E-cigarettes could be prescribed by the NHS to help smokers quit

Tefal said:
But this isn't a cure or a treatment or a quitting aid it's just a different format of nicotine that's available in the shops for much less than cigerrets . It's like saying "we should prescribe low tar ciggeretes as they're better than cigarettes"
Click to expand...

So is Champix and Zyban (as well as other formats of NRT) but we still prescribe those on the NHS.

I think Champix costs the NHS something like £200 for a 12 week course of tablets and they have some pretty undesirable side effects such as sinusitis, common cold, dizzyness, insomnia, nausia, skin rashes, back pain and abnormal liver function. According to the manufacturers fact sheet, the above conditions range from very common to common (1/10 -1/100 respectively).

Now, the broader question must surely be is Nicotine dangerous/toxic to the human body? Evidence suggests that Nicotine is no more toxic/dangerous than caffeine, in real terms. Yes the scaremongers out there will tell you if you spill some pure nicotine on your skin it can kill you, but meh, how many vapers/ecig users have died from a Nicotine OD?

Fundamentally this boils down with our view as a society that addiction is bad, and for the most part it is the correct standpoint because of the negative consequences of many addictive substances. But in terms of Nicotine, I think that standpoint may have to be reassesed. It is shown that vaping/ecigs are 95% better for you than real cigarettes.

I would imagine similar comparisons could be made between filter coffee and mineral water.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
So is Champix and Zyban (as well as other formats of NRT) but we still prescribe those on the NHS.

I think Champix costs the NHS something like £200 for a 12 week course of tablets and they have some pretty undesirable side effects such as sinusitis, common cold, dizzyness, insomnia, nausia, skin rashes, back pain and abnormal liver function. According to the manufacturers fact sheet, the above conditions range from very common to common (1/10 -1/100 respectively).

Now, the broader question must surely be is Nicotine dangerous/toxic to the human body? Evidence suggests that Nicotine is no more toxic/dangerous than caffeine, in real terms. Yes the scaremongers out there will tell you if you spill some pure nicotine on your skin it can kill you, but meh, how many vapers/ecig users have died from a Nicotine OD?

Fundamentally this boils down with our view as a society that addiction is bad, and for the most part it is the correct standpoint because of the negative consequences of many addictive substances. But in terms of Nicotine, I think that standpoint may have to be reassesed. It is shown that vaping/ecigs are 95% better for you than real cigarettes.

I would imagine similar comparisons could be made between filter coffee and mineral water.
Click to expand...

Nicontine in it's purest forms is incredibly toxic, however since no one of the products we use have pure nicotine then it's really a moot point and as you say often used by scaremongers to peddle their black or white diatribe. Only a baby or small child could likely be affected by nicotine liquid on the skin in the levels we purchase.
 
It's not like they are going to prescribe them indefinitely. I would guess they'll come up with a period of time where the patient is unlikely to go back to cigarettes and will either continue vaping on their own or quit. Most people only need the initial motivation to at least try and if even only 10% of those stay off the smokes after the prescription ends it's win win, they will probably live longer and the NHS are less likely to have to spend a fortune on them down the line.
 
Richdog said:
Nicontine in it's purest forms is incredibly toxic, however since no one of the products we use have pure nicotine then it's really a moot point and as you say often used by scaremongers to peddle their black or white diatribe. Only a baby or small child could likely be affected by nicotine liquid on the skin in the levels we purchase.
Click to expand...

I'll reply similarly to another poster. Does this somehow donote this specific addiction as acceptable and perfectly harmless? Do we really want to promote and potentially encourage non-smokers/the impressionable young to entertain a nicotine addiction?
 
This is what happens when greedy governments get involved :

There were over 600,000 regular users of electronic cigarettes in Italy in January 2014. This number has collapsed to 255,000, with almost all of the ex-vapers returning to smoking. Faced with the prospect of purchasing a pack of cig-a-likes for €74.90, vapers have elected to go for cheaper traditional cigarettes.
Click to expand...

This makes an interesting read

If you are a vaper you may want to take a look Here and give your support.
 
Last edited:
darkgen said:
I'll reply similarly to another poster. Does this somehow donote this specific addiction as acceptable and perfectly harmless? Do we really want to promote and potentially encourage non-smokers/the impressionable young to entertain a nicotine addiction?
Click to expand...

If it is relatively harmless, and those who are old enough under law want to do it, what is the problem?

If kids are using these things is the fault with the product or the kids/parents? But given the amount of youngsters actually smoking real cigarettes these days then absolutely yes, vaping/ecigs are going to help not hinder their health.

Shall we stop selling alcohol because kids might get hold of it?

Please try and come up with something a little more credible than "won't someone please think of the children!!!!11"

Plenty of young and impressionable people are chucking litres of high caffeine/sugar content soft drinks down their neck every day, having under age sex, getting pregnant, stealing cars, fighting, getting drunk and taking drugs and generally many things that are far more harmful and damaging and yet you are concerned about ecigs contaminating their pure white minds? Really?

I think a bit of context wouldn't go amiss.
 
So we resign ourselves of the lightest of ills and only prioritise the ones which cause the most harm? Isn’t the current NHS mantra “prevention”?
 
Tefal said:
But this isn't a cure or a treatment or a quitting aid it's just a different format of nicotine that's available in the shops for much less than cigerrets . It's like saying "we should prescribe low tar ciggeretes as they're better than cigarettes"
Click to expand...

Its exactly a quitting aid!
I have gone from 12mg-8mg-6mg-3mg. I am in the process of going on to 0mg all because of vaping otherwise I would still be smoking so it does exactly what its supposed to do and has done for many other people who are weening onto 0mg before juice becomes expensive from Taxing, which will no doubt happen.
 
darkgen said:
I'll reply similarly to another poster. Does this somehow donote this specific addiction as acceptable and perfectly harmless? Do we really want to promote and potentially encourage non-smokers/the impressionable young to entertain a nicotine addiction?
Click to expand...

You'll forgive me for not continuing to waste my time responding to arguments that have adequately been addressed multiple times in the thread. Its now just going around in circles.
 
darkgen said:
So we resign ourselves of the lightest of ills and only prioritise the ones which cause the most harm? Isn’t the current NHS mantra “prevention”?
Click to expand...

OK then, make it all illegal. Everything.

Smoking, alcohol, ecigs, drugs, fatty food, caffeine soft drinks, filter coffee, opiate based pain killers, everything.

There's your prevention :)

In the real world, though, tackling an issue based on the actual harm it causes is a more viable approach. Traditional smoking - absolutely try and phase it out. But let us not forget that the current duty and VAT placed on traditional tobacco products is a levy forced onto people because of the harm it does. Surely, by that logic, said levies should be reduced by 95% for vaping equipment and ecigs?

As I mentioned in previous posts we have been conditioned to feel addiction is a terrible thing, the old 'drugs are bad mmmmkay?' argument. Yet many people are addicted to various things, caffeine being one of the most socially accepted ones. People get withdrawal symptoms and moody if they don't get their fix! Alcohol is the big one and many people have to have their fix. They may not even be categorised as alcoholics because they ony drink at the weekend but they still need to do it. Same as people who need a glass of wine after a busy or stressful day. Sure they may not get cold sweats and shakes if they dont get it, but I can gurantee their mood would be foul!

Now we are seeing that vaping is a relatively low risk activity (based on current evidence) but because it utilises an addictive chemical it is still being ostracised. Why? Where is the harm, over and above drugs are bad mmmkay? The potential for kids to get hold of them? Never has there been such a large straw man. The fact that pure nicotine liquid is toxic? Who uses pure nicotine liquids and can you even buy them?

Yet people going to the pub a few times a week to drink booze is fine and dandy. People supping their big mugs of filter coffee several times a day is fine (my friend used to drink so much he got chest pains). People existing on caffeine soft drinks is OK. People engaging in high risk activities that can and do cause injury and even death, no problem. Supermarkets selling copious amounts of cheap booze is also alright. Look around you and you will see addiction everywhere and many people are not even aware they are addicted.

So given these kinds of double standards, what really is the bottom line here? I suggest it is simply one thing. Money.
 
Arknor: I don't care about fat people and the nhs or sports related injuries, boob jobs and other cosmetic procedures that aren't needed however I am entirely against.'

I am entirely against... what exactly?
 
Apologies, haven't read the whole thread,

Though I do have a question from what I heard on the news.

How can they say 'research suggests children who smoke e-cigarettes don't go on to smoke real tobacco'.

Surely, they haven't been around long enough to state such a thing?
 
tlrBeta said:
Apologies, haven't read the whole thread,

Though I do have a question from what I heard on the news.

How can they say 'research suggests children who smoke e-cigarettes don't go on to smoke real tobacco'.

Surely, they haven't been around long enough to state such a thing?
Click to expand...

I just cant see why anybody would move from e-cigs to real tobacco. i find the smell of fags disgusting now and I always know when my work colleagues have had one in the last 15 minutes.
 
tlrBeta said:
Apologies, haven't read the whole thread,

Though I do have a question from what I heard on the news.

How can they say 'research suggests children who smoke e-cigarettes don't go on to smoke real tobacco'.

Surely, they haven't been around long enough to state such a thing?
Click to expand...

I just cant see why anybody would move from e-cigs to real tobacco. i find the smell of fags disgusting now and I always know when my work colleagues have had one in the last 15 minutes.

Maybe its suggested by the fact there are no adults moving from ecigs to cigarettes? Also its been around for 10 years or more so there will be some kids in the stats somewhere.
 
The main problems with e-cigs are twofold. First, they are referred to by the media as e-cigarette. This gives the impression that they are a tobacco product like normal cigarettes and so drives the perception that they are similar in toxicity and harm.
Secondly, they generate vapour which looks similar to smoking a traditional tobacco product. This again drives the perception that they are similar to smoking tobacco.

If we could make an e-cig that produced no visible vapour and called it something else such as a personal vaporiser, then this would go a long way towards changing public perception. Would it reduce the effectiveness as a cessation device? Maybe, as the production of vapour replicates the act of smoking.

With regards to vaping being a gateway to smoking; numerous studies recently have shown that this is simply not the case. From personal experience I could never use a traditional tobacco product again as I just can't stand the smell. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence but still, that's my experience.
 
Rilot said:
The main problems with e-cigs are twofold. First, they are referred to by the media as e-cigarette. This gives the impression that they are a tobacco product like normal cigarettes and so drives the perception that they are similar in toxicity and harm.
Secondly, they generate vapour which looks similar to smoking a traditional tobacco product. This again drives the perception that they are similar to smoking tobacco.

If we could make an e-cig that produced no visible vapour and called it something else such as a personal vaporiser, then this would go a long way towards changing public perception. Would it reduce the effectiveness as a cessation device? Maybe, as the production of vapour replicates the act of smoking.

With regards to vaping being a gateway to smoking; numerous studies recently have shown that this is simply not the case. From personal experience I could never use a traditional tobacco product again as I just can't stand the smell. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence but still, that's my experience.
Click to expand...

I hate the term e-cig, I dont use e-cigs. I use a personal vaporiser, it looks nothing like a cigarette, in fact it has nothing to do with cigarettes in my opinion.
 
Wazz-1 said:
I hate the term e-cig, I dont use e-cigs. I use a personal vaporiser, it looks nothing like a cigarette, in fact it has nothing to do with cigarettes in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It seems like a daft name from one perspective but look at it as marketing to get smokers to try it makes sense. Besides, i thought it only applied to those cigalike things anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom