That doesn't mean that vaping is harmfree.
But your Wikipedia link tends to say that nicotine (other than being addictive) is mostly not harmful.
Here's a question that I don't see answered in this page though: I'm a non-smoker and asthma patient (was diagnosed at age 7, the cause is most likely second-hand smoke from my father), so I always stay clear of smokers and don't let anyone smoke indoors while I'm around. What is a reasonable policy to assume wrt vaping? Do we have any evidence regarding second-hand vaping? I'm not particularly worried about getting addicted that way, but about whether the smoke from an e-cigarette can be harmful to me as an asthma patient (or to others).
(And while we're at it: What about Marlboro's Iqos? I stood next to someone using one of these a few weeks ago and the reduction in second-hand smoke and stench is remarkable.)
The biggest issue with smoking is particulate getting into the lungs. Firemen who spend their whole careers breathing non-tobacco smoke have rates of heart disease and cancer similar to regular cigarette smokers.
This of course regards only nicotine, and not all the other chemicals associated with any kind of smoking/vaping.
If people need to sleep well at night (and many don't care), this reasoning is duplicitous. It'd be better to build a service that helps with smoking/nicotine cessation.
There's always going to be Other things. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call-out bad things, and try to fix them.
Alternatively, prioritizing the needs of the already-addicted vs. keeping a new generation off the product entirely is "short sighted". Statistically, let's be honest: you guys are a lost cause.
The tobacco industry was able to hold off the "definitive proof" - which they were entirely aware of internally - for decades.
It seems quite likely that inhaling vaporized chemicals multiple times a day will have some health impacts. As with tobacco, the evidence will take a long while to accumulate, and the industry is likely to obfuscate as long as possible.
Frankly, letting a company aggressively market a highly addictive compound to an impressionable segment of society because of a single-use excuse ("it can be used as medication!") is a bit disappointing. It also reads as astroturfing because it's such a limp talking point.
Sure, why not. Germany for example put a heavy tax on alcopops because they were too popular with teenagers (despite teenagers not being allowed to buy them), which largely drove alcopops from the market 
Because alcohol use is much more socially accepted than nicotine use.
More likely there are two factors at play:
1. The alcohol industry is a massive source of tax revenues (unlike guns or tobacco).
2. Educated voters across the spectrum enjoy alcohol but have largely left smoking behind ("people that matter").
Everything about regulating vices falls down when it comes to alcohol. Every indictment of guns or tobacco (dangerous, unhealthy, societal harm) is amplified for alcohol...yet it gets a pass while other vices are condemned.
Inexact. A lot of young women prefer those to beer and are getting hooked on alcohol through them. Much to their detriment. (Alcohol consumption causes cancer, especially breast cancer in women.)
No, they don't, and we do ban advertising those drinks directly to children.
I don't know what more the industry can realistically do. The sales of their products is already limited to adults, and I don't know why advertising flavorings is supposed to be about targeting children (why would adults not like strawberry flavoring?) so unless there is an epidemic of B&M or online stores that keep selling to minors, they're already doing what they can.
Maybe I'm missing something, but as an outsider, the FDA seems dead set on killing your vaping industry by all means necessary.
personal observation, not data, but I don't think this is so. I work on a university campus, and the proportion of people on campus that smoke has cratered this decade. The only reliable smoking populations are foreign students, and they seem to taper off over their undergrad years, which I can ascribe only to peer pressure against smelling horrible -- and maybe easy access to "study aids" like adderall.
edit: i should add that juul use has jumped just this year alone, and with less focused of a user group.
I tend to think indoor smoking bans had something to do with the decline, but I don't know the timeline for anywhere except my state.
It's fairer to say that an age cohort basically just stopped consuming nicotine at all, and that a new, younger generation has picked up again but switched delivery methods.
I wouldn't mind if they just went out of business and did something useful instead.
Want to ban vaping? Ban goddamned cigarettes too, then, if you want to be anywhere close to consistent.
Regulate the market like cigarettes are, but damn, why outright ban it?
Well that's bad faith if I've ever seen it. Not every industry out there has to be "useful", some are there for convenience. One could also argue that allowing people to switch from vaping to smoking is a huge plus in risk reduction and potentially (for now, with the data we have, more than likely) health.
That's not bad faith, that's arguing over semantics. You two clearly have different definitions of "useful".
Stop selling poison.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but as an outsider, the FDA seems dead set on killing your vaping industry by all means necessary.
Well, yeah. The FDA Mission, which is defined by statute:
"The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
FDA is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.
FDA also plays a significant role in the Nation's counterterrorism capability. FDA fulfills this responsibility by ensuring the security of the food supply and by fostering development of medical products to respond to deliberate and naturally emerging public health threats."
Then what's the alternative for smokers that want to stop, then? These highly ineffective smoking cessation patches/gums they already had? If you want to be anywhere near consistent, cigarettes should be banned as well, as all the damn data points to vaping being far less dangerous that smoking.
Wouldn't a less short-sighted alternative be to just damn regulate the market properly?
Tobacco companies don’t have a right to exist.
Treating it as a medical issue would be one way to regulate the market, then. Outright banning them but keeping cigarettes is just a plain double standards.
California tried and the next thing you know literally EVERYTHING is marked as a potential cancer causing agent
You know what causes death?
They're being asked to prove that the device helps adult smokers more-so than it hurts new smokers. The keyword is "more-so", because if these statistics suggest that Juul's uptake in adult users is lower than the FDA's statistics on high school usage, or if Juul can't prove that the vast majority of their users were former smokers rather than new users at any age, or if Juul can't present evidence that vape devices (especially their ultra concentrated 5% nic salt formula) are safe, they're finished. And they'll take the rest of the vape industry down with them.
Up here in Canada, online vape stores are behind age walls, are required to ship with age verification. Quebec shops can't even sell nor advertise online.
It's very difficult to measure these populations and movements, and also difficult to make statements about the magnitude and worth of their effects.
Regardless, the goal is to reduce the ingress of new smokers, and if possible to increase the success rate of those who wish to quit smoking. The FDA can make progress on this by policies that reduce kids picking up vaping and using proven methods to stop them from picking up smoking.
Thing is, these "proven methods" (gums/patches) are extremely ineffective - last time I checked it was something along the lines of 20-something% success rate. Vaping has been also pretty much proven at this point to be way less damaging than smoking at short-to-medium term.
I don't know about studies on effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool, but just the risk reduction alone makes it worth consideration, and would make it pretty damn dangerous and short-sighted to outright ban...
These do little to help the situation of current addicts - and actually make their lives miserable - but do a lot to help those who would have become smokers in the future. If the FDA can prevent people from starting smoking, then even if they do nothing to help people who are currently addicted the problem will eventually be solved. If they ineffectively help people to quit, but in so doing generate new addicts, the problem will persist.
It ought to come down to a data-driven question of quality-adjusted life years and results now vs. results later, but people are bad at shutting up and doing the math. It's easer to imagine the choice between helping one member out of a group of 5 old smokers who just can't seem to give up the habit he picked up in the 70s but might be helped by vaping, and the alternative of an anonymous high school kid who might pick up vaping this school year, eventually pick up smoking and become that old man someday in the 2060s. I'd rather help the kid.
Do you really think people will ever really stop smoking? I picked up smoking as a young adult cause parties and peers. My father is an MD, I fully knew the risks associated with smoking. Reducing the amount of people that want to pick it up through taxes and social stigma, sure, that obviously worked. We'd rather have a bunch of vapers than a bunch of smokers, though. For now, with the data available today, we can safely say it's way, way less impactful on one's health.
> high school kid who might pick up vaping this school year, eventually pick up smoking
The "gateway" argument is far-fetched. The smoking numbers are still going down as of today. How do we even know it's a gateway? The data is just not there to back this up. It's like saying we should ban pot in currently legal states cause they might all gateway to crack.
We've got plenty of data that shows a steady, large decline in number of smokers since the 1970s.
I think perhaps the answer is to make the Juul and similar products less appealing to youth. How? Of course this is a complex topic but less flashy hardware and marketing could be a small start.
Were you taking a "step-down" strategy like with the nicotine gum? Since the gum is carefully regulated and the "juice" isn't, how can you be sure your step-down is actually doing anything? And since the gum is metered out in measured doses, what's to prevent you from just grabbing full-strength juice and falling off the wagon? (Compare with smoking, which means you ostensibly have to go and buy a pack of smokes and a lighter, assuming you followed step 1 in the gum and got rid of your cigarettes and lighter)
So I may be playing devil's advocate here, but isn't this a net improvement over the last few decades? Kids getting hooked on something that's significantly less deadly? It's not ideal, sure, but it's better than a slew of cancer epidemics.
What is the FDA trying to achieve?
The whole point is that these are kids who wouldn't be using nicotine products at all. Smoking rates have declined in the US over the last 40 years, and yet there's been an uptick in youth nicotine usage since the introduction of e-cigarettes.
So when talking about youth usage, no, this is clearly not an improvement, by any measure.
i.e. Why is nicotine so much worse than THC, alcohol, caffeine, guarana, or any number of other stimulants/depressants?
Alcohol and THC are both already restricted to adults. Caffeine is restricted as well, in that many places won't sell caffeine pills to people under 18.
Nobody is talking about preventing kids from buying tomatoes. But when we're talking about concentrated and extracted forms of a stimulant... those are already heavily restricted.
> Nearly 8 of every 100 high school students (7.6%) reported in 2017 that they smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days—a decrease from 15.8% in 2011.
>Nearly 12 of every 100 high school students (11.7%) reported in 2016 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 1.5% in 2011.
While of course e-cigs aren't harmless, there's a pretty clear replacement effect between them and cigarettes. Kids are going to do stupid things anyways, taking away the more enjoyable of the two isn't going to stop that.
Perhaps you can make an argument that, lacking tar and being (purportedly?) less addictive, e-cigs are enough less bad that a net increase in the number of kids consuming nicotine is an acceptable price for halving the number of kids who are smoking cigarettes. That's a more arguable argument, though.
So, no it's not obvious that electronic cigarettes are replacing smoking. The upward trend with electronic cigarettes is a huge public health issue.
A cart has ~2x packs of cigarettes worth of nicotine, yet is regularly sold for ~$15 in my state, which is a 50% or greater savings over traditional cigarettes. I don't entirely understand how this is legal.
The FDA is in an interesting regulatory bind here, too -- I think nicotine is unique in their regulatory scope in that the FDA is concerned with efficacy and safety and tobacco products are known to be unsafe and ineffective therapeutic agents.
"Population-based studies have shown that smoking was associated with approximately 40–50% reduced risk of developing PD. [10, 11] This inverse relationship between smoking and PD was dose-dependent: age-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of PD were 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4, for 1-9, 10-24, 25-44, and 45+ pack-years, relative to never-smokers, as shown in a large prospective cohort study . There is also a temporal relationship between cigarette smoking and PD risk [9, 17]. Individuals with more years of smoking, older age at quitting smoking, and fewer years since quitting smoking had lower PD risk. Researchers prospectively observed a significantly lower risk of PD for smoking as early as 15 to 24 years before symptom onset, but not for smoking 25+ years before onset (n = 143,325) ."
Thr tobacco industry tried this approach, claiming tobacco is an "agricultural product". Congress fixed that by passing a law specifically authorizing the FDA to regulate tobacco, which includes smokeless nicotine products.
Juul is problematic because they have an improved nicotine salt that delivers cigarette-like intensity/dosage. The upside is that it's easier to transition from cigarettes. The downside is that it shares the strong addictive quality of cigarettes.
If there's an epidemic of e-cigarettes, why aren't they doing the same? And I guess I may be ignorant of how the market for these works, but I've never actually seen them in regular shops. Where would I go to buy a Juul? I know there are dedicated vape shops, and also tobacco shops that sell e-cigarettes. Could you run stings there the way many US states run them at stores that sell alcohol?
I'm glad you have the time, knowledge, expertise, and experience to thoroughly investigate the safety and long term affects of every product you use on yourself, second hand effects on others, and the environment. Not everyone is so lucky to be blessed with so much time, energy, and knowledge that they themselves can do what thousands of people so full time.
If you are banning vices that cause societal harm, alcohol is far ahead of anything else. DUI victims, destroyed families, physical abuse, homelessness...alcohol is reliably correlated to all of these but since it brings in lots of tax $$$ and educated voters enjoy their Pinot, we look the other way.
But no, it's got to be the smarmy wine drinkers who read actual physical copies of the New Yorker.
Also, alcohol sales and marketing are heavily regulated, along with tobacco.
They're not "Outright banning", they're threatening to if the industry is unable to stop advertising to or otherwise making it appeal children. This is par-for-course for how regulation works: you don't comply and refuse to become compliant, you can't do business.
They're not just destroying an entire industry without working with said industry to mutually reach their goals.
I think this will change if we can elect more repreesentatives that are more intrested in serving 1-2 terms and writing good law than getting re-elected.
That said, the FDA is really, really far down most people's list of agencies that shouldn't exist. ATF and TSA are generally the agencies that most people would prefer to get rid of.
Your complaint is a classic libertarian whine: you want the stuff you think is important regulated (though in practice you don't recognize how much of it already is), but the stuff on the margin is clearly an infringement on the fundamental rights of "free people".
Sweet can't browse bloomberg with links. Nice.
Please do some research! This is blatantly false. Combustion is not involved in vaping, and boiling is not a chemical reaction!
It's very easy to find peer reviewed medical studies showing vape compounds are considerably healthier than cigarette smoke.
30 sec of googling shows https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10105146 amongst the relevant docs.
Did you just make that up?
Also, there’s no combustion when liquid-based nicotine solution is atomized.
And what is the company to do in the first place? As long as something is available for adults, and teenagers want it, teenagers will find a way to get it.
It's funny how the only regulation that gets treated as a sensible status quo is the limited liability extended to investors in corporations.