What's new

E-cigarettes become the most popular UK 'quitting aid' with 1.3 million users

K

KulrMeStoopid

Guest
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/...popular-uk-quitting-aid-with-13-million-users

By: Information Daily Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 12:56 GMTJump to Comments

[h=2]Despite electronic cigarettes still being in their international infancy, they are now thought to be the UK's most popular smoking cessation aid with 1.3 million users.[/h]
According to the latest available figures, over 25 per cent of attempts to stop smoking in the UK are now supported by e-cigarettes, overtaking longstanding cessation aids such as throat sprays, patches and nicotine gum.
The popularity of e-cigarettes, aside from their visual and ritualistic similarity to traditional cigarettes, can be attributed to some glowing recommendations from medical organisations. Independent research, such as that undertaken by Senior University Lecturer Dr. Lynne Dawkins, has found that since July 2009 the number of people using e-cigarettes in order to quit smoking has now risen to a record level. The trend is doubling year on year.
E-cigarettes are a form of 'Personal Vapouriser' (PV), which deliver nicotine via the inhalation of an atomised vapour drawn from the e-cigarette cartridge or reservoir. This process is without the toxins attributed to the combustion of tobacco, and is therefore a healthier method of nicotine intake.
A representative from e-cigarette brand Nicolites commented on the figures: “As electronic cigarettes contain a measured dose of nicotine, an individual looking to stop smoking can still satisfy their cravings for nicotine but help reduce the amount of exposure to the harmful chemicals and toxins that are found in traditional cigarettes.
"Because electric cigarettes are available in a range of nicotine strengths, not only can you control your nicotine intake, but e-cigarettes can be used as a method of helping to stop smoking."
Despite this, E-cigarette manufacturers in the UK do not make any claims that they aid the quitting process. This would be a medicinal claim and would mean that their products would require medical licensing.
[h=2]As consumer products that seek to compete with other recreational nicotine sources, the obvious opponent is tobacco cigarettes. The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, known as ECITA, says that forcing e-cigarettes to compete only in the medicinal category would limit their appeal to a tiny fragment of the nicotine cessation market, whereas allowing them to compete with cigarettes is "quite literally game-changing".[/h]
Peter Beckett, Spokesman for ECITA said: "Electronic cigarettes are designed to help those who cannot or will not quit using nicotine altogether. They compete with cigarettes, providing an experience that smokers recognise without the toxins and carcinogens that result from burning tobacco.
"Wells Fargo predict that their use could overtake conventional cigarettes within a decade, a public-health success story in the making at no cost to the taxpayer.
"Making them medicines, as the MHRA and EU propose, would render e-cigarettes less attractive and available than tobacco, protecting the cigarette market and leading to smoking related deaths that could easily have been avoided if smokers could choose a viable alternative."
 
I found the 'Fatal Shooting In Salem' to be more interesting to be honest.

Yes, there just might be dark overtones in the article and yes without doubt the research should continue but I wish this type of infancy article wasn't made public until something absolute was determined. I won't rest easy until the whole UK 'thing' has been put to bed and the MHRA and both parliaments are made to see the error of their ways. I see revelation of anything of this nature as a possible barrier this happening.
 
The paper is here - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0067252#abstract0

From my reading of this it seems that the dosage level of nicotine used was the LD50 dose which is way higher (several orders of magnitude higher) than it would ever reach for any eCig or even cigarette.

I could be wrong about this - I'm very out of practice at reading scientific papers, but if we have any biologists here they might like to take a closer look at the paper.
 
The paper is here - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0067252#abstract0

From my reading of this it seems that the dosage level of nicotine used was the LD50 dose which is way higher (several orders of magnitude higher) than it would ever reach for any eCig or even cigarette.

I could be wrong about this - I'm very out of practice at reading scientific papers, but if we have any biologists here they might like to take a closer look at the paper.

It would appear that study was funded by the institute in the following link : http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/01/013113-vbi-garner.html

Not exactly morally upright at first glance. If they've been cooking the books to get extra cash, who's to say they wouldn't happily take a backhander from a vested interest?
 
The paper is here - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0067252#abstract0

From my reading of this it seems that the dosage level of nicotine used was the LD50 dose

I'm not a biologist but I read this the same way. They tok some cells, exposed those cells to the LD50 dose of nicotine and observed some potentially cancer causing results.

however for those that don't know what an LD50 dose is - it's the dose at which 50% of the people taking the dose died

If you're exposing yourself to an LD50 dose of anything you have a lot more immediate problems than maybe developing cancer in the future.


The commenter who's going on about nicotine being as dangerous as tar is a) clueless and b) flogging some psychobabble book about weight loss in their comment.

The study they link, to my reading, and again I'm not a qualified scientist, says that nicotine might have something to do with cancer, maybe, and that more research at lower dose levels is needed. As all their study really says is "poison consumed at lethal dose can kill" - O RLY?
 
I'm not a biologist but I read this the same way. They tok some cells, exposed those cells to the LD50 dose of nicotine and observed some potentially cancer causing results.

however for those that don't know what an LD50 dose is - it's the dose at which 50% of the people taking the dose died

If you're exposing yourself to an LD50 dose of anything you have a lot more immediate problems than maybe developing cancer in the future.


The commenter who's going on about nicotine being as dangerous as tar is a) clueless and b) flogging some psychobabble book about weight loss in their comment.

The study they link, to my reading, and again I'm not a qualified scientist, says that nicotine might have something to do with cancer, maybe, and that more research at lower dose levels is needed. As all their study really says is "poison consumed at lethal dose can kill" - O RLY?
Well said. An accurate observation put across in laymans terms. The whole issue is flawed with anomalies and bias, even to the extent of conflicting rules and regulations with regard to duty payable to HM Customs and Excise. I refer to an article in last weekends papers where it was revealed than a large number of individuals have taken to growing their own tobacco rather than pay the exorbitant price now charged in the shops, the bulk of the price being duty. HM Customs and Excise had responded to this by stating that the individuals concerned would be prosecuted if they did not pay the appropriate duty that is applied to tobacco production. Now an obvious anomaly here is to draw a comparison with home brewing where alcohol is produced. Alcohol is subject to duty, yet HM Customs and Excise seem not to be interested in persecuting home brewers (phew!) in the same way they wish to persecute smokers and keep them beholding to both themselves and the tobacco industry. Anything that breaks that hold is seen as a very serious threat and one to be wiped out!
 
Back
Top Bottom