E Cigarettes are safer than 'real' cigarettes .... (apparently) ...

E Cigarettes are safer than 'real' cigarettes .... (apparently) ...

13 posts
19 Aug 2015
SandyCamel
Photographer
SandyCamel
So, 'Public Health England' say they have the eveidence - E Cigarettes are 95 % safer than real cigarettes.

Since Disque Bleu were no longer made and Gitanes withdrawn from the Uk I now smoke them.

Do you agree with PHE ?

Do you care ?


Posted 19 Aug 2015
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
I don't really understand what 95% safer means? Surely, they are either safe or not safe. If not safe, what's the identified risk? How long did these tests last, its certainly not years and years is it. Who funded the tests, who standardised and monitors the e cig contents?

Sounds irrelevant really, but everyone's going to miss the revenue from fags if they stop selling them. With a chancellor who's off his tits on coke allowing big business and his mates to avoid tax, we'll need some income.

Posted 19 Aug 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
The bit that disgusts me is that they're calling for E-cigs to be on prescription, so basically the tax payer will be funding drug addiction. A bit sickening really, especially as they're meant to be cheaper and people could bloody well pay for them themselves. In a perfect world I'd like the prescription ones to be loaded with trace elements of arsenic to accelerate their demise by a few years. Smokers are so stupid they'd still take them, and at the same time kill themselves off quicker and save the tax payer a few bob
Posted 20 Aug 2015
RupertRudd
Photographer
RupertRudd
If ecigs get on prescription I want my claret and single malt whisky on similar terms. As a treatment for my addiction.

Posted 20 Aug 2015
photogenia
Photographer
photogenia
This is one of the best references to this news:
http://ukvapers.org/Thread-Government-officials-urge-GPs-to-Prescribe-ecigs-on-the-NHS

As for 95% safer, that's a conservative estimate. The PHE report was based on a variety of evidence based, peer reviewed reports and is effectively a summary of the current state of (lots of) research and the market. The ingredients of so called 'eLiquid' are all pretty innocuous (vegetable glycerine, propylene glycol, nicotine base and flavouring) and any 'nasties' are at a substantially lower level than conventional cigarettes - so while vaping may not be completely harmless it is more about substantial harm reduction by comparison to cigarettes.

There is no 'second hand vape' to be concerned about. Nicotine per se is not considered to be any more harmful than caffeine. Most if not all negative propaganda can be traced back to Big Pharma and Big Tobacco who see their revenues declining as smokers switch to vaping (currently 2.6M in the UK). Roughly speaking, tobacco tax generates £12bn against the cost of treating smoking related ailments of about £3bn.

It is generally felt that emissions from vehicles represent a higher risk to human health than vapour from these devices. For a start, there are no particulates, unlike exhaust emissions or of course cigarettes.

Many 'vapers' also disagree with prescriptions funded by the NHS, since PVs (personal vapourisers) and eliquid are much cheaper than actual cigarettes. However, there may be a justification for help in low income households where 'tobacco money' is always found (smoking prevalence is also much higher in deprived areas), but precious little else and such a committed smoker with limited funds might have trouble making the switch to vaping Vs the 'safe' route of purchasing tobacco.

Whilst one or two of you may hate smoking and smokers, your arguments might be considered weaker if you are overweight, drink too much, or drive almost any sort of vehicle.

I imagine there will be one or two replies to this...

Posted 21 Aug 2015
mph
Photographer
mph
profilepictures

I don't really understand what 95% safer means? Surely, they are either safe or not safe.


For every 100 smokers real ciggies kill - they only kill 5?

Posted 22 Aug 2015
paulford
Photographer
paulford
RupertRudd
If ecigs get on prescription I want my claret and single malt whisky on similar terms. As a treatment for my addiction.
Sounds like a good idea.
Posted 22 Aug 2015
pmeu
Photographer
pmeu
photogenia
I imagine there will be one or two replies to this...
Plus the money not spent on treating smoking related diseases may now be free up to be spent other demands in the system. Seems like a good decision to me.
Posted 24 Aug 2015
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
Other than that smokers produce between 7&9billion in taxation beyond their related health costs. I still think its odd how persecuted smokers are, whilst the drinkers cause bloody mayhem. Nobody ever had one too many B&H and started a fight.

Posted 24 Aug 2015
pmeu
Photographer
pmeu
profilepictures
Other than that smokers produce between 7&9billion in taxation beyond their related health costs. I still think its odd how persecuted smokers are, whilst the drinkers cause bloody mayhem. Nobody ever had one too many B&H and started a fight.
Taking into account a wider perspective of costs the cost of smoking is still thought to exceed the tax revenues. Its not really possible to know how much of the 12 billion tax revenue goes towards the NHS as its all fungible.
Posted 24 Aug 2015
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
Three quick Google results suggested the income exceeds the cost. Hence my point.

Posted 24 Aug 2015
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
I have a feeling this is the big tobacco companies realising their income is on the cusp of disappearing so they are now pouring all that formidable lobbying and advertising power into pushing E-cigarettes instead.

I have no great problem with how others enjoy their lives as long as they dont expect me to pay for it or suffer as a consequence. If people can afford the cost of a packet of fags then as far as I am concerned they can afford to fund these glorified bubba bubba pipes. Please don't expect me to fall for all the tosh about using them to give up smoking though. It is quite apparent from the way they are used and advertised that they are simply intended as a new cool replacement not a cure.

That may not be an entirely bad thing of course. I watched a person die from lung cancer. Ironically after finally giving up smoking. Try to imagine being waterboarded for the last week or so of your life, that about describes what the end is like. If they save a few people from that it is some form of progress I guess.
Posted 24 Aug 2015
photogenia
Photographer
photogenia
Big Tobacco was very late to the party, and the vast majority of suppliers are completely independent of BT and BP (big Pharma). BT has been buying up small 'cigalike' companies in an effort to jump on the bandwagon. However, none of the 2nd and 3rd generation devices are produced by BT or BP - and those are by far the most effective in keeping smokers off cigarettes. These are the ones that look nothing like a cigarette and more like a sonic screwdriver. The power can be varied and the amount of nicotine in the liquid is also completely variable, from zero to a typical maximum of 36mg/ml.

The so called 'cigalikes' produced by BT or companies such as eLite are not very good and turn out to be nearly as expensive as smoking. Since nicotine when separated from a cigarette has few contra indications, there seems to be no good (or proven) reason why PVs (personal vapourisers) should not be used long term and many vapers do not feel that there is any need for a 'cure'. However, it is true that some of the advertising is wrongly targeted - bear in mind though that by law PVs are not allowed to make any claims about being a quit aid.

It certainly isn't 'tosh' about using them to give up smoking - for many committed smokers (now ex smokers) they are by far the most effective way of doing so on a long term basis. At my local the other night there was a 50:50 split between smokers and vapers and there's an estimated 2.6M vapers now; that's risen from 2.1M in the last year.

You're quite right about BT and BP having formidable lobbying and advertising power and of course governments are losing a lot of tax revenue too. A further significant factor is the EU's TPD Article 20 (Tobacco Products Directive), due to become law next May. This will ban all current 2nd and 3rd generation devices leaving the market open for BT and their ineffective cigalikes. The TPD is clearly the result of a corrupted, unelected few, with decisions made behind closed doors and funded by tobacco and pharma. It's a big and complex subject and the big money has effectively finished vaping in Spain before it really started; California too has some ludicrous and completely unfounded propaganda - they've spent their money from the 'Master Tobacco Settlement' already and are now in a real hole as tobacco revenues drop. Their answer, at the expense of public health, is to try and maintain smoking tax revenues.
Posted 25 Aug 2015
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join