Lots of folks saw the photos of the two very happy young women pictured below — among the first of more than 450+ same-sex couples to get married in Arkansas — celebrating the end of the state’s ban on marriage equality last week (at least until the court order lifting the ban was, once again, put on hold by the state’s Supreme Court today)…
I, on the other hand, saw what the blonde woman behind them in black was holding…
Yes. Vape on, Arkansas blonde lady in black, vape on…
Vape Off:
“E-Cigarettes Expose People to More than ‘Harmless’ Water Vapor and Should be Regulated, UCSF Scientists Find”
I find the vape a very discreet delivery method for my favorite recreational pastime (NOT nicotine). Long-lasting and surprisingly inexpensive. Considering that I wasn’t planning on quitting that, the arguments by the UCSF researchers fall on deaf ears. Vape ON!
Tortoises said @ 1:
Here’s a hint. Any e-cig study or information with the name Stanton Glantz or UCSF attached to it should largely be ignored immediately. He’s an anti-vaping crusader, who has put out more disinfo on the topic than just about anybody I’ve come across since I’ve been studying this issue.
He has previously used a study that had nothing to do with the issue, to claim that vaping leads kids to start smoking. His testimony is what led Los Angeles to enact a deadly ban on e-cigs.
As to the UCSF article you cite that cites Glantz’ newest UCSF “study”, here’s some help on what a joke the entire thing has become up there.
The headline to the story you linked to is: “E-Cigarettes Expose People to More than ‘Harmless’ Water Vapor and Should be Regulated, UCSF Scientists Find”
But here’s what their study actually finds:
E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known. Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke. There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from tobacco smoke or air pollution can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death.
In other words, there is no evidence that particles from e-cigs harm anybody, but tobacco smoke and air pollution do, so ban e-cigs!
Just complete idiocy. As I said, Glantz is to be ignored and/or laughed at. Take your pick.
(Mind you, his studies and/or articles about them aren’t the only ones to be viewed with a HUGE grain of salt in this area. But he does appear to be behind most of the worst science and coverage of same that I have seen.)
I’m endlessly amused by how studies that find, “uncertainties”, and that “it is not clear” are rationalized into vapers’ absolute certainties that their newfound method of prolonging their addition is not causing any harm to anybody.
Jorogo said @ 4:
Of course, I can’t speak for vapers other than myself, but I don’t find it particularly amusing that what appears to be a life-saving technology for millions of people worldwide is made more difficult to adopt, thanks to claims about “harms” which, to date, have absolutely ZERO proof (or, even indication).
There could be such harms discovered in the future. But, so far, in 10 years of study of the technology, no such harms have been found.
Meanwhile, almost every single one of those exact same studies cite the belief that vaping is far less dangerous than smoking.
With no evidence that vaping is more dangerous than smoking, and copious evidence that it is far less so, why would anybody find it “amusing” that legislatures (and some “scientists”, like Glantz) would work so hard to make it much more difficult for smokers to save their lives by stopping smoking?