Show me some scientists who've said they're more dangerous than regular cigarettes. I haven't seen you say shit except that theymightbe dangerous. I know for a fact regular cigarettes are. As for cessation - e-cigs have led to quitting for numerous friends and family, including my girlfriend. I'll take that first hand experience over any anecdotal evidence you may have.
This is not a toy or a piece of candy. Nicotine is a serious health hazard and thus the burden of proof lay on the one asserting the positive claim - in this case the makers of the product. We've been over this before in the thread. It's not my job to to assert something is dangerous - We already know nicotine is lethal - it does not get any worse than that
When it, nicotine, is combined with unknown factors to enhance the usage rather than cessation efficacy it's healthy to ask questions - would you not agree?
I've made a relevant equivocation before - injection. Would you rather inject yourself with pure nicotine in a known dosage or in a varying dosage with various known and unknown substances with unknown interactions?
Modification:
What if all the unknown substances where known?
What if only some where known?
What if one of the unknown caused cancer by itself in 20 years? - directly carcinogenic
What if it caused cancer in combination with others under unforeseen circumstances? - interactions
What if one induced hormonal changes or other endocrine problems?
What if, what if, what if
This is what all manufactors of drugs go through for every new drug marketed. Don't you find it odd that it's suddenly okay to play alchemist with a lethal substance as long as it's done with a 'healthy' e-cig? I sure do. I find it equally baffling how anyone with no scientific background is able to ascertain the toxic nature of anything simply by going with their gut feelings or common sense. Google Thalidomide and pregnancy for an example of how this assumption can fail miserably with regards to what may be perceived as a harmless drug.
It's an equivocation fallacy to assume A is less dangerous than B simply because you know A does not have some properties B has - especially when you're adding new properties to the equation at the same time as you're removing them - aka f.inst. tar gone, added is substances of unknown nature and interaction - coupled with different application method. Not all substances are equally dangerous. We've been over this in earlier posts, really
Let me be clear:
With the current knowledge it really should be a no brainer to chose known and documented cessation devices and methods over the e-cig, if the goal is to quit nicotine abuse. The risk of getting stuck in limbo with e-cigs - between smoking and being clean - is a gamble at best. If you're disciplined enough to use the e-cig to quit, it can be done with far less harmful methods - aka nicotine only and in controlled dosages or straight up cold turkey.
I would love to hear how and why you perceive the e-cig as a better cessation device than say, a regular nicotine only passive inhaler. It's not the obvious fact that it resembles smoking far more than an inhaler I'm looking for - it's getting from A (smoking) to C (clean) I'm concerned with - the whole process. The dosage decrease game is the same once you've switched method of nicotine uptake. How do you see the e-cig as a being a better tool to get from point B (not smoking, still abusing nicotine) to C (clean)? What qualities, what properties?
