政府拟禁电子烟，你赞成不？

jinreung

snaker77 发表于 3-11-2015 11:38 PM
哈哈.....原來你完完全全看不明白...!!

的確是有人完完全全看不明白，但那個肯定不是我。
甚至你發鏈接文章的要點我都放上了呢，意旨無法證明電子菸的有效性。
So，你還想說什麼？

snaker77

jinreung 发表于 4-11-2015 06:56 AM
的確是有人完完全全看不明白，但那個肯定不是我。
甚至你發鏈接文章的要點我都放上了呢，意旨無法證明電 ...

https://hk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/ ... 5%99-230842161.html

如果英文看不明白，我這個華文的自己再看吧，如果你還是不能理解，哈哈......

snaker77

早安健康之前也報導過另一項比較嚴謹的研究，顯示出用電子菸戒菸的成功率是使用尼古丁替代產品如嚼片或貼片的兩倍。這項由倫敦大學學院健康心理學家 Robert West 領導的研究，找來 5,863 位在前一年想要戒菸的人士，有的是用電子菸，有的是用尼古丁替代品，有的則沒有使用任何產品。這分刊登在「成癮」(Addiction) 的研究發現，三個群組戒菸成功的比率，分別是 20%、10.1% 與 15.4%。在調整了包括年齡、性別、社經地位、尼古丁依賴度等變項後，West 發現吸電子菸者比起另外兩組人有 60% 成功戒菸的機率。

snaker77

jinreung 发表于 4-11-2015 06:56 AM
的確是有人完完全全看不明白，但那個肯定不是我。
甚至你發鏈接文章的要點我都放上了呢，意旨無法證明電 ...

在請問第一個的連接最下面的使用者feedback 你是不是漏掉沒看啊，哈哈

阿尼欧

最好是禁止最好！！以前普通烟还没有那么过分，现在电子烟那些白痴连走Shopping都要抽！看电影也抽！完全不在乎旁边的人，抽烟的都是无脑的，只会自己爽，不顾旁人不断地喷【请勿对号入座】

jinreung

snaker77 发表于 4-11-2015 07:29 AM
在請問第一個的連接最下面的使用者feedback 你是不是漏掉沒看啊，哈哈

都說了，第（2）和（3）連接的已經打了（1）的嘴巴。
再說你第（5）連接也是和（2）和（3）的講一樣東西。
3對2都說沒證據證明電子菸有效，你還想說什麼？

snaker77

吸煙容易戒煙難，乃不爭事實。最近意大利有研究報告指，採電子煙戒煙，成功機會或勝過用傳統的尼古丁貼、藥物或輔導

意大利University of Catania的研究人員由2010至2012年，追蹤三百名當地煙民，結果8.7%於十二個月後不再吸食傳統香煙，戒除率由4%只吸不含尼古丁的電子煙，至13%仍要吸高劑量尼古丁的電子煙。另外，英國東倫敦大學曾於三十三個地區、涉及1,347名煙民進行調查，發現改食電子煙後，有74%已不吸傳統煙達數星期，70%則減少吸煙量。換言之，電子煙的替代療法收效。


早安健康之前也報導過另一項比較嚴謹的研究，顯示出用電子菸戒菸的成功率是使用尼古丁替代產品如嚼片或貼片的兩倍。這項由倫敦大學學院健康心理學家 Robert West 領導的研究，找來 5,863 位在前一年想要戒菸的人士，有的是用電子菸，有的是用尼古丁替代品，有的則沒有使用任何產品。這分刊登在「成癮」(Addiction) 的研究發現，三個群組戒菸成功的比率，分別是 20%、10.1% 與 15.4%。在調整了包括年齡、性別、社經地位、尼古丁依賴度等變項後，West 發現吸電子菸者比起另外兩組人有 60% 成功戒菸的機率

WonderWorks April 22, 2015 at 12:05 pm - Reply
I would like to note that I am currently 50 yrs. old and I had smoked since I was 13 yrs. old and I had tried patches, gum, and chantex and none worked. I think chantex would have it I could have kept it down. Anyways I have been a none smoker for 2 years and tobacco free for 1 year and 5 mo. thanks to an E-Cig. I am thankful for them! With any product a person has to want to quit and will with the adage different strokes for different folks. What I did was got the lowest mg of e-juice and combine a 0 mg until I was down to just 0 mg. shortly after I didn’t even use e-cig at all. It took 6 mo. but it worked for me! And I am SO thankful!

kat glanville October 20, 2015 at 9:04 pm - Reply
Hi thank you for your honest account of using e-cigs. I have been using mine for 5 days (tomorrow) and feel really pleased that I have not (yet) had the urge to go and buy a pack of ten cigs like I have done so many times before when attempting to give up smoking. I have smoked cigarettes on and off for 30 years and using the e-cig so far, has been the best alternative compared with patches and nicotine gum (yuk!) I am optimistic that this really is it now and will do as you suggest, wean myself off the higher strength, s l o w l y…

英格蘭公共衛生局（Public Health England）19日發佈的一份獨立專家評估報告顯示，與傳統香菸相比，目前在歐美國家越來越流行的電子菸（electronic cigarettes，e-cigarettes）對健康的危害程度要低95%
與傳統香菸通過燃燒菸葉來吸食不同，電子菸主要是通過霧化含尼古丁的液體供人吸食。世界衛生組織（WHO）此前發布的報告還沒有就電子菸對健康的危害性給出明確結論，只是說需要加強相關管制。

其實報告的結果是怎樣....並不是重點， 只是要你知道並不是只有“我一個人一個個案”


這份新報告是英格蘭公共衛生局委託倫敦大學（King’s College London）國王學院以及瑪麗女王大學（Queen Mary University London）等機構聯合開展的獨立調查。評估報告指出，電子菸不但對健康的危害比傳統香菸低很多，而且越來越多的證據顯示，吸菸人士改吸電子菸後，其戒菸成功率會比一直吸香菸的人的戒菸成功率更高

如果以上的都不能算是戒菸成功的，那麼我看戒菸糖果和口香糖，戒菸貼等等也不應該合法，應該被禁, 反正它們的戒菸報告更是難看....也不能算可以幫助戒菸

在另外跟你說， .....上面的連接後面提到的不能證明電子煙可以幫助戒菸的基礎本來就不是再說，電子煙不能戒菸，他們是在以他們戒完煙後，1年後很多會復發在吸回煙. 所以就說電子煙無效, 如果是那樣，戒菸糖果戒菸貼怎麼沒說無效呢？ 而且反對以上的報告的全部都是美國的，呵呵....為什麼這樣呢....後面的你就自己想吧.

記得一開始我說的
“電子煙可以幫助戒掉尼古丁， 可是戒不戒得到吸煙的習慣就看個人了的意思嗎？

註明一下， 尼古丁帶來的癮性通常只能在人體內1個星期最多不用半年....所以基本上只要不吸取尼古丁一個星期左右就已經是成功戒菸了, 基本還戒不掉的只是習慣不是尼古丁

接下來如果你還是不明白我也不打算在耗時間回复你了， 我真的不想像在教學生那樣，需要一一分解，在一一的給予解釋，我真的沒有這個義務，我只是把我的經歷分享讓大家可以多一步了解電子煙真的可以幫助戒掉煙癮(尼古丁) ， 至於戒不戒掉吸煙， 這就像一開始說的，看個人了

jinreung

snaker77 发表于 5-11-2015 12:02 AM
吸煙容易戒煙難，乃不爭事實。最近意大利有研究報告指，採電子煙戒煙，成功機會或勝過用傳統的尼古丁貼、藥 ...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        我相信你所說的義大利研究，指的是這個：

Electronic Cigarettes as an Aid to Smoking Cessation andTobacco-Use Reduction
Studies of the effectiveness of electroniccigarettes as an aid to smoking cessationdiffer from studies that have an endpoint ofreducing tobacco use. In a study designedto evaluate smoking reduction andabstinence in 300 smokers who did notintend to quit, two different nicotinestrengths of a popular Italian e-cigarette model(Categoria; Arbi Group s.r.l., RivanazzanoTerme, Italy) were compared with anonnicotine e-cigarette. All three groupshad a reduction in the number ofcombustible cigarettes smoked per day, andthere was no consistent difference betweengroups. There were no significant sideeffects (45). The same authors alsopublished a prospective, observationalstudy that found more than a 50% smokingreduction, also in smokers who did notintend to quit. However, 17 of the 40subjects were lost to follow-up at 24months. Despite the 42% drop-out rate, theinvestigators concluded that long-terme-cigarette use is well tolerated and can substantially decrease combustible cigaretteconsumption in smokers not planning toquit (46).
                                                                                                                                                                                        In a controlled trial conducted in NewZealand, 657 smokers were randomized(289 to nicotine e-cigarettes, 295 to nicotinepatches, and 73 to placebo e-cigarettes)and compared with an intention-to-treatanalysis. At 6 months, verified abstinencewas 7.3% (21 of 289) with nicotinee-cigarettes, 5.8% (17 of 295) with patches,and 4.1% (3 of 73) with placebo e-cigarettes.The relative risk of achieving abstinencefor nicotine e-cigarettes was 1.51 comparedwith nicotine patches and 3.16 comparedwith placebo. Achievement of abstinencewas substantially lower than the researchersanticipated for the sample size calculations.Thus, the study was not able to concludesuperiority of nicotine e-cigarettes topatches or placebo, nor did it showsignificant differences in adverse eventsamong the groups (47).
                                        A cross-sectional survey of 1,836current or recently quit adult smokers foundthat 38% had tried an alternative tobaccoproduct, most frequently electroniccigarettes, but the electronic cigaretteswere not associated with successful quit attempts (48). A survey of 3,240individuals, which found never smokersand former smokers had tried theseproducts, concluded with concern thatelectronic cigarettes could increase the risk of nonsmokers developing nicotinedependence and of current smokersmaintaining their dependence (49).
                                        The four-country survey, cited earlier,found nearly three-fourths (70.4%) of thosesampled used electronic nicotine deliverydevices to obtain nicotine in smoke-freespaces, indicating that electronic cigaretteswere being used also to satisfy nicotineaddiction during periods of temporarycigarette smoking abstinence. Currentelectronic cigarette use was associated witha greater reduction in cigarettes per day overtime, compared with those who did not usethem. However, electronic cigarettes userswere not more likely to quit smoking thanthose who did not use them (2).
                                        Other studies have not shown significantbenefit of using electronic nicotine deliverydevices for smoking cessation (50, 51).

                                        Comparative Effect versusCombustible Cigarettes
Current information suggests that for anindividual, use of electronic cigarettes would reduce overall health risk compared withsmoking combustible cigarettes (52).However, for a population, the availabilityof electronic cigarettes may have an overalladverse impact by increasing initiationand reducing cessation of smoking (29).Electronic cigarettes could lead to an increasein nicotine use and dependence and be a gateway to combustible tobacco products.Alternatively, electronic cigarettes could leadto a reduction in combustible cigarette useamong established smokers, potentiallyleading to incremental health benefitsregarding tobacco-related morbidity. Morestudy is needed, with careful tracking ofwhat is happening in populations whereelectronic cigarettes are available.
                                                American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Volume 190 Number 6 | September 15 2014

基本上如果drop off rate高的話，研究的力度（power）也大大減弱。（Power是一個研究術語，可以間接說明該研究的結果是否有偏見「bias」）
而其他研究就對電子菸戒菸不急於正面的看法。
恕我無法把整篇文章放上，若你有興趣可以pm我，我可以把整篇文章轉換成PDF轉寄給你。
                               
                       
               
                               
                       
               


                       
               

jinreung

                                                                                                                                                
在此分享一篇電子菸對青少年的文章。劃上紅字的是文章的要點。

e-Cigarette Use and Subsequent Tobacco Use by AdolescentsNew Evidence About a Potential Risk of e-Cigarettes
Nancy A. Rigotti, MD
Few topics in public health and medicine are as contentiousas electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), novel handheldbattery-operated nicotine-delivery devices that resemble conventional tobacco ciga-rettes and simulate theexperience of smoking acigarette.1-3Unlike cigarettesthat burn tobacco to gener-ate smoke, e-cigarettes heata liquid consisting of nicotine, propylene glycol or glycerin, flavorings, and otherchemicals to create a vapor that is inhaled. Both conventionalcigarettes and e-cigarettes deliver nicotine, the addictiveagent in tobacco, but e-cigarettes do not expose the user tothe many other tobacco smoke constituents responsible forcausing tobacco-related diseases. e-Cigarettes therefore offerthe tantalizing prospect that they could reduce the harms of conventional tobacco use, the leading cause of preventabledeath and disability in the United States and worldwide.4

e-Cigarettes have substantial consumer appeal, generat-ing an estimated $2.2 billion in revenue in the United Statesin 2014.5Their use by adults and adolescents in the UnitedStates has increased substantially.6,7 Their novel design andconsumer appeal make e-cigarettes a “disruptive technology,”3and their potential benefits and harms are substantial and hotlydebated.1,2Meanwhile, the characteristics of these productsare evolving; newer generations deliver more nicotine and re-semble cigarettes less.8Thus, e-cigarettes raise many ques-tions for which there are few answers. The evidence base is lim-ited because e-cigarettes entered the marketplace withoutbeing regulated as either drugs or devices.

The primary potential benefit of e-cigarettes is to reducethe prevalence of tobacco use by helping current smokers toquit or to switch completely and permanently from combus-tible tobacco to e-cigarette use. Dual use involving substitut-ing some conventional cigarettes with e-cigarettes would pro-vide far less benefit. However, any benefit of e-cigarettes wouldbe offset to the extent that these products are harmful.

The 3 principal public health concerns about e-cigarettesare their potential to renormalize cigarette use ifthey are per-mitted in venues where cigarettes are banned; their potentialappeal to nonsmokers, especially to children and adoles-cents; and their possible health risks as a result of users’ ex-posure to e-cigarette constituents, such as flavorings or pro-pylene glycol, or to e-cigarette contaminants.9

               
e-Cigarettes could increase tobacco use initiation rates ifyouths who would not have otherwise tried conventional cigarettes try e-cigarettes, become addicted to nicotine, and tran-sition to using combustible tobacco products. Adolescents maybe especially susceptible to develop nicotine addiction aftere-cigarette exposure because their brains are still developingand are particularly sensitive to nicotine.4 There is universalagreement that this is not a good outcome, and there is con-cern that it could occur because e-cigarettes are marketed inways that appeal to youth.8

Whether adolescents’ use of e-cigarettes predisposes themto initiate conventional tobacco use is a critical question forassessing the net public health effect of e-cigarettes. The ex-isting evidence derives from cross-sectional studies. In a na-tionally representative sample of US middle and high schoolstudents from 2011-2013, ever use of e-cigarettes was associ-ated with conventional tobacco product use and with a mea-sure of susceptibility to start smoking in the future,10consis-tent with an earlier analysis.11In a national survey of US youngadults from 2012-2013, ever use of e-cigarettes was associ-ated with an openness to smoke conventional cigarettes.12Theassociations observed in these studies persisted after statis-tical adjustment for potential confounders, but cross-sectional study designs cannot establish causality or the tem -poral direction of observed relationships.13

A longitudinal study can help untangle the temporality of these relationships. In this issue of JAMA, Leventhal andcolleagues14report findings from such a study. The authors useda repeated-measures prospective observational study design toassess combustible tobacco and e-cigarette use among a di-verse cohort of 2530 ninth graders attending 10 public highschools in Los Angeles, California, from 2013-2014.14 At base-line, all students were nonsmokers (defined has never havingused a combustible tobacco product, including cigarettes,cigars, blunts, and hookah); 222 (8.8%) of them had ever usedan e-cigarette. Nonsmokers with previous exposure toe-cigarettes at initial interview compared with those withoutexposure to e-cigarettes were more likely to report use of a com-bustible tobacco product during the next 6 months (30.7% vs8.1%, respectively) and 12 months (25.2% vs 9.3%, respec-tively). Significant associations also were found for each indi-vidual tobacco product, including cigarettes, cigars, andhookah. The investigators carefully adjusted the analysis formany known sociodemographic, family, environmental, and in-trapersonal factors associated with e-cigarette and combus-tible tobacco use. This adjustment substantially lowered themagnitude of the association between e-cigarettes and subse-quent tobacco use (odds ratio [OR] declined from 4.27 [95% Cl,3.19-5.71] to 2.73 [95% Cl, 2.00-3.73]), suggesting that these factors were important confounders, but the ORs remained statis-tically significant. However, the relationship betweene-cigarette and combustible tobacco product use was bidirec-tional; a history of tobacco smoking at baseline was associatedwith initiation of e-cigarette use during follow-up.

The measures of exposure (e-cigarette use) and outcome(combustible tobacco product use) had limited detail. Becausethe only outcome measure was any use of a tobacco product dur-ing the past 6 months, the analysis could not distinguish stu-dents who had just tried a few cigarettes from those who pro-gressed to regular smoking during follow-up. The latter is thegreater concern, and the current study cannot determinewhether e-cigarette exposure was associated with that outcome.Similarly, the single exposure measure, lifetime e-cigarette use,did not permit the authors to look for a dose-response relation-ship between the degree ofprior e-cigarette use and subsequentsmoking, which could have strengthened a causal inference.

This study is the first prospective report associating adoles-cents’ use ofe-cigarettes with subsequent uptake ofcombustibletobacco products. The authors are appropriately cautious in in-terpreting their findings, acknowledging the limitations of obser-vational studies for inferring causation, and calling for additionalprospective studies to confirm their findings. Atleast 1large na-tionally representative US study, the Population Assessment ofTobacco and Health, is already under way.15Nevertheless, the re-port by Leventhal and colleagues14is the strongest evidence todate that e-cigarettes might pose a health hazard by encouragingadolescents to start smoking conventional tobacco products.

Regardless of whether e-cigarettes are a gateway to to-bacco product initiation, there is no reason for adolescents to use a product for which the hypothesized public health ben-efit is harm reduction for adult smokers. However, there isample evidence that e-cigarettes are marketed in ways that ap-peal to children and adolescents.8 Prompt, effective action isneeded to protect youth and reduce the demand fore-cigarettes by nonsmokers ofall ages. Arational approach isto extend to e-cigarettes the same sales, marketing, and userestrictions that apply to combustible cigarettes.

Actions have already begun. In April 2014, the US Food andDrug Administration (FDA), which has the authority to regulatethe manufacture, marketing, and distribution of conventionalcigarettes, proposed to extend its jurisdiction to e-cigarettes.16The proposed regulations set the age of18 years as the minimumage of sale, require health warnings on e-cigarettes, and openthe door for future product standards. The FDA should moveswiftly to finalize this rule, which to date has not been issuedand is overdue. The agency also should prioritize future regu-latory actions such as banning product flavorings and restrict-ing advertising on television and in youth-targeted publicationsand media. Additional actions to discourage youth uptake ofe-cigarettes are beyond the FDA’s authority. One example is toapply restrictions on cigarette smoking in public places and work-places to e-cigarettes to avoid renormalizing cigarettes. Statesand communities have already started to take these actions.17

In the meantime, to support future actions, researchersmust seek to understand how to balance the benefits and risksof e-cigarettes and thereby to maximize public health and re-duce the enormous toll of tobacco-related disease. The studyby Leventhal and colleagues14 represents an important newcontribution to the much-needed evidence base.


JAMA August 18.2015 Volume 314, Number 7[size=6.000000pt]

jinreung

以下是耍官腔WHO對電子菸的態度：

World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is a treaty developed by the World Health Organization and the WorldHealth Assembly in 2003 to control tobaccouse worldwide (62). The treaty came intoforce in 2005 and is legally binding in the 178 ratifying countries. It is updated regularly, and the Conference of the Parties to the treaty published a report in June 2012 inviting further comment on electronic nicotine delivery systems including electronic cigarettes (60). It concluded that the popularity of electronic nicotine delivery devices was growing rapidly, that health and safety concern shave not been resolved, and that more research must be conducted, especially with regard to the safety of these devices and the marketing claims made by themanufacturers. Additional concerns were that electronic cigarettes resemble combustible cigarettes and could undermine thedenormalization of tobacco use that is an important tenet of tobacco control.

A guiding principle for implementationof the Framework Convention is to useeducation, communication, training, and public awareness “to change social,environmental and cultural norms andperceptions regarding the acceptability ofthe consumption of tobacco products,exposure to tobacco smoke...” (62). The producers of electronic cigaretteshave spent large sums in advertising toportray “vaping” as a socially acceptable and desirable activity. A ban of electronic nicotine delivery devices could turn back this advertising movement, which aims to change the social norms to favorconsumption of these “tobacco-like”products.

If electronic nicotine delivery devices are regarded as imitation tobacco products and banned, then all electronic nicotine delivery devices would be covered, regardless of whether or not they contain nicotine or tobacco extracts. The Framework already has provisions, such as Article 5.2(b), which requires parties to the treaty to “adopt and implement effective . . . measures . . . for preventing and reducing . . . nicotine addiction” (62).

This article could potentially mandate a ban on electronic nicotine delivery devices that contribute to maintaining addiction to nicotine. Furthermore, under Article 13.2, parties to the treaty have an obligation to undertake a comprehensive ban of all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. Therefore, parties to the treaty may also consider whether the sale, advertising, and even the use of electronic cigarettes could be considered as promoting tobacco use, either directly orindirectly. Regardless of whether or not electronic nicotine delivery devices contain nicotine or tobacco extracts, they are used to mimic smoking, which could be considered as a (direct or indirect) promotion of tobacco use. Article 16.1(c)could also be relevant because it requiresparties to prohibit “the manufacture and sale of . . . any other objects in the form of tobacco products which appeal tominors” (62).

Additionally, the use of electronic nicotine delivery devices could be conceivedas counter to Article 8 (Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke), which protects individuals in public places, because electronic cigarettes produce emissions that can be regarded as second-hand smoke.

If electronic nicotine delivery devices are not banned, the strategy of the Framework could be to regulate them as both a tobacco and a medical product and close loopholes in their regulation. If electronic cigarettes are marketed with therapeutic or health claims, they should be regulated as medical products and be subject to the Framework’s relevant regulations, most notably the requirement to provide data substantiating those claims to obtain market authorization. If the Framework parties decided to categorize and regulate electronic nicotine delivery devices as tobacco products, all provisions of the tobacco part of the Framework would apply.

FIRS Positions on ElectronicNicotine Delivery Devices
The FIRS has the following positions and concerns on electronic nicotine delivery devices:

• There is concern that the use of electronic cigarettes is growing rapidly, especially among young people and women. Their acceptance may be attributed in part to the perception created by marketing and the popular press that they are safe.
• The health risk of electronic cigarettes has not been adequately studied.
• The addictive power of nicotine andits untoward effects should not be underestimated.
• The potential benefits of electronic nicotine delivery devices, including harm reduction and enhancing smoking cessation, have not been adequately studied.
• Potential benefits to an individual smoker should be weighed against harm to the population of increased social acceptability of smoking and use ofnicotine.
• Health and safety claims regarding electronic nicotine delivery devices should be subject to evidentiary review.
• Adverse health effects for third parties exposed to the emissions of electronic cigarettes cannot be excluded.
• Parties to World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control should consider whether allowing use of electronic cigarettes is consistent with the requirements of the treaty.
• Electronic nicotine delivery devices should be restricted or banned, at least until more information about their safetyis available.
• In the absence of a ban, we recommend that devices that deliver nicotine be regulated as medicines. This includes the prohibition of their promotion for tobacco-use cessation and other health effects until there is strong evidence that establishes their benefits and lack of harm as is required by regulatory agencies for approval of other medicines.
• If electronic nicotine delivery devices are not regulated as medicines, they should be regulated as tobacco products. This includes: (1) a ban on all advertising, promotion and sponsorship;(2) prohibition of displays in retail stores;(3) prohibition of sale to minors; (4)regulation of internet sales; (5) taxation at rates similar to combustible cigarettes;(6) prohibition of sales and refills with flavors that will appeal to children;(7) requirement that packaging andlabeling include a list of all ingredientsand the quantity of nicotine; (8)placement of appropriate warninglabels, the same as is required for tobacco products; and (9) prohibition of theiruse in public places, workplaces, and on public transportation.
• In the absence of a ban, manufacturers of electronic cigarettes should adhere to established consumer safety practices that list ingredients and produce consistent products with uniform concentrations and defined maximum doses of nicotine. They must safeguard against inadvertent poisonings, whichincludes child-proofing containers and other protections.
• Research supported by sources other than the tobacco or electronic cigarette industry should be performed to determine the impact of electronic nicotine delivery devices on health in a wide variety of settings.
• The use and population effects of electronic nicotine delivery devices should be monitored.
• All information derived from this research should be conveyed to thepublic in a clear manner.
  

同樣的，上顏色的是要點。

lkfight

如果有害就不要禁，没害就要禁

CathrinaD

香煙合法了幾十年都不見你們說要禁，電子煙一來就有一堆人說十分討厭等等難聽的話；香煙噴煙沒那麼大量，卻臭得身邊的人受不了，而且二手煙絕對有害無益，電子煙煙霧看起來大只不過是水蒸氣而已，針對電子煙的人何不也針對香煙？
電子煙煙油成份乃植物油如同按摩精油成份，就有人說有很多化學劑，香煙中也有百種化學成分又不見有人說要禁？諷刺。
什麼產品都會給有心人事錯誤利用，就像電子煙被害群之馬利用來做大麻！有本事你就先打擊毒品市場，憑什麼因為一小部分壞人就攻擊電子煙？
電子煙會爆炸是因為被用得過度，watt數開過量導致，就有人說電子煙會爆炸，那請問大家一句，智能手機也會爆炸，什麼電子產品都會爆炸，又不見你們說要禁？有本事全部電子產品都不要用！
政府說禁電子煙用意何在，司馬超之心，路人皆知。又不見他們說要禁香煙，有本事就全部一起禁，我服！到時看看你們收什麼稅，賺什麼？
我沒說電子煙很好，但至少是給那些想要戒菸的人一個過渡的時間。不要跟我說電子煙不能戒菸，而是你根本不想戒菸。親身經歷了親人想戒菸卻痛苦萬分因為心癮難耐，後來靠著電子煙不再吸煙，電子煙抽量也可以逐步在減少中！沒有人可以說不抽就不抽煙，那是需要時間去改變的，電子煙正好給一心要戒菸的人一個過渡。
還有，胡亂給負評的人，先徹底了解了電子煙，你才有資格，不要麻木評論，任何事情都需要被公平對待！

盡用話題

你禁不禁它也是迟早难做的、最近玩电子烟的人少了很多、不知是不是真的戒烟成功了…还是嫌麻烦、烟油也不便宜