I going to try giving up smoking...Again

Apologies understood I was under the impression that anything published for or by the Royal College would be censored/proofed before hand.

I do agree with some points but my standpoint is from June 2013 (can be found on the ASH website) several, infact many companies have tried to register the e-cig as a medical device. 3 years on and the regulatory body still hasn't even approved one. Why? Law suits? Why? It has risks? Sometimes you have to put a body to the sword to figure out the exact truth. That requires millions if not billions of pounds, or public image/liability. Till the MHRA put their neck on the line why should you? Anyhow that's my opinion.

Under government legislation the e-cig isn't supported as an 'effective form of support' as it is not offered by your local NRT personnel. That has had a period of 5 years to come to fruition. Bit like someone telling you it won't work for you because they said so, but in retrospect isn't that the ultimatum from Pro e-cigs users, in that it causes little to no harm because they say so?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-tobacco-control-plan-for-england


(first link does not open)
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I can only speak from my point of view I'm 43 and smoked since I was 15. I have been vaping for 5 years and over the past 4 years my wife, son, daughter, daughter-in-law, sister and brother-in-law have all given up smoking with the use of vaping. 100% safe you'd be a fool to think that but 95% better than smoking is a lot better than still smoking which we all would be. The word "safe" is used too much in life nothing is "safe" not even a fart on a Sunday morning!
 
Count of Undolpho said:
I couldn't find any spelling mistakes so I assume it was proofed before release. I've tested both links via Chrome and IE and they work for me. are you getting an error?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily spelling but semantics. Very unusual to have a solid no qualms answer from a physician let alone a group of physicians, especially with a device that hasn't been quantifiably proven or regulated. Unless palms were greased, which we wouldn't know about.

Ah yes the link you posted just now is working. Thank you.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Looking at the last link, I went for my usual source (I find more entrusting) WHO. Page 174, they state and I quote:
'likely to be less toxic for adult established smokers.....might have a role to play in support for those who has failed other treatment.....recommend parties to regulate e-cigs'

This says it all for me. Reads like a cover our ass article.

Less toxic for established adult smokers- no mention of youngsters using it as an introduction to smoking or the harm on a new smoker.

Role to play after failed treatment- last chance saloon usually the hard hitting stuff appears here, the likes of Champix etc.

Then the age old needs to be regulated statement. So which brands are regulated? Well none, not one has been registered as a medical device to my knowledge. So vaping five years on is an unregulated system.

The link regarding stats from 11 year old and up I wouldn't IMO consider to be 'proof' I know how I would have answered at 11, ten minutes before lunch.

I used to be a Pharmacist and have had many questions come in about several pills/remedies/lotions. My question was forgetting Dr. Google's first response, what relevant sources support your comment and are they credible. In this case the comment that vaping is 5% harmful compared to a cig I cannot substantiate, as they would be regulated.
Given, I have not read every source or the whole article. But my premise is that if regulated the device may be appropriate. My guess is that anything containing benzene ring based formaldehydes, for the purpose of ingestion, will never be regulated.

Everyone to their own!
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Some feedback from my part.

As far as I'm concerned, vapping has been really efficient for me. I don't know whether I've quit definitely or not, but I've stopped vaping for 6 months now, and each time I try to vape (I give a try once a month), it results in me "spitting my lungs" (French idiomatic expression rather close to reality...) after 3 or 4 "puffs" (not sure if it's the right word).

However, I quit smoking in August 2015 when I received my mod and e-liquid, vaped until January 2016 (just a Polish Marlboro generously offered by a Polish lady from my class at Xmas), then lots of coughing, tonsillitis, etc, and since then no vaping at all. My lungs just can't take it anymore.

I don't feel the urge to light a cigarette either. The taste of food has been quite odd for a few months, but it seems to be fine now.
 
Cristobal said:
Some feedback from my part.

As far as I'm concerned, vapping has been really efficient for me. I don't know whether I've quit definitely or not, but I've stopped vaping for 6 months now, and each time I try to vape (I give a try once a month), it results in me "spitting my lungs" (French idiomatic expression rather close to reality...) after 3 or 4 "puffs" (not sure if it's the right word).

However, I quit smoking in August 2015 when I received my mod and e-liquid, vaped until January 2016 (just a Polish Marlboro generously offered by a Polish lady from my class at Xmas), then lots of coughing, tonsillitis, etc, and since then no vaping at all. My lungs just can't take it anymore.

I don't feel the urge to light a cigarette either. The taste of food has been quite odd for a few months, but it seems to be fine now.
Click to expand...
Cristobal, have you since been tested on a peak flow meter or something of that nature to measure your lung capacity/tidal volume since quitting?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Greetings

Speaking as an ex smoker I find the whole Vape and Smoke, harm less harm, safe unsafe debate hugely simple to comprehend.

It's as simple as somebody saying to me would you like a punch in the mouth or a whack on the head with a hammer, my answer would be neither thanks but if I've got to choose I'll just have the punch in the mouth!

Regards
Dick.
 
@Nishy Whilst we stand on different sides of the fence - regarding NHS prescriptions - I suspect you'll join me in being saddened to learn that the first licencing by the MHRA occurred back in January, awarding British American Tobacco's e-Voke (see why I called article 20 a compensation for disruptive tech hitting tobacco and NRT sales). Expect more tobacco and pharmaceutical companies coming on board with ecig ENDS and I suspect NHS prescriptions will follow on fairly soon.

Note that, with the exception of the horrendous Champix, vaping is the most successful product based long term solution to smoking - far better than the ~12% six month clean you find with the prescription novel nicotine delivery systems.

Personally speaking folks, it's worked for me... I've dramatically reduced the amount of tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldyhde, arsenic, cyanide, cadmium, benzenes... that I either absorb or that impregnate my lungs and soft tissues. I know that I've not removed the nicotine habit (although I've reduced absorption over time) and I've merely replaced some of the psycho-motor aspects of the addiction. This, for me, is sufficient and I appreciate the improvement in my peak flow scores and using the patient reported COPD scores, I'm now "low").
Whether it's 99%, 95%, 90% or whatever safer (not sure how "safer" would be defined to achieve those percentages), I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I've reduced self-harm. I believe this is the stance taken by the majority of regional Stop Smoking Service organisations in the UK.

At risk of fanning a brewing argument (please please let there not be conflict), I think Dick's analogy is incorrect. Better would be to choose between an Czernobog's hammer and the risk of a shaving nick by using a DE after a couple of glasses of wine. Both have a chance of causing harm yet...
 
I'm quite happy with my subjective results. Equally I find nothing suspicious or ill judged in the RCP report. Less harm is ok by me, more research needed is a given, though most of the substances in juice from reputable companies has been researched for other applications it's about health so it should be exhaustive. All the reputable research so far agrees with their harm reduction points.

Nishy's point about regulation is good and is what the TPD stuff is about, though I'm with the RCP on not wanting it to be too restrictive. Reducing harm is good, no harm is better - prohibition rarely supplies either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom