Skip to main content

ed demolishes the ‘sucking-harder danger of e-cigarettes' argument

“The new study from the University of California found that users have to suck much harder on e-cigs than on conventional tobacco ones. This creates "possible adverse effects on human health" because users are likely to suck much harder and inhale more nicotine -- the same problem of "compensatory smoking" which made so-called "light" cigarettes dangerous.” source - E-Cigarettes: New Potential Dangers For Users and a New Ban in Singapore

I’ll keep it brief....

What these ‘researchers’ have failed to appreciate is that their ‘you are going to suck your e-cig harder and therefore endanger yourself further’, ignores one important point, that no matter how 'hard' e-‘smokers' 'suck’ they aren’t going to be afforded the benefit of the carcinogens, 4000+chemicals, tar, and tobacco that cigarettes contain.

The Re-sensitisation Effect

‘hard-sucking’ will, generally, decline the longer one abstains from traditional cigarettes as the throat is re-sensitised enough to obviate the need to ‘suck hard’ on EVIs.
Secondly, it is true that the 'hard-sucking' amongst vapers is an effort to compensate for the loss of the heavy feel of traditional cigarettes. But this is not a constant as the throat is re-sensitised the longer one stays away from traditional cigarettes. In other words, the habit of smoking government-endorsed cigarettes desensitises one to stimuli of lesser coarseness. And just as staying away from traditional cigarettes leads to one regaining one's sense of smell and taste, the throat is likewise re-sensitised. A final example is how the movement from high-tar/nicotine content cigarettes to low-tar/nicotine content will, initially, make the smoker feel like s/he’s not smoking, but over time, deliver as much ‘kick’ as did their previous indulgence in stronger cigarettes. This is due to the re-sensitisation effect.

Anyway, as excessive nicotine inhalation is indeed a danger, one can simply regulate nicotine content. It is silly to not regulate the number of high-nicotine content cigarettes a person might purchase a day, but seek a ban of EVIs because a person might ‘suck too much’. And I don’t see why this ‘logic’ is not applied in the case of low-tar/nicotine cigarettes.

So, in sum, ‘hard-sucking’ will, generally, decline the longer one abstains from traditional cigarettes as the throat is re-sensitised enough to obviate the need to ‘suck hard’ on EVIs. At which point, the amount of 'kick' a person gets from it will generally be perceived as 'satisfying enough' as a goodness-of-fit between what the device offers and the ability of the person to appreciate it is achieved. The same applies to people who stick to their favourite brands and strengths of cigarettes.

[image by, text by ed]



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…