Misleading pro-vaping arguments vapers should stop using.

[Gonloopy]

Thought provoking article this one, there are 1 or 2 in there that I know Ive used...

http://ecigarettereviewed.com/6-misleading-pro-vaping-arguments

 

[used_gear]

I learned what not to say.

 

[mannikon]

I think the article is naive and in some places totally inaccurate, I have read on the FDA site a mandatory reporting regime for levels of diacetyl which has led to the food and flavours industry turning to alternatives and then when those alternatives are found to be suspect turning to yet another alternative which has also raised concern!
The comments (so far) on this article (hardly an article it's very broad brush) are more informative than the original. PFE. Read it. In full. Understand it. Make your choice.
Diketones? Again, make a considered choice.
The ideal for vapers is very often (and will probably increase) to go zero nicotine and then gradually reduce vaping levels to zero also.
Vaping is fun and enjoyable but is not without risks. Like many pastimes. We don't NEED to dine out on Chinese style cuisine packed with MSG but we enjoy it.
Choices should be sacrosanct unless they can be shown to have an impact on others (second hand vapour has not been shown to affect bystanders in the way that secondhand smoke does) or on our precious healthcare resources and I don't think anyone has reported that as yet (ignore the battery explosions, that's battery and idiot related! and equally applies to so-called hoverboards, high power torches, smartphones, laptops etc).
I think a lot of exaggerated pro-vaping "propaganda" is probably necessary to counteract the hysterical media stories that abound.
So should we all remain silent about perceived benefits of vaping? I think not. What's the equivalent to smelling like an ashtray, smelling of vanilla, sweet fruits etc. I know which one most sane people would prefer.

 

[Gonloopy]

I take your point , but for me we should base our arguments on sound science. If we dont then we are likely to fall foul of it later on

Strong, solid evidence based science is what we should be all about, --there are so many positives about vaping we dont need to use bullshit, thats all the article is saying, promote vaping but use accurate information.
To say the ANTZ are spreading crap so we need to counteract it with yet more crap is not the right way forward IMHO...

 

[mannikon]

Nice sentiment but a little utopian. Sound evidence based research? that is not influenced in any way whatsoever by commercial interests or politics? I doubt such a thing exists. Not meaning to be cynical, just realistic. The best we ever get is consensus. If we're lucky. Lots of research is carried out but conclusions are drawn by others usually. When one digs down into say a media article or a parliamentary committee report, one finds sets of conclusions (opinions) drawn subjectively (we are not machines) by reviewers who often rely solely on reports made by other than the original researchers. The answer is always "it depends". So we have to wait for many opinions to be digested before leaning towards the consensus. So the two answers in fact are "it depends" and "too early to tell". So what we are left with at this very early stage of investigation of a lifestyle pursuit is very little apart from the subjective. Back to choices. Freedom of choice as long as it does not have an impact on the freedom of others. At this stage, vaping being in its infancy, all we can expect are opinions and camps. Does vaping threaten non-vapers? Not really. Does it threaten politicians, tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry? definitely. So I think we should focus on what we can agree on. Vaping is an effective way to get smokers off the dreaded coffin nails. Second hand vapour poses little or no threat to bystanders. Vaping does not involve combustion of tobacco. Vapour contains no NOX. Vapers smell nice. I'm sure we can all come up with more to add to that list!

 

[Gonloopy]

I think my point of view is summed up rather well in the last paragraph. I'll just leave it here...


.....if we make flawed, misleading arguments to support vaping, anybody sufficiently knowledgeable will be able to pick them apart and make us look like we’re either being purposefully deceptive or dumb. The only way to make sure your position is strong – and more importantly, accurate – is to subject it to just as much scrutiny as you would arguments from those who disagree with you.

 

[junglist]

Totally agree with the article. There are counts out there of the truth being stretched in favour of vaping. The "number of deaths from ecigs" is the one that has always slightly annoyed me. Like the author said, if smoking had only come about 10 years ago then the number of deaths would be a lot lower. We should not take for granted what the long term effects of vaping might be. We know that from a scientific point of view, the lack of tar and CO, the vastly reduced number and volume of carcinogens in vapour over tobacco smoke is very much likely to make it as less risky nic delivery system but without long-term data we can't be absolutely sure exactly what the risks are.

To me, the role of vaping has to be two-fold. Initially harm reduction - a way of giving up smoking that is highly effective and very much likely to be less damaging. And secondly as a route to stopping completely. The ability to control nic intake, reduce over a period of time and hopefully give up completely. I do want to pack the lot in at some point but am yet to test the thought that reducing nic will lead to being able to pack it in completely. I do know one thing though, there is no way that I could go back to smoking cigarettes, not while vaping is viable.

So yeah, we do have to be careful about the arguments we use and the statements we make to promote vaping.

 

[kris73]

I have NO intention of quitting nicotine.

I love the stuff.

 

[ned]

Totally agree with the article. There are counts out there of the truth being stretched in favour of vaping. The "number of deaths from ecigs" is the one that has always slightly annoyed me. Like the author said, if smoking had only come about 10 years ago then the number of deaths would be a lot lower. We should not take for granted what the long term effects of vaping might be. We know that from a scientific point of view, the lack of tar and CO, the vastly reduced number and volume of carcinogens in vapour over tobacco smoke is very much likely to make it as less risky nic delivery system but without long-term data we can't be absolutely sure exactly what the risks are.

To me, the role of vaping has to be two-fold. Initially harm reduction - a way of giving up smoking that is highly effective and very much likely to be less damaging. And secondly as a route to stopping completely. The ability to control nic intake, reduce over a period of time and hopefully give up completely. I do want to pack the lot in at some point but am yet to test the thought that reducing nic will lead to being able to pack it in completely. I do know one thing though, there is no way that I could go back to smoking cigarettes, not while vaping is viable.

So yeah, we do have to be careful about the arguments we use and the statements we make to promote vaping.

Awesome post IMHO.