Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HighPressure

e-Cigs and giving up smoking

Recommended Posts

Firstly for any smoker who hasn't tried the latest vapour type e-Cig they are well worth a try and the closest thing to a real fag, I have tasted.
 
My point is however having heeded to public pressure that smoking is not really good for me or others around me. I have made a concerted effort to give up the weed, but do rely on what are said to be completely harmless e-Cigs. What I don't understand is where you can and cannot smoke (if that is the word) these things? I understand they are banned in some places but it is not always clear, and more confusingly to me is why they are banned anywhere at all? I have even heard of pubs not allowing them which I can't get my head around at all??
 
One real plus for someone like me giving up is that I thought I would be able to smoke/suck it anywhere.
Edited by HighPressure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Firstly for any smoker who hasn't tried the latest vapour type e-Cig they are well worth a try and the closest thing to a real fag, I have tasted.
 
My point is however having heeded to public pressure that smoking is not really good for me or others around me. I have made a concerted effort to give up the weed, but do rely on what are said to be completely harmless e-Cigs.
 
What I don't understand is where you can and cannot smoke (if that is the word) these things? I understand they are banned in some places but it is not always clear, and more confusingly to me is why they are banned anywhere at all? I have even heard of pubs not allowing them which I can't get my head around at all??
 
One real plus for someone like me giving up is that I thought I would be able to smoke/suck it anywhere.

 

 

Generally the best assumption is that where you can smoke a cigarette you can smoke an e-cig.

 

They are banned because they could easily entice non-users into trying one. Right now we have a load of ~25 and younger's in pubs who mostly do not smoke but in the past may have started with drunken fags, it's not something that should be encouraged.

 

As for not being harmful, their still addictive and not good for you either. Niccotine was originally used as a pesticide actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except you are not giving up, just swopping the medium. I smoked for 30 years, from age 16. I loved smoking, I tried giving up, went on patches, but never REALLY ŵanted to give up (more my inner rebel punk teen) but went cold turkey overnight when I saw a friend not a lot older than me, but heavier smoker, with amputated foot and face like a used chamois leather window cleaner.

E-fags probably are to go the way of fags re where you can smoke them, namely in the rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except you are not giving up, just swopping the medium. I smoked for 30 years, from age 16. I loved smoking, I tried giving up, went on patches, but never REALLY ŵanted to give up (more my inner rebel punk teen) but went cold turkey overnight when I saw a friend not a lot older than me, but heavier smoker, with amputated foot and face like a used chamois leather window cleaner.E-fags probably are to go the way of fags re where you can smoke them, namely in the rain.

I don't disagree but I am happy to swap a unhealthy addiction for one which won't do me any harm. I am not to bothered with having a habit if it doesn't cause me or those around me a problem.
 
I totally disagree it will entice anyone to smoke real cigarettes, its simply not a logical argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Started using them 10 July last year and have not smoked a normal fag since. Been times where I have been tempted but a puff on my e-cig removes the craving. Have tried a few times to give up previously patches, gum cold turkey, but none have done the trick. 7 months on and going strong and no inclination to go back to the fags.

I too find it confusing working out where these can be used. Fortunately local pubs round here were anti the smoking ban so have embraced e-cigs and they allow people to smoke them inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worked great for me, although they gave me a sore throat after a while so i gave up e cigs eventually, now i just inhale passive smoke from others, its much cheaper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon I have been smoking for getting on for 48 years now and for the majority of that time I have smoked a pipe using Condor tobacco - I am now so attuned to this smoke that even a fairly strong cigarette is lost on me and I simply do not get any satisfaction or benefit so have not indulged in cigarette smoking for many years.

 

As there are a lot of places in this modern world there are places where you cannot smoke at all I go 'cold turkey' - I tried the nicotine chewing gum once on the Eurostar travelling to Paris when the journey took 4 hours and it tasted so foul I was not encouraged to try it again.

 

Another time when travelling on a P & O boat to Bilbao I tried the predecessor to the E-Fag, which was a tube with a phial of nicotine - that didn't do any good either but as it happened I found a room on the top deck which P & O had reserved for normal smokers so I was able to satisfy my craving there.

 

I strongly suspect that an E-pipe is not yet on the agenda, as it is pipe smoking has always been a lot cheaper that tailor made cigarettes and even in this country costs would only be a matter of £15 a week, as opposed to getting on for that a day for many smokers, and in my case, probably about half that sum per week since I have found a good outlet just over the border in Spain.

 

I think the downside of this is that there are so few pipe smokers now so that eventually the producers of Condor will find it uneconomic to continue with this brand - I'm not even sure who makes it now - it just says 'Made in the EU'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figures released today reveal that 15,436 UK smokers froze to death during the month of March. Many of them perished in broad daylight outside High Street coffee shops whilst sitting down quietly, giving off bad smells and obscuring the visibility of passers-by and other customers as they came and went, but otherwise minding their own business.Thousands more, mainly from the east coast, remain missing presumed dead despite rescue workers vainly spending hour after hour following ash trails which only ever led into massive snow drifts in designated outdoor smoking areas, often covered by a canvas gazebo.Restaurants have also suffered with many reporting the shocking and sudden loss of loyal smoker customers – those who insisted on dining alfresco and ended up making the ultimate sacrifice before they even had a chance to pay the bill.Admitting that this year-on-year 99.99% surge in exposure-related smoking deaths was ‘a trifle disappointing’, coalition Health supremo, Jeremy Hunt, pointed out that on the positive side, each of the unfortunate fatalities was technically ‘free at the point of delivery’ and had probably saved the NHS quite a lot of money.Worst hit was the sleepy Suffolk town of Southwold where, during one Arctic Saturday afternoon, 32 outdoor smokers were pronounced dead where they sat outside Cafe de Niro and Starstrucks. ‘I kept warning our regular smokers to stay indoors and stay alive, but would they listen?’ cried a disconsolate Assistant Manager Helen Cockle, who as a vegetarian struggling to control a 5-a-day courgette habit completely understands the issues.Even more deaths occurred when desperate home-based smokers ‘popped out for a quickie’ and failed to return. Typical of many was the story reported by Dorking pensioner, Vera Cathcart who lost her husband Ronald during the advert break in Coronation Street.But not many tragedies can compare with the suffering of non-partaker Reg Maltby, who runs a busy mini-market in Letchworth and lost his entire staff during the afternoon tea break last Wednesday. ‘I counted out all eleven at 3.15 and not a single one made it back,’ he said, looking visibly shocked but somehow now much cleaner and fresher than usual.Meanwhile the last 50,000 pubs in Britain remain open for business, mostly empty, but nicely warm...

Like it - in actual fact the Health Warning really means that you run the risk of catching your death every time you go out for a puff.

 

Interestingly, the scientist, the one with the bushy moustache and glasses (forget his name) on Question Time last Thursday said that in his view that although the side effects of secondary smoke were strongly suspected, he did not believe that the case was proved conclusively in answer to a question re adults smoking in cars containing children - another interesting point is that there appears to be no headway in children smoking in the presence of their parents. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists, experts? if I listened to the damn lot of them...I'd be on at least fourty a day Posted Image

I'm pretty sure that the case has been overstated - when I think about it I was exposed to tobacco smoke before I was born 'cos my mum was a fairly heavy smoker, then in the house whilst I was growing up, when I went to the cinema - in fact the only time I was in a smoke free environment on a regular basis was when I went to school - funnily enough I never frequented the bike sheds but seriously as an oldie I find it difficult having spent most of my life in a smoking culture to adapt to this new almost evangelist anti smoking fervour and in a way feel as though I have been relegated to second class citizen. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'm a smoker, i've tried giving up a few times but failed. usually because my attempts to give up have been ruined by stressful events in my life, of which there have been many!

 

anyway, whilst there is no doubt about the risks to health from smoking, i often wonder about the motives of the government and their policies.

smoking bans have been implemented over the past few years, reducing the places where we can smoke. the idea of banning smoking in public (open air) has been toyed with, now it seems certain there will be a ban on smoking in cars carrying children. why that needs to be a law- i don't quite get. i don't smoke in the car with my children inside, anyone who does, won't really care if there is a law or not.

tobacco advertising has been banned for a long time now and now even hidden from view in shops

so, the government are pushing the anti-social aspect of smoking and seem to be actively trying to get us to stop by implementing laws to restrict smoking.

 

one of their major arguments against smoking is the cost to the NHS. here's a report from 2009-

 

Illness and disability linked to smoking puts a "huge burden" on the health service in the UK, they said.

Previous studies put the cost of smoking to the NHS at between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion in 1991.

But the new analysis pushes this figure to £5.17 billion in 2005/06 and the researchers believe this is still an underestimate.

 

so, if smoking is such a terrible thing, why don't they just ban it altogether? a huge proportion of smokers (including myself) would give up overnight because we wouldn't have a choice (legally anyway) reducing that "burden" on the NHS.

 

maybe this is why-

 

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

 

in 1991, the cost to the NHS was £1.7 billion, but the tax revenue raised from tobacco was £6.8 billion

 

if later figures are correct. it costs them over £5 billion a year today, though smoking is in decline so the net result should be less.

yet in 2012-13 the tax revenue was £12.3 billion!!

 

so, if smoking was banned outright, it would cost the government around £7 billion a year......

 

 

 

anyway, i'm off for a fag.....

Edited by bobbydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, then giving up when you don't want to give up (bit like dieting) is doomed to failure. What shocked me into instant quitting (although to be fair, i have taken up knitting, which is nearly as expensive and far more dangerous)more than my friend's amputation, was the hideously leathery wrinkley face - THAT got to me, and my vanity and shazam - desire to smoke vanished, well, in a puff of last fag smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we all just stop drinking, smoking the whole darn lot...the govt would soon change their stance!Hypocrites..

 

Hope they don't slap a tax on chilli pods t-x1 - a certain part of my anatomy is 'smoking' from last night's vindaloo....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illness and disability linked to smoking puts a "huge burden" on the health service in the UK, they said.

Previous studies put the cost of smoking to the NHS at between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion in 1991.

But the new analysis pushes this figure to £5.17 billion in 2005/06 and the researchers believe this is still an underestimate.

 

 

What a load of old tosh those figures are, I have heard the analysis before which include cost of early death to the work place. Those they think will cop it due to passive smoking and just about anything else they can think of. The reality is as you say the government makes a huge net gain from smokers, and if we all quit it will have to come from something else.
 
Its a shame that the same analysis isn't made when looking at air pollution or the impact of increasing air traffic which all parties appear committed too.
 
This is the e-Cig I use, nothing like those plastic fags you see that light up like Christmas trees: http://www.ecighub.co.uk/reviews/ecigwizard-review/
 
I am sure the gov will make an excuse to tax them, but the fact is they are completely harmless and their use should be encouraged to help people give up the weed. As for the habit argument, yes it is but then I bet not a single person reading this is free of 'habits'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we all just stop drinking, smoking the whole darn lot...the govt would soon change their stance! Hypocrites..

Ooh, can i have you avatar pic? For a mad knitty related site??.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a load of old tosh those figures are, I have heard the analysis before which include cost of early death to the work place. Those they think will cop it due to passive smoking and just about anything else they can think of. The reality is as you say the government makes a huge net gain from smokers, and if we all quit it will have to come from something else.
 
Its a shame that the same analysis isn't made when looking at air pollution or the impact of increasing air traffic which all parties appear committed too.
 
This is the e-Cig I use, nothing like those plastic fags you see that light up like Christmas trees: http://www.ecighub.co.uk/reviews/ecigwizard-review/
 
I am sure the gov will make an excuse to tax them, but the fact is they are completely harmless and their use should be encouraged to help people give up the weed. As for the habit argument, yes it is but then I bet not a single person reading this is free of 'habits'?

 

 

even if those figures are right, the government still makes a huge profit from tobacco. its just one example of how society is being forced to be torn between what's morally right and economic sense. smoking is bad for us and the government pushes this angle relentlessly, yet they won't ban it as it makes huge profits for the economy.

how about the so-called "green taxes"? trying to 'encourage' us to reduce our carbon footprint, knowing full well that we rely on fossil fuels to survive. how can we argue against saving the world whilst they drain our finances by taxing fuel to exorbitant levels, driving up the costs of transport (which inevitably drives up the cost of everything else, as ultimately, everything we posess, be it furnishings or food, is transported by road) and heating bills. reality is, by the time the world is 'saved', these politicians will be retired, dead or whatever. smug in the knowledge that they have done their bit to save the world (or rather fleece everything they can get out of us on that pretence!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if those figures are right, the government still makes a huge profit from tobacco. its just one example of how society is being forced to be torn between what's morally right and economic sense. smoking is bad for us and the government pushes this angle relentlessly, yet they won't ban it as it makes huge profits for the economy.how about the so-called "green taxes"? trying to 'encourage' us to reduce our carbon footprint, knowing full well that we rely on fossil fuels to survive. how can we argue against saving the world whilst they drain our finances by taxing fuel to exorbitant levels, driving up the costs of transport (which inevitably drives up the cost of everything else, as ultimately, everything we posess, be it furnishings or food, is transported by road) and heating bills. reality is, by the time the world is 'saved', these politicians will be retired, dead or whatever. smug in the knowledge that they have done their bit to save the world (or rather fleece everything they can get out of us on that pretence!)

It's not just the taxes BD, think of all the pensions & benefits they don't have to pay us too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking is one of those activities that can be harmful and people generally do it for pleasure, and the popular view is that pleasurable things are non-essential and therefore, if they have downsides, their benefits should be ignored as you can't justify enjoyment that isn't risk-free.  The "We all need to work, but we don't need to enjoy ourselves" argument is far too simplistic view in my mind, as many pleasurable activities indirectly contribute to health and the economy, while a lot of work is not strictly essential.

 

The main problem with smoking is that, while it is one of those "OK in moderation but harmful to excess" activities, many smokers become addicted to it (a much higher percentage than with alcohol) and when people smoke excessively/become dependent then the downsides tend to significantly outweigh the pros.  On the other hand, as others have mentioned, nicotine abuse is generally less dangerous than alcohol abuse.  From this perspective it sounds like e-Cigs are a superior alternative to regular cigarettes for those with an addiction.

 

The "green taxes" are an example of the authorities trying to be seen to have "done something" that shows a hard-line, uncompromising approach, regardless of whether or not they are an effective approach at achieving the desired results.  I am not against the overall concept of green taxes but feel that the "carrots" and "sticks" need to be aligned appropriately if we are to change behaviour in the desired ways- but achieving this is incredibly difficult and so far we have tended to do a poor job of it, resulting in the wrong people being hit, and limited environmental improvements.  I believe that we do need green action though for even if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be heavily overestimated, we still have the problem of dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

Edited by Thundery wintry showers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...