those of other users of e-cigs that I know. I don't "parrot" for any industry and I find that accusation to be completely baseless and insulting.

 

 

 

You can continue to attempt to vilify me until the thread gets locked but I'm not the one engaging in sensationalism here.

 

 

Well said!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LetsGetWet!]

Right, but you try to discredit bates and ignore the questions that he posed. That is not intelligent research.

As for the NEJM, this will not be the first time they have published information that benefits a pharmaceutical company and ignored relevant information.

Which pharmaceutical company was benefiting from this study?

In your smoking in the workplace example there are no taxes collected and I am sure we can all come up with more. I am sure we all can come up with many that go the other way.

Sure we can, but I believe it was you who previously claimed that the ONLY reason for regulation was to collect taxes?

In this case, the writer intentionally mis-used a device to get a result that was noteworthy.

The study correctly pointed out that vaping at high temperatures (typically requiring voltages high than 5 volts) can create formaldehyde.

You both keep either ignoring the fact that many of these e-cigarettes are made, at additional cost, to be able to crank up the voltage to 5 volts - or even try to claim that the study "intentionally misused" the device, which doesn't appear to be true.

 

I've asked more than once, but you continue to ignore the question. If no one cranks the voltage up, then why do manufacturers spend more money making - and users spend more money buying - variable voltage devices which are designed to be able to crank up the voltage to those levels? I'm still waiting to hear the reasoning behind that.