This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tchad49 (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 23 July 2020 (→Need to update official statements of scientific and medical organizations: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:33, 23 July 2020 by Tchad49 (talk | contribs) (→Need to update official statements of scientific and medical organizations: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
Error: The code letter ecig for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
On the apparent article slant
It's pretty obvious why the CDCs "vaping" illness has been brought into this article. But you're gonna need a better rationale on not clarifying the distinction between e-cigarettes and THC vaping. And it's not overly becoming of an encyclopedia to assist in conflating the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.13.108 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that the CDC has admitted that the primary cause aren't nicotine products, why is it all of a sudden not documentation-worthy? You can clearly come up with a neat euphemism to sugarcoat the CDCs "new findings" and "research breakthrough" - as if it wasn't clear 3 months / 30 deaths ago.
Germany
What's the thought process behind featuring the 2013 article on cigalikes/ego-class devices? And why cherrypick concerns from halfway in, instead of the actual conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.13.108 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Need to update official statements of scientific and medical organizations
This Misplaced Pages entry is important in the current debate over the precautionary principle, which leads to prohibitions, and tobacco harm reduction, which focuses on safer nicotine alternatives to smoking. As currently written, about half the entries are out of date.
Here is a list of more than two dozen recent official statements (below). This is, however, specifically and intentionally cherry-picked for positive statements on the relative safety of nicotine vaping products ("e-cigarettes") versus traditional cigarettes. The list includes over 27 organizations and governments. Each statement is hyperlinked to the original statement on these organization's web page. I am aware of numerous other official statements from other organizations recommending that e-cigarettes should be banned or severely regulated. Some are included in the current Misplaced Pages list. I hesitate to add any of these statements (below) by editing without permission from the moderators.
Or you may feel free to examine the statements and add those you feel are appropriate: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ty7pgRBxvI1nuJzHWxclzNlu569Hozn6/view
Categories: