Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have seen a number of Vaping Adverts on television , on buses and other places and it has made me curious over why a product that contains nicotine, an addictive product, does not conform to the same advertising rules that tobacco companies have to follow.


Admittedly its marginally safer than tobacco based smoking, however it's long term effects and risks haven't been established scientifically yet.


Is it right that we should expose young people to the temptation via advertising rather than trying to steer them away from seeing smoking (in any format) as cool ?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/87289-vaping-adverts/
Share on other sites

Nicotine is still a highly addictive substance though, plus they have all sorts of other additives and are completely unregulated. Let's face it, they're unlikely to be good for you. I'm amazed at how they're being marketed as 'cool'. There are vape cafes springing up now and they're being marketed quite independently of being just a cigarette replacement. The almost inevitable future 'scandal' isn't hard to see coming IMO.

Nicotine on its own is not necessarily addictive or even harmful.


Cigarettes deliver nicotine to the body in a very effective way (via the lining of the lungs) which makes them addictive - they're the crack cocaine of the tobacco world.


It's the inhaling of smoke which is harmful, and tobacco is just a vegetable. You'd get the same risks if you inhaled smouldering pear-tree leaves.


That aside, the studies I've seen show that over 99% of vapers are ex-cigarette smokers (i.e. less than 1% start because of advertising).


That 1% outweighs the potential benefits of getting smokers to switch to vaping (although vaping is not risk-free, but that's nothing to do with the nicotine but with the additional chemicals...)

Hi lowlander, interestingly if you read the discussion by rahrahrah in the post above yours this is evidence that non smokers are taking up Vaping at a rate higher than your post suggests. Maybe you should post a link to the studies you have seen so people can see both sides of the argument?


The issue is should the adverts be allowed especially as they make out it is cool or an advance in technology (although how they can compare Vaping to artificial hands is beyond me....) rather than is it better than smoking a cigarette

I just looked at that link. ASH claim that use of e-cigs amongst 'never smokers' is 'negligible'. They citation on this simply says "Calculations are by ASH. This was done by applying the proportions of e-cigarette use by smoking status in the 2014 YouGov survey to the most recent available ONS mid-year GB population estimates (2012)". This seems rather vague and I certainly don't see how you get your 1% figure from this.


I imagine however, that the overall numbers are relatively small. That said, I would not be surprised given the way these things are being marketed, if we saw the number of people taking up 'vaping' who have never smoked previously, increasing as time goes on. Which is kind of the point re the inappropriateness of the marketing.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.


Not at all - read this.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/


There are many people who use nicotine (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.

So a quick Google, threw up this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review


Seems to back up the view that 'vaping' is relatively benign, so perhaps I'm wrong on this.


Can't help feeling however, that there is a future scandal waiting to break here. Whilst vaping may be better for you than smoking cigarettes (and that's not really a high bar), I still think that such an addictive product should be more cautiously marketed.

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.

>

> Not at all - read this.

>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

> ine-all-bad/

>

> There are many people who use nicotine

> (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.


I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine clearly is an extremely addictive substance and there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason to be wary about this new industry.


Here's what the NHS says on it: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=53

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > > addictive? I think you're mistaken about

> this.

> >

> > Not at all - read this.

> >

> >

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

>

> > ine-all-bad/

> >

> > There are many people who use nicotine

> > (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.

>

> I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine

> clearly is an extremely addictive substance and

> there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact

> that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been

> pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason

> to be wary about this new industry.

>

> Here's what the NHS says on it:

> http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=5


I don't disagree. The way cigarettes deliver nicotine is extremely addictive.


But there are many people (well, ~2% of the population) who take snuff or smoke cigars (without inhaling) who don't show signs of addiction.


It's like comparing crack cocaine and tea made from cocoa leaves.


I'll concede, nicotine can be addictive, especially when delivered by cigarettes.


But the article I liked to shows that we need a more educated debate rather than singling out nicotine as the bogeyman.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This link explains the effect of nicotine itself.

>

> http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksJBlood.html


No, that link shows the effect of smoking on the body. The effect of nicotine itself is far less clear-cut.

Nicotine is pharmacologically considered a drug with high addiction potential. Its effect is receptor-mediated, and the mechanism is well characterised.


The fact that not everyone who smokes becomes addicted is not the definition of addiction. Addiction is relevant not only to dose but to length of exposure (and route of exposure). Also not everyone who smokes crack becomes addicted, but some people are clearly addicted to tea as noted by the physiological withdrawal syndrome.


I agree we need to move away from 'demonising' addiction, as suggested in the SA piece. However, that is a shift in cultural values, and not a statement of the biochemical potential for addiction. The mechanisms for nicotine addiction at the cellular level demonstrate addiction quite clearly both in vitro and in vivo.


I object to the high profile campaigns glamorising the use of e cigarettes. Their advertising should be regulated in the same way as cigarettes. They are now clearly being advertised to non smokers and underage groups. What does a 12 year old girl think when she sees a glamorous woman in an add with an e cig? E cigs make you glamorous? Addiction is beautiful? :-(

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not

> > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.

>

> Not at all - read this.

>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot

> ine-all-bad/

>

> There are many people who use nicotine

> (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.



Are you an ex smoker and now a vaper Lowlander ?

Lowlander- did you not read this bit...First, each time new nicotine arrives in our brain it causes the body to activate its fight or flight stress defenses. This in turn causes the immediate release of stored fats into the bloodstream, fats intended to be used to provide the instant energy needed to either fight or flee the saber tooth tiger. But there is no tiger


The extra food we consumed during our big meals each day was converted to fat and stored. It was then pumped back into our bloodstream with each new puff of nicotine. It's how we were able to skip meals and what causes many of us to experience wild blood sugar swings when trying to quit. In fact, many of the symptoms of withdrawal - like an inability to concentrate - are due to nicotine no longer feeding us while we continue to skip meals.

Try this one then....http://www.livestrong.com/article/192268-the-effects-of-nicotine-on-the-cardiovascular-system/

It might explain why a relative had to have his legs amputated due to smoking, and another relative who brought the wrath of a gynaecologist down on her when her baby was born small for dates because a quarter of her uterus blood supply was severely compromised.

It was shown many years ago that nicotine is as addictive as heroin

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all

I personally have great sympathy with people trying to give up. E-cigs are less harmful as they contain about 90% less carcinogens that have been found in ordinary fags but should not be advertised at all for the reasons that the OP said.

Smoking related diseases cost the NHS billions and in the 70s 80s and 90s there was a massive drive in junior and secondary schools to deter smoking. However, judging by the smoking habits of the Poles and spaniards that I know, this education did not extend much beyond these shores, and our efforts may be wiped out in the NHS.

What we don't have, and I agree with Artful for this reason, is the long-term effect of vaping. Smoking as a habit has a psychological component as well as pharmacological. Does it introduce a behaviour, particularly in the young, that can morph into cigarette smoking later in life?

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK, can I make it clear - tobacco, burned and

> inhaled, is lethal (i.e. cigarettes and rolling

> tobacco).

>

> Nicotine on its own is not lethal. And if it is

> ingested in ways other than inhaled is far less

> addictive.


So, are you a vape user ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...