For You Smokers Who Know You Need to Quit

[Jeff Matthews]

Another bit of advice when you try it for the first time. The little tanks you fill with juice - they have a rubber cap you remove to fill the juice. Then, you put the cap back on. The atomizer is supposed to pierce the center of that rubber cap in order to go into the tank. I found they do not pierce it, and you will get some nice, plasticky hits if you don't first take a needle or paper clip and pierce it yourself.

Also, for the first-time use of an atomizer, remember, atomizers have wicks surrounded by a coil. So, for best results for a new atty, drop about 2 drops directly onto the wick before inserting your filled/pierced tank. That way, the wick soaks faster and you will not get wicky-tasting hits at first.

[hideaf]

A lot of sites let you choose nic level, though a few also let you choose PG/VG levels you want. I vape 12mg 70/30 liquid from http://www.heathersheavenlyvapes.com/store3. I highly, highly recommend their Blueberry Muffin...yum

I'll just remind any new or aspiring vapers out there to check out ECF (Google, first result), and tasteyourjuice.com. Educate yourself!

[Islander]

This thread saddens me. I smoked a couple of packs when I was thirteen, decided it was expensive and stupid, and never smoked again.

My father was a heavy smoker. His/our car windows always had a yellow film on the inside, complete with run marks. His pants always had burn marks, even the pair of mine that I lent him one evening. He told me the smoking was okay, because he didn't inhale.

He was embarrassed when I took a picture of him with two cigarettes on the go, one in his yellow-stained fingers, and one in the ashtray.

Finally, when he was in his sixties and had some heart attacks, he decided it was time to stop, and never smoked again.

The same thing happened to my step-father. He was in hospital after having a heart attack, and was on oxygen. The pillow beside his head had a black circle that was slowly growing. When my mother asked the nurse about it, the reply was that this was typical with smokers. The oxygen was allowing the tar in his lungs to come out, and the oxygen mask exhalation elbow was directing it at the pillow.

He stopped then, and never smoked again.

He lived to be eighty-one, and my father lived to eighty-seven. Lungs do eventually recover once you quit.

My brother smoked all his life. He died of lung cancer at age fifty-one. I still miss him, and so does his widow and their three children.

I don't get how much fun it can be to poison yourself. Is it really such a great pleasure? It doesn't make you look cool, and it doesn't make you attractive to women.

Do I sound like a downer? Maybe, but that's what smoking tobacco has done to my family.

Deciding to quit, and then never smoking again, seems to be the most effective way to go. You can decide for yourself, and just don't buy that next pack. It's your body, and your health, and you're in charge of it. Even so, consider what your smoking does to your family. When you die sooner than you should have, it will be because you chose tobacco over your health and your family.

[oscarsear]

How do you know vapor is better for you than real smoke? It is different. It sounds like it should be better. But there is no proof.

It all depends on what level of "proof" you demand.

Read this recent abstract from the Journal on Inhalation Toxiclogy.

Let's face it. There is no such thing as "proof" to the degree of certainty. So, what we do is study and gather data.

There are many similar studies available. Just google away....

Here's what you won't find: You will not find anything that says, "We followed controlled studies of e-smokers for 20 years, and here is what we see." Even then, critics who demand "certainty" would be disappointed. E.g.: "How do we know his lung damage wasn't from his wife's overuse of Chanel No. 5? She used it everyday, and they worked together in the same office."

What level of "proof" do you need? It seems to me your preferred level is to have no question at all - to remove the need for any inquiry. I would agree with that. But again, this is a matter which involves more about predictable patterns of human "behavior" than it does "science."

The study merely compares airborne pollutant components of E-cigs versus burned tobacco. It does not make any evaluations of the effects of E-cigs on lung functions. However the same journal presents a study of inhaled glycerol vapors on the rat mucous membrane. After only few months the cellular structures demonstrated metaplastic changes that often describe precancerous conditions in other studies. Lungs are fairly unforgiving organs. They suffer from a range of problems. Inhale fungal loaded dusts and they can support fungal infections. Inhale chemistries found in certain exfoliants, just once, and you will get lethal restrictive lung disease. In time we will learn how E-cigs play out and for those choosing to gamble on the best outcome, I hope the outcomes are good. Being from that scientific ilk and knowing lung disease, I'd not recommend that you volunteer to be the test monkey for this work. That is mostly because there is no research design or structure. It is a roll of the dice steeped in little more than hope and wishful thinking.

[dtel]

What model and flavors are you going to get?

Not sure yet, I need to look at it again. Was going to try the bigger bottles but decided to try the smaller until I figure out what we like.

[hideaf]

It is a roll of the dice steeped in little more than hope and wishful thinking.

All I know, is how I feel and how my pops feels. You should know, my dad was a smoker for 40 years. It took a heart attack and a stroke to convince him to think about quitting. Thank god he found ecigs, they were his HOPE. It was no longer about wishful thinking, without them, he would not have quit. THAT is the reality of the situation. If ecigs can get one person to stop smoking analog cigarrettes than they are a savior in my book. Guess what the doctor says everytime he goes for a checkup? "Your lungs sound great, Pete."

All of the ingrediants in the liquid itself have been proven safe. The only things that aren't approved are the devices. This is hurting big tobacco/big pharma/health care. Yes health care, they are losing money because they want people to have heart attacks and strokes. It's sad but true, people have always prospered from tragedy.

Well, I for one am not going to be another statistic. I've chosen my method, and by god it freaking works. They (FDA/big tobacco/big pharma/health care) KNOW this works. Which is why, in the first place, this is such a controversial issue.

[Jeff Matthews]

What model and flavors are you going to get?

Not sure yet, I need to look at it again. Was going to try the bigger bottles but decided to try the smaller until I figure out what we like.

Good idea. Get maybe 5 of the 5 ml ones.

[oscarsear]

For anyone interested....... That new lung cancer screening tool is called - low-dose helical computerized tomography. It is a newer version of the CAT scan device and the protocols were defined and proven in an extensive medical study. Some insurers may pay for the study but most including Medicare have yet to adopt the benefit. That is not because the science is errant. It is because there are too many people that need the study done. Sadly, it is too expensive to screen all of the people who need screening. But if you can pay to have the work done (about $500-700) it could save your life, and your life savings. The protocol defines target subjects between the ages of 55 to 74 with a history of 30 pack years of smoking. Pack years is packs per day X the number of years smoked. 2 packs per day for 2 years would be 4 pack years, etc....... The protocol also includes people in this age range and smoking history who have quit smoking in the past 15 years. Most major cities should have the devices available and they should be found in medical school settings. If you are concerned about lung function testing you can get pulmonary function screening done just about anywhere. The screen is very rudimentary but useful. Your results will be compared to normals for your age and gender.

[Jeff Matthews]

The study merely compares airborne pollutant components of E-cigs versus burned tobacco. It does not make any evaluations of the effects of E-cigs on lung functions.

True, there. I think the assumption is, comparing ecig vapor to cigarettes, less is better. I don't know how one could argue against that. As I understand it, even regular cigarettes include PG/Glycerines as ingredients.

There is this study done on effect of PG in both rats and dogs. Notably, rats did not fare as well as dogs, which they attribute to the complexity of the rat's airway. As to dogs, they seemed to fare quite well, but still with noteworthy, but not alarming, effects. What I'd like to know is how the dosage of what we get compares to the dosage of what the dogs got. For dog, they noted:

In the female Beagle dog, treatment-related decreases in hemoglobin,
red blood cells and hematocrit were observed in the two highest exposure
groups, equivalent to approximately 18 and 60mg/kg/day. In male dogs
from the high dose group, similar small decreases, albeit,
non-statistically significant decreases were observed in these
hematological markers as well.

What dose are we getting in comparison? I've seen BS studies which OD'd rats on table sugar as "proof" of how bad it is for you. So, we need to have readily-comparable dosing information to assist in a fair assessment.

I'm with you, Oscar, on the idea that there is risk, I definitely understand that. The point, from my perspective, is, "Between the 2, which is worse?" Selfish? Foolish? Sure, whatever. But that's my angle, and I am up for valid, convincing comparisons.

On another note, it's unlikely that you will not notice adverse effects and not have the opportunity to cease in a timely manner. So, we are not talking about being suddenly surprised one day that you can't breathe anymore. Of course, there remain other risks of tumors and cancers, but again, the question remains. "Between the 2, which is worse?"

What I don't get is this: If it's so controversial, why aren't long-term studies available? It's always 5 minutes, 2 weeks, 14 weeks, and such. Seems health organizations could easily track people who use the stuff long-term. I don't buy the "they don't want you to know" part because there are big grants on both sides of the aisle.

[Jeff Matthews]

But if you can pay to have the work done (about $500-700) it could save your life, and your life savings.

Dang right, and a cheap price to pay. Why would anyone with any real concern even wince at that price? 4 - 6 months of cell phone usage.

Me? I think I am okay. I get out and play basketball and hang pretty darn good with even the non-smokers. My reason for making the switch is because I was starting to feel the damage. Did not want to wind up with emphysema.

[oscarsear]

But if you can pay to have the work done (about $500-700) it could save your life, and your life savings.

Dang right, and a cheap price to pay. Why would anyone with any real concern even wince at that price? 4 - 6 months of cell phone usage.

Me? I think I am okay. I get out and play basketball and hang pretty darn good with even the non-smokers. My reason for making the switch is because I was starting to feel the damage. Did not want to wind up with emphysema.

Friend Jeff - Now you owe me an apology. My computer screen just got guffaw splattered. It is a mess. Thanks a lot. So I got it straight - you've been smoking since you were 13 and you're 44....... You do not want to get emphysema, so you're gonna shift over to a new way to abuse your lungs that is pretty much an unknown health risk quantity!? No, you do not want to get any of those COPD things. They do what we call 'flicker out'. They die real, real slowly. Do yourself these favors, please. Keep your vapor kits sterile and aim to completely quit and ASAP.

[Jeff Matthews]

But if you can pay to have the work done (about $500-700) it could save your life, and your life savings.

Dang right, and a cheap price to pay. Why would anyone with any real concern even wince at that price? 4 - 6 months of cell phone usage.

Me? I think I am okay. I get out and play basketball and hang pretty darn good with even the non-smokers. My reason for making the switch is because I was starting to feel the damage. Did not want to wind up with emphysema.

Friend Jeff - Now you owe me an apology. My computer screen just got guffaw splattered. It is a mess. Thanks a lot. So I got it straight - you've been smoking since you were 13 and you're 44....... You do not want to get emphysema, so you're gonna shift over to a new way to abuse your lungs that is pretty much an unknown health risk quantity!? No, you do not want to get any of those COPD things. They do what we call 'flicker out'. They die real, real slowly. Do yourself these favors, please. Keep your vapor kits sterile and aim to completely quit and ASAP.

LOL! Of course, your logic is spot-on. No denying that. However, while you see the cigarette habit as a logical choice, the smoker usually does not. It's not like we didn't know smoking was bad for us. Go to an alcoholic and tell him how it will kill his liver and kidneys. He's not likely to quit. Go to a heroin addict and tell him that shite will take him out in less than 15 years. He's not going to "hear" you.

You gotta realize that people will engage in dangerous habits even though they know of the danger. You alos need to understand that sometimes - just sometimes - there might be a less harmful substitute that will appease their appetite for the bad shite, and that in those cases, the trade-off is worth it.

How many patients must a doctor see die because "he wouldn't stop over-eating," "she couldn't cut down on the drinking," and "he wouldn't give up the cigarettes." That has to be a family practitioner's daily life. If practicing such logic was so easy, it wouldn't be that way. Obviously, there is a more complicating factor; wouldn't you agree? I mean, how many people don't listen to their doctors and kill themselves anyway? And you think it's because they don't understand? That's the part of science that doctors simply are not prepared to deal with.

[Jeff Matthews]

I mean, how many people don't listen to their doctors and kill themselves anyway? And you think it's because they don't understand? That's the part of science that doctors simply are not prepared to deal with.

To put it in another context, in this great nation choc-full of fat people, I suppose I should just tell them, "Stop eating so much," and that's it. "Fred, just stop eating so much." "Sally, just eat less." "Mike, don't over eat." "Linda, no need to go back for seconds."

You don't think fat people know they eat too much? LOL! You think constantly reminding them to stop eating so much is really going to work? LOL! Unfortunately, it's the same issue. If they could find a way to feel their appetite was satisfied without all the calories, their lives could be made better. Maybe something good will come along for them because you know, I know, and everyone knows..... your advice ain't gonna change a dang thing (even though it is good advice). Sad, but true. Maybe that's the beauty of life.

[Boxx]

I mean, how many people don't listen to their doctors and kill themselves anyway? And you think it's because they don't understand? That's the part of science that doctors simply are not prepared to deal with.

To put it in another context, in this great nation choc-full of fat people, I suppose I should just tell them, "Stop eating so much," and that's it. "Fred, just stop eating so much." "Sally, just eat less." "Mike, don't over eat." "Linda, no need to go back for seconds."

You don't think fat people know they eat too much? LOL! You think constantly reminding them to stop eating so much is really going to work? LOL! Unfortunately, it's the same issue. If they could find a way to feel their appetite was satisfied without all the calories, their lives could be made better. Maybe something good will come along for them because you know, I know, and everyone knows..... your advice ain't gonna change a dang thing (even though it is good advice). Sad, but true. Maybe that's the beauty of life.

BOXX... you are drinking too much. Don't you dare... LOL..

[Jeff Matthews]

BOXX... you are drinking too much. Don't you dare... LOL..

"Stay thirsty, my friend."

[Islander]

I think some people are getting seduced by technology here.

"You know that's just a more convenient way to poison yourself, don't you?"

"Yeah, but look at all the cool accessories you can buy!"

[Jeff Matthews]

I think some people are getting seduced by technology here.

"You know that's just a more convenient way to poison yourself, don't you?"

"Yeah, but look at all the cool accessories you can buy!"

I doubt it. If analogues were safe, there would be no ecigs. Clearly, it is driven by people who are looking for safer alternatives to inhale (except just plain-old air)

[dtel]

Bad Jeff, bad bad bad [:@]

Just quit right now, what is wrong with you ?

I will break this to you as easily as I can, smoking is not good for you, I know it's a big surprise but there was no easy way to tell you.................sorry for the bad news.

Sorry couldn't help myself [8-)]

And this may not be my only bad habit, but it is my worse, I refuse to quit them all ! [Y]

[Boxx]

And this may not be my only bad habit, but it is my worse, I refuse to quit them all !

What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits...

[Jeff Matthews]

A little

is apropos!