Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How to Generate Bogus Conclusions (E-Cig Study Edition) [View all]NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)115. Silly is an understatement
It doesn't matter if you actually light something on fire. The entire reason you do so is to inhale nicotine.
Yes, there is no such thing as harm reduction. This has never been an argument for e-cigarette usage at all.
Tar and other chemicals come along with the tobacco and the smoke. But the point of smoking is to inhale nicotine.
Look, if you can't admit that there is a significant difference in the administration of nicotine via vapor and cigarettes, in terms of public health, then any conversation with you is a no-go. I think you are being purposely obtuse.
And if you want to study e-cigs, you have to include users of e-cigs.
They aren't studying "e-cigs". They are studying SMOKERS of cigarettes, and how e-cigarettes usage among smokers is predictive. You CANNOT include just e-cigarette users because they aren't SMOKERS of cigarettes. It would be stupid to. It would be pointless to. I'm not even sure what the hell you would be studying (if people who quit will quit what they already quit?)
Their "quit rate" was lower for the dual-users than the traditional cigarette users.
Yes, a "reduction in cessation", as I stated.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
151 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I am looking to quit, but will settle for now for reducing cigarette consumption. That's a win.
Comrade Grumpy
Mar 2014
#3
It is? The poster below you disagrees, and so does everyone I know who vapes.
DisgustipatedinCA
Mar 2014
#4
Why do these people need to use them where cigs are not allowed? No need to change that part!! nt
Logical
Mar 2014
#133
It's kind of like Republicans wanting to make those on welfare suffer more, there's
TransitJohn
Mar 2014
#137
"to determine whether e-cigarette use predicted successful quitting or reduced cigarette consumption
NoOneMan
Mar 2014
#60
Look at the study. 1-Year Success rate is 13.8 (non-users) vs 10.2 (e-cig users)
NoOneMan
Mar 2014
#52
No. Vaping is not smoking. Gum is not smoking. Patches is not smoking. Smoking cigarettes is smoking
NoOneMan
Mar 2014
#109
It can be. I know many people who taper down the strength until they are using no nicotine. -nt
Liberal Veteran
Mar 2014
#12
You reduced the use of e-cigs as solely a means of substituting nicotine delivery.
KittyWampus
Mar 2014
#124
Neither are demonstrated to be effective in increasing long term cessation of smoking
NoOneMan
Mar 2014
#24
Who says tobacco smokers want to stop using nicotine entirely? That is your straw man.
KittyWampus
Mar 2014
#123
I wish the people who are against e-cigs would just be clear in their demands.
Liberal Veteran
Mar 2014
#8
"Common sense dictates that they should work at least as well as patches or gum"
NoOneMan
Mar 2014
#127
The researchers at UCSF who study tobacco know a boatload about biostatistics
ProfessorPlum
Mar 2014
#95
I am fine with them if they don't use them where real cigs are not allowed. nt
Logical
Mar 2014
#134
why do smokers need to use them other places? They satisfied their cravings fine before. n-t
Logical
Mar 2014
#136
I don't want to be around it. Don't like it. Good enough reason? Like I said.....
Logical
Mar 2014
#139
Yes it is good enough. And cities and companies are agreeing. I love your whining....
Logical
Mar 2014
#141
No, it's really not good enough. And I love your illogical pseudo logic
SirRevolutionary
Mar 2014
#143
Oddly enough, your whims are not the sole consideration in all human affairs
cthulu2016
Mar 2014
#147