
Study: Banning E-Cigarette Sales to Minors Spurs Conventional Smoking - mhb
http://medicine.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=11459
======
revelation
Can someone explain the backlash on e-cigarettes to me? I feel like I'm in the
midst of a tobacco lobby organized press campaign at times.

Here is how my thinking goes: 1) nicotine is essentially another caffeine and
not a public health risk, 2) the cancer from smoking is from the literal act
of _burning_ things, which emits cancerous material and then by inhalation
deposits it in your lungs and finally, 3) e-cigarettes don't emit the same
cancerous materials since they only vaporize a nicotine-liquid, and are hence
safe.

I feel like I can make the conclusion in 3) with just basic understanding of
why cigarettes are bad (and e-cigarettes safe), yet it seems no one in the
press is prepared to make the small logical leap. Am I overestimating my
knowledge here?

~~~
coderdude
The vapor from ecigs reminds me of the "liquid smoke" used in old model trains
to simulate smoke coming from the stack. I'm concerned about the effects of
breathing that stuff in all the time. It's not water vapor as far as I'm
aware.

~~~
Zigurd
It's glycerine. AFAIK that's about as safe as water.

~~~
VLM
Pull a MSDS on glycerine, you will not be happy to discover there are all
manner of problems, enough mist will kill you quite effectively, externally it
kills rabbits at a level corresponding to swimming in it acutely, long term
skin exposure is very unclear. Various governments have differing views on how
much is safe to breathe in a workplace along the lines of ten or so milligrams
per cubic meter which isn't much. I can't get a straight answer on oral
toxicity; drinking somewhere around half a percent body weight kills half the
mice, so if I did the math right in my head, if you are a man sized mouse,
drinking the equivalent of a wine bottle of pure glycerin in one sitting might
lead to very serious medical problems (like death, for example). The long term
effects listed sound scary for kidneys and "reproductive organs".

In the short term it appears fairly hard to get killed by glycerin. Long term
it doesn't sound very good at all. In that way, it reminds me of benzene or
PCBs where in the short term theres zero risk if you can avoid drowning, but
the long term effects are pretty awful.

Its definitely not as safe as water. Of course the "real" problem is likely
whatever else is in the fluid. Who knows whats in there.

~~~
Zancarius
Glycerin, taken orally, has roughly the same LD50 as table salt from the MSDS
I'm looking at (glycerin = 4090 mg/kg LD50 orally for mice versus 4000 mg/kg
for table salt)[1][2], lest we start a panic.

Second-hand smoke is generally accepted as a bad thing, as is wood smoke,
unsurprisingly. I've seen suggestions that wood smoke may be even _worse_
simply on the merit that a great volume of nasty compounds are released, and
the particulate material is substantially smaller (due to the higher
combustion temperatures) and can enter more deeply into the lungs[3]. If it's
a choice between cigarettes and someone sucking down glycerin vapors, I think
I'd be _much_ happier to accept the latter.

[1]
[http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350](http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350)

[2]
[http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593](http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593)

[3]
[http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml](http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml)

------
dantillberg
The study found an increase of "0.9%", yet doesn't give a margin of error (and
the journal article is paywalled[0] for $40), and that sounds like a _really_
small increase, so small that for all we know, the _actual_ (as opposed to
measured) delta was zero or negative.

How can this be useful for public policy debates if the full text is not
publicly available? And how can we find errors in publicized studies if we
can't even read them?

[0]:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615001150)

~~~
kolinko
I think this is the original article, legally, for free:
[http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/afriedman/files/how_do_elec...](http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/afriedman/files/how_do_electronic_cigarettes_affect_adolescent_smoking_circulate_0.pdf)

Protip: google the article's name + pdf, and quite often you'll find the
original on the author's website.

------
thescriptkiddie
> restricting supply of a good increases demand for substitute goods

> reporters don't understand consumer theory

> most headlines can be rephrased in a reductive manner

------
Alupis
Problems with "E-Cigarettes":

1) They are loaded with chemicals known to cause harmful effects

2) It's not "just water vapor" that is exhaled by users

3) Users insist on using them indoors and in close proximity to others (see
#2)

4) The large lobbying effort to make them socially acceptable often straight-
up lies about their effects (again, see #2)

Just about the only "Good" thing about them is the lack of carbon being
inhaled and released into the air (smoke)... otherwise they are just as bad as
plain old cigarettes. What we have done is taken the Tobacco leaf + additives
and removed the Tobacco leaf, leaving only the additives.

The lack of scent in the air doesn't mean the harmful "second-hand" chemicals
are not present... it just means the tell-tale smell of burning paper and
tobacco isn't present, making E-Cigarettes more dangerous to bystanders (no
sensory warning signs to detect).

Regarding the lie that is #2, it if really was "just water vapor" being
exhaled, you would not have inhaled it in the first place (there would be no
effect). The lungs do not 100% process all of the chemicals being inhaled,
which means you are exhaling them into the air just the same.

~~~
RickHull
> They are loaded with chemicals known to cause harmful effects

So are roasted coffee beans.

> It's not "just water vapor" that is exhaled by users

It's less toxic than tobacco smoke.

> Users insist on using them indoors and in close proximity to others

So did cigarette smokers. This tendency is not written in stone.

> The large lobbying effort to make them socially acceptable often straight-up
> lies about their effects

Citation needed. Is this a bigger or smaller problem than how Big Tobacco has
historically operated?

> Just about the only "Good" thing about them is the lack of carbon being
> inhaled and released into the air (smoke)... otherwise they are just as bad
> as plain old cigarettes.

You're completely ignoring the largest benefit -- there is no combustion
occurring. Combustion results in many more (carcinogenic) toxins being
created. Inhaling nicotine vapor is inherently much safer than inhaling
tobacco smoke.

~~~
Alupis
> Inhaling nicotine vapor is inherently much safer than inhaling tobacco smoke

We need to stop kidding ourselves - inhaling any chemical is not "safe", or
good.

E-Cigarettes are on the road to being banned indoors, and possibly other
places as well. It's the same user behavior (and complete disregard for others
around) that led to traditional cigarettes being banned indoors etc.

~~~
drcongo
> inhaling any chemical is not "safe", or good.

Oxygen seems a pretty safe chemical to inhale. Pretty good too.

~~~
tajen
Oxygen at 21% yes. At 22%, it's like alcohol: it burns tissues and at some
point it's ignitable on contact with any fat. The opposite is the risk of
neutrogen, even though it's stable and neutral, is to decrease oxygen
concentration.

