Many people have a knee-jerk reaction to "chemical dependency"... they assume it must be a bad thing. That somehow sobriety is the "natural" state of human beings, and that any dependence on a mind-altering chemical is a weakness, a deviation.
You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". People treat the former as if it were equivalent to the latter, but it isn't: "addiction" is when the harms of a dependency outweigh the benefits, when it becomes "maladaptive" (a vague, value-laden term). But a dependency by itself isn't necessarily maladaptive. Sometimes it's a positive adaptation.
Consider this, one of my favorite essays, about a woman whose relationship with Nicotine appears to have enriched her life:
There are certainly chemicals that cause far more harm than good... there's no denying that. I'm not saying we should embrace Fentanyl. But it would be a mistake to treat every chemical dependency as an obvious evil. The moral valence of Nicotine dependency is far from black-and-white. Sometimes we depend on something because it's good for us. (Notice how nobody's complaining about a coffee epidemic.)
It's also about children. Most parents won't allow young kids to drink coffee, for instance. Childhood ought to be a preparation for freedom and addictions have the potential to limit that freedom before it even gets started.
Adults may weigh the benefits for themselves. Sometimes the result is indeed positive.
I also appreciate that you brought up the issue of freedom. Dependencies do require freedom to be sacrificed, and perhaps that partially explains the aversion to them. When we need something, we give it power over us.
Yet a life without dependencies would be a life without friends and family, a life without valued people, places, and things. We give up total freedom for the benefit of forging deep and meaningful connections. And these connections are, in important ways, like any other dependency: when you lose someone you love, you go through a powerful kind of psychological withdrawal. But a life without love would be an impoverished existence.
I think it would be useful if we, as a society, stepped back and considered the nature of dependency, how our dependencies can hurt us and help us, and why certain kinds are valued over others.
But it's not like panicking over the sugar is coherent either; you see the same people praising fruit juice.
However! Nicotine itself is specifically not a good drug. In the vast majority of people, myself included, it induces cravings that quickly upgrade your brain's ACh receptors to the point where you no longer experience the enjoyable drug effects, and you're only left with a habit. Technology promises to limit the harm of that habit, which is terrific. But the habit doesn't provide any benefit to the vast majority of people, and technology hasn't made any progress on that front.
And could you not say similar things about caffeine and caffeine dependence?
I'm sorry to say, but that statement is incorrect. Even the gwern.net link has a section titled "Health Issues". I'll add that it is an immunosuppressant, which Gwern does not appear to mention (or I missed it when skimming the link).
But to paint this as a moral issue -- and do things like compare it to caffiene -- seems like rhetorical trickery and which results in diverting the discussion.
science and public health are topics that companies like jl, etc., would very much like us all to avoid engaging in, so i am not surprised (though i am saddened) to see the parent post so highly voted.
I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have any issue teasing apart the two concepts. We do not have qualms with someone who is dependent on an insulin pump, tetanus shots, or HIV medication.
These days most fair people also wouldn't have issues with someone being dependent on marijuana, for example.
So I think the concepts are quite clear in people's minds.
When talking about an epidemic of vaping, people aren't worried about dependency. We're worried about addiction.
Is it, strictly speaking, possible for someone to have a healthy, beneficial relationship with nicotine? Sure. But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.
The reality is that human history is filled with death and misery caused directly by substance abuse. And we can see that history reflected in our public consciousness and policies.
And I believe that is rightfully so. I'm happy to agree with you in theory, that we should take a measured approach to substances to view their objective benefits. But reality makes that metered approach difficult.
Because the reality is that we have no real treatments for addiction. Which means we live in a world where a large percentage of people are addicted to substances they probably wouldn't want to be on if given the choice. And of those people, most will have degraded quality of life, some will commit violence against others, and some will die.
So in this world we live in today, I can't fault people for having prejudice against addictive substances. And in many ways I view that prejudice as helpful.
I certainly don't agree with the way we've waged war on drugs (at least in America). But I don't disagree with the reasons, and I don't view a prejudice against addictive substances as "knee-jerk" but rather a well informed policy birthed from a long human history of pain and suffering at the hands of these chemicals.
(P.S. Re: the war on drugs; the crux of the issue is that we demonized not only the chemicals but also the victims of the chemicals. It is the former that I have no qualms with. It is the latter that has lead the war to perhaps cause more harm in itself than the chemicals ever did. But I'm really not trying to incite a discussion on those topics.)
If something's good for you, you're per definition not addicted to it. That was the main point of the post you responded to.
I know people who can enjoy the occasional cigarette. Are they addicted in your opinion? Nicotine is also used extensively by people to self-medicate emotions. Are they all addicts? Would they all be better off if they didn't smoke? Some would, some wouldn't. Who are you to tell?
My dependency on chemicals never really went away, but I found a better way to feed it: exercise. Working out gave me that little boost of whatever it is, je ne sais quois, that made me feel more confident, more comfortable in my own skin. It wasn't the same at first (and at this point, I'll never know if I'm back to "baseline"), but for me at this time in my life, it's enough.
It's funny because objectively, life is so much better post-smoking. You don't smell, you don't have mandatory breaks, airplane rides aren't hell, family and friends don't complain, etc etc etc. And yet, while I don't miss smoking, I can distinctly remember all that trouble being worth it at the time.
As for dose, I measure 1tsp (measuring, not table) per cup. I have one or two cups per day. But I drink it more western style than most would.
I’m trying to wean off my one and only cup of coffee first thing in the morning. Coffee makes me jittery and gives me reflux. Tea makes me alert but calm in the most pleasant and bizarre way, and doesn’t cause me reflux.
Usually when I notice that my caffeine intake is going up, it's because I'm not sleeping enough for whatever reason, including staying up late to play video games.
Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off. Most of those teen smokers who took up vaping instead of cigarettes will likely never become cigarette smokers. This alters the math on the annuity payments that were already cashed in for up-front money, and thus the states could end up in the red on their bond payments. Thus they have a financial incentive to keep e-cigarettes from fully replacing combustible cigarettes, even if they are a definite harm reduction tool.
Yes. E-cigarette usage wasn't an epidemic until usage “took off”.
That's just the definition of “epidemic”; everything else you try to associate is irrelevant.
The dictionary definition is: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
"Infectious disease" being the key. If we limit the definition to "took off" then any new and popular software becomes an epidemic.
It's naive to assume that something like this couldn't possibly be politicized simply because it relates to health. His points absolutely could be relevant to how the Surgeon General chooses to describe the uptick in vaping.
Overall tobacco usage is still going down: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...
I don't believe there was a clawback provision when the states securitized their MSA claims into Tobacco Bonds. These bonds aren't general obligation bonds and therefore cannot tap into the states general fund. That being said, the states would like to avoid the bad publicity of a default, and thus some states have pledged additional tax revenue as a restructuring plan. In short, there is some incentive on the states end but its not as strong as you implied.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The rapid growth of electronic cigarette sales poses a rising but under-appreciated risk to holders of as much as $96 billion of bonds tied to payments tobacco companies make to U.S. states from a sweeping legal settlement in 1998."
It's weird to blame that on the security - ie, the vehicle that enabled the payment of this settlement in the first place - rather than the manipulation and outright fraud that the tobacco companies conducted for years (which is why the suit even existed).
> Nine states — Alaska, California, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and West Virginia — and Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam decided to get as much of those annual payments as fast as they could by mortgaging any future payments as collateral and issuing bonds. They traded their future lifetime income for cash today — at only pennies on the dollar.
> A typical bond is like an interest-only loan with a balloon payment in 30 years. But to avoid having to pay yearly interest payments, these 12 chose to issue capital appreciation bonds, deferring all interest payments and repayment for up to 50 years. Then the entire amount is due — with no plans made as to how it will be repaid. By the time these bonds come due, the legislators who approved them will be retired or dead.
> The 12 issued $22.6 billion in bonds, receiving only $573.2 million in cash. With compounded interest, they will have to repay $67.1 billion. Imagine borrowing $200,000 to buy a house today and your children having to pay back $234 million in 40 or 50 years.
But what different does it make? Whether you're getting the revenues from the indefinite future, or you need to keep the sum over several years at a certain level, you're incentivized to ensure sales don't fall.
And while I don't view nicotine (or vaporized VG, PG) as particularly harmful it probably should be reserved for those 18+. What doesn't seem to be helpful is that vaping comes in all sorts of flavors (beyond synthetic tobacco flavor)that would probably appeal to people minors (mango, cotton-candy, etc). In contrast any flavorings of those types in cigarettes was banned a decade ago (with the notable exception of menthol).
> Currently, no flavors are banned from other tobacco products, although research suggests flavors may also make these products more enticing to youth and young adults. Data from FDA’s Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health found that nearly 80 percent of youth ages 12-17 and nearly 75 percent of young adults ages 18-25 who were current tobacco users in 2014 reported that the first tobacco product they ever used was flavored.25 Alternatively, FDA is aware of self-reported information suggesting that the availability of flavors in some noncombusted tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and other ENDS may help some adult users reduce cigarette use or switch to potentially less harmful products.
Taste means practically nothing. But it sure does sell better to worried mothers.
As a teenager, I used to steal bottles from my parents' liquor cabinet and drink them neat. Needless to say they (with few exceptions) don't taste good this way.
Kids use drugs (partially) because they want to play at being adults. Requiring the e-cig to taste bad isn't going to inhibit that at all. It is going to inconvenience a lot of law-abiding adults who enjoy flavored e-liquid.
Stop trying to ruin my e-cig based on narratives and weak evidence.
Ultimately, there is little in the way of physical dependency; nicotine is as addicting as sugar and fat loaded burgers and fries, and the health risk to the population of those blow any risk from nicotine out of the water. In fact, the evidence probably shows we could promote the use of vaping instead of overeating on junk-food, and should ban minors from entering fast food places.
They are quite different in their mechanism of action. Caffeine works via Adenosine, Nicotine works via Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptors.
Nicotine is one of the most toxic of all poisons and has a rapid onset of action. Apart from local actions, the target organs are the peripheral and central nervous systems. In severe poisoning, there are tremors, prostration, cyanosis, dypnoea, convulsion, progression to collapse and coma. Even death may occur from paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or central respiratory failure with a LD50 in adults of around 30-60 mg of nicotine. In children the LD50 is around 10 mg.
- Eating or drinking inappropriate things,
- Eating or drinking things which are colorful or have a pleasant aroma, and
- Being more sensitive to certain chemicals (e.g. nicotine) than adults.
So if you told me, "Let's put nicotine in a mango-scented liquid and put it in reach of children," I think we should be alarmed. Likewise, when we took iron supplements and put them in the shape of colorful pills or animals with a sweet taste like candy, and then children started eating them and getting iron poisoning, we got concerned.
Going anywhere above 12mg/ml with traditional eliquid production techniques produces a liquid that is very harsh.
So, here are your business requirements: You've got a device that is high resistance. You want high nicotine content because your primary market is ex-cigarette smokers. You can't use traditional eliquid because it would result in a harsh experience, which reduces the probability of cigarette smokers quitting and using your product. So you invent something new.
Or exposure to traffic pollution?
Or reduced freedom to roam?
It would seem that there are many social threats to my children, and vaping is maybe in the top 10? Should it be higher?
If none of them smoke, and they all take up vaping, some of them will be harmed by vaping (because nothing is risk free). Do they get any benefit from vaping? Does that benefit outweigh the risk? How much regulation does a society impose?
There's been a bit too much talk of vaping as totally harm free. Partly that's because we were comparing it to smoking, which is very much worse than vaping. But if non-smokers are taking up vaping we need to have the different discussion about risks and benefits.
Yes, almost certainly. Nicotine is effectively a nootropic, having "significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory". Nicotine has a (afaik) unique mix of stimulating and anxiolytic effects and there's reasonable evidence that it has antipsychotic effects helpful in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia. There's even evidence that nicotine has general neuroprotective properties helpful against brain trauma or neurodegenerative disease. There are many studies highlighting potentially beneficial effects of nicotine, you can find a handful linked here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&f...
That isn't to say that vaping has no dangers or potential downsides, but I think, likely in large part due to how dangerous tobacco smoking is, there's been a dearth of communication to the public of the variety of potential positives of nicotine. For many non-smokers who use nicotine the significant benefits may well outweigh the downsides.
It's a proven fact that nicotine re-wires the brain receptors over time. I smoked for over 25 years. I'm sure my brain receptors were re-wired in that time. When I quit, I went zero nicotine for two years. I was an *hole during that time. I always craved it. I would walk from my car into the supermarket and smelled smoke and wanted it. I would be out with my wife on a date, smell it and want it. I wanted it after a heavy meal and other times. When vaping went mainstream, I got onboard. I use a pen vape that's 1.9 ml of nicotine. I still dip Skoal if I'm doing yard work, more for the oral sensation than anything, but a dip is the rough equivalent of three cigarette's worth of nicotine. I'd like to get off of everything, but the nicotine does have benefits. It largely prevents jet lag, gets me going in the morning before I down my 16oz. French press high-caffeine concoction. It helps me think and get through tough technical problems. For those never addicted to nicotine, please be understanding of those in your life that are long-term users. Scientists now understand that the re-wiring of the brain is somewhat permanent. It's sad that kids are getting on this treadmill. If I'm honest, I wish I never did, but I also enjoy it tremendously after a meal and when coding.
Area wise? Sure.
In regards to population centers?
Air pollution has a known, life long, negative impact. https://nypost.com/2015/05/26/new-yorks-pollution-and-povert...
We don't know what the affects of vaping are, so how can you say that?
Could you elaborate? Why can't one have as healthy a relationship with vaping as with sugar? Are we talking about occasional moderate use, or is it something else?
I don't think that we as a socieity don't have enough energy or mindpower to think about airborn pollution, sugar, smoking and vaping.
Independetly of the risk for the consumer, i'm quite happy that vaping is also banned indoors. Imagine strawberry everywhere brrr
Luckily I quit smoking over 20 years ago and never ever considered trying ecigs. But still like the smell of burning tobacco, which is why since the day I quit I didn't have a single puff, not even to light one for a friend; after all those years I still like it.
I would personally put vaping in the top 10.
They have much to lose because e-cigs are not used for tobacco, in my experience.
So they (tobacco corps) will lose future tobacco addicts to e-cigs and vaping liquid producers.
Tobacco is an industry with high regulatory barriers to entry and decades of very effective marketing behind it. "Big Tobacco" makes money at the wholesale and retail levels pretty much unopposed.
Vaping is effectively unregulated, and there really aren't any truly big players in e-liquid market. Everyone who vapes seems to have their favorites, but even a small vape shop will have a dozen or more brands on the shelves.
Vaping isn't going to kill tobacco use, because as you said, the nicotine ultimately comes from tobacco - but its rise is cutting significantly into the revenue of "Big Tobacco".
-US schools not offering nutritional meals
-Waking up kids so early in the morning it hurts their sleep
-Not having soda and candy machines on school property
-Proper sex education
-Vaccinations and other healthcare for children
I find this very, very difficult to believe.
I think there are even some companies making some with only THC and/or CBD.
If all alcoholic drinks contained 1% mystery liquid, would you rather drink beer or spirits?
If you don't mind me asking (and you sharing): How long did it take to stop smoking? Can you describe the weening process?
Would be interesting to see a model of nicotine satiation.
Speaks to the 'lack-of-unnecessary-chemicals' but unfortunate unintended consequence.
I have been amazed at how some who vape think it is acceptable indoors in public places that other tobacco use is not. At work it had to be reminded more than once it was not acceptable outside of designated areas. It simply is an addiction that is easier to partake of and hide than most.
Also while nicotine is addictive, there is some research showing that it is addictive only in the presence of MAOI's (present in normal cigarettes not but E-cigs).
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted, and maybe you guys are right, E-cigs haven't been shown to "not be harmful in the least bit." But their risk profile is more akin to eating junk food than tobacco, which is on a whole different level (disclosure: I don't smoke E-cigs, but I do smoke tobacco)
* cancer.net? https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and...
* CDC? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Q...
* Harvard? https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-go...
* Stanford? https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/tobaccopreventiontoo...
I think it's pretty far from "harmless".
It sounds like an understudied but potentially very safe mechanism for nicotine delivery. The big issue seams to be poor behaviour from companies like JUUL, and large quaestions around dosing for adolescents.
I honestly couldn’t tell you from those links if I should be more concerned about nicotine, sugar, caffeine, THC, or alcohol.
At this point I suspect that I should be more worried about soda than vaping.
> Chronic nicotine exposure may lead to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, although this risk may be offset by the well-known appetite suppressant effects of nicotine. Inhaled nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure. Nicotine is highly addictive in its own right, and it may lead to changes in the brain that increase the risk of addiction to other drugs, especially in young people. Nicotine may also impair prefrontal brain development in adolescents, leading to attention deficit disorder and poor impulse control. These potential harms of nicotine are particularly worrisome in view of soaring rates of e-cigarette use in U.S. teenagers.
> Using nicotine in adolescence can harm the parts of the brain that control attention, learning, mood, and impulse control.
> Many people incorrectly believe that these devices produce a water vapor when in fact they create aerosols that contain harmful chemicals, and ultra-fine particles that are inhaled into the lungs and out into the environment, making them harmful to the user and others nearby.
I guess you're assuming people aren't going to read the actual links?
Further, this isn't a zero sum game; you can be worried about soda and e-cigs.
It bothers me more than it probably should, your attitude. You're letting this stuff ruin lives all because you want to get high.
There is evidence that individuals with ADHD are more likely to become tobacco users. I would be careful about inferring causality on this point.
Short term advantages don't make up for long term consequences.
Edit: I'm sorry, that was overly snarky. I should be clear, I don't give a shit what adults do to themselves. My sole concern is this normalization of nicotine reaching kids. They're being marketed to very strongly with this "it's safe!" argument, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
And I did read your links. I'm even reading your quotes, and I don't reach your conclusion. The language used here is defensive and deliberately vague: Using X in adolescence can harm the parts of the brain that control attention, learning, mood, and impulse control.
X could be almost any activity and be true. Without quantification it even applies to water and O2 consumption. Its the sort of languages our scientists at work use when they not ready to make assertions and would like more money to do research.
> These potential harms of nicotine are particularly worrisome in view of soaring rates of e-cigarette use in U.S. teenagers
This is an appeal to demonstrate that the research should happen soon, not a statement that harm is happening now. Its a sales trigger not a statement of fact. They would like money now, to do research on a topic that I agree, should get significant funding.
I am worried about soda and e-cigs. I'm not sure I'm not more worried about soda, than e-cigs and that seems contrary to social norms at the moment. e-cigs _might_ trigger addictive personalities, and the _might_ marginally increase blood pressure. Soda will rot your teeth, and it will put pressure on your insulin system and it does cause obesity - all in very short order, especially given my families genetics.
I'm not sure how you get to the statement "ruin lives" from our interaction at all. Quite the opposite.
New things are inherently risky. We drank milk for generations without research. It literally killed children who couldn't digest lactase, but also saw the average height and muscle mass of adults increase dramatically in adults that could. If we'd have had science, would we have banned milk? Would we have delayed people from enjoying milk until we reached scientific consensus? Should we ban milk now that we know that 85% of the global population is still lactose intolerant and that its strongly linked with heart disease?
If I'd been similarly on the fence about milk 10k years ago, would you have accused me of ruining lives then as well?
Getting dosing right has also been an issue. Even opiods have safe, non addictive dosing levels for the vast majority of humans. JUUL Pods sound like everclear being marketed as shandy. That needs to be addressed, not necessarily banned. There is a reason whisky is sold at 40% and its not because thats how it comes out of the barrel. We probably need legistlation that marks JUUL as different similar to how we split liquor from beer.
I'm also concerned that we're very good at figuring out how to make a product addictive. And whilst I'm happy to point fingers at big tobacco as they engineered tobacco plants that cigarettes more addictive, we should also look at nestle, kraft and coke cola. Ever wondered why, even though you probably don't like it, Kraft Macaroni Cheese is so compelling? Or why Skyrim and WoW feel so compelling even though the rewards are so sparse?
If they say e-cigs are unhealthy, I trust them implicitly, even if they sound vague and defensive (Which I'll admit, they do). When these organizations say something, collectively with one voice such as they have, I take their word, because historically, they've been in chorus exclusively in my interest. Over time, if they degrade that trust I will begin to question them, but they haven't yet, and more importantly, you haven't built anything even on the same plane as them, trust and respect wise.
The fact that you think you can contend with them, arguing about their conclusions is, to me, the absolute height of Internet Arrogance. Who are you? Why do you have the facts and the people involved with creating the above linked documents don't? Why do you think your understanding of the situation is superior to theirs? Don't you think they've considered, analyzed, synthesized, and thrown out everything you've just said?
Hell, where do you think you learned this information in the first place, if not from research done by these very people?
You're punching way too far up, and the fact that you don't realize that or don't care shows you're not worth listening to on this topic, or any topic you do the same thing about.
Someone once told me that if you don't have an advanced degree on a topic, to not try and contribute to that field without the backing of someone (hopefully multiple someones) who do have advanced degrees in that field. I suggest you listen to that person.
When we are talking about E-cigs, it's good to keep in mind the alternative, smoking tobacco. Smoking cigarettes is absolutely terrible for your health, something like 2/3s of life-long smokers die of tobacco related issues. I highly doubt E-cigs are even 1/000th are harmful, in terms of long-term outcomes.
OR not sell and advertise to children? It is proven that there is damage to young people so let's admit that the problem exists and find a way to protect the young but let the adults smoke or do whatever they want.
Teens are genetically programmed to engage in risky behavior, it's a very old evolutionary adaptation. I don't think you or anyone else is ever going to be able to change that.
Also, teenagers are easy to influence through ads and eager to mimic cool characters in entertainment and what not. That makes them more likely to be influenced by both advertisement and lack of it.
Teenagers being somewhat more likely to take risk then equivalent single person of older age does not imply that the amount and kind of their risk taking is constant through human history and will not change as adults change their behavior.
1 write all the downsides on the packaging similar as for cigarettes
2 do not allow products that target children, I am referring to products with bright colors and candy aromas etc
I believe that the society can do a difference, it is true that some kids will use drugs, alcohol but those will usually have a problem at home, what we need to stop is having regular kids using e-cigarettes because they think are safe and cool.
the wide range of flavors is one of the main reasons that vaping is an effective smoking cessation tool for me and many other adults. please do not advocate banning flavors.
Advertising to children is real problem. Adults may be equipped to deal with the psychological games advertisers employ, children are most certainly not.
If children must be exposed to advertising, they shouldn't be the target.
so billions of people are consuming a little bit of nicotine all the time. OTOH, wikipedia notes a few adverse effects, especially for children and during pregnancy
I occasionally smoke Nicotiana Rustica, or farmers tobacco; which is plenty stronger than regular tobacco. And it's less addictive, even helps some people to quit because their bodies finally get all the nicotine they've been craving. And not surprisingly it's forbidden to sell it in most countries.
Someone fucked around with regular tobacco, that seems pretty obvious from here. It's basically designed to hook you more effectively and make you sicker by raising the nicotine levels really quick and then dropping them like a stone.
Which I assume is exactly what they're doing with the vaping liquids/salts as well. Profits, returning customers; who gives a shit about the world?
The CDC's website says there's been a 0.6% increase in vaping in middle school and 1.5% increase in high school since 2011. This advisory however says "E-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high school students increased
900% during 2011-2015, before declining for the first time during 2015-2017." Was there a nearly 899% drop in 2015-2017?
> The CDC's website says there's been a 0.6% increase in vaping in middle school and 1.5% increase in high school
No, it doesn't. The 0.6% and 1.5% numbers appear, but as the base incidence in 2011 from which an increase occurred, not the percent increase. Quoting the relevant passage of your own source (emphasis added):
“Nearly 5 of every 100 middle school students (4.9%) reported in 2018 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 0.6% in 2011.”
“Nearly 21 of every 100 high school students (20.8%) reported in 2018 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 1.5% in 2011.”
There is a difference between an “an increase FROM x% IN 2011” and “an increase OF x SINCE 2011”; you seem to have confused the former for the latter.
The middle school increase reported is 717%; the high school increase reported is 1287%. There is nothing obviously inconsistent with aggregate 900% increase 2011-2015 with a slight aggregate decline thereafter.
Not sure if any one else here remembers cigarettes in restaurants, but imagine spelling camels while getting your salad bar refill at Sizzler.
We've come a long way.
If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Is it bad for them? Yeah. Does it have a negative cost against society? Yeah. But its a slight cost that I'm willing to bear to uphold personal liberty and freedom of choice.
Overall, smoking rates are pretty low, and we're probably on the other side of the overall costs smoking writ-large will have on society. So its fine. If people still want to smoke, warn them of the negatives, then let them smoke.
The reason I'm so against more regulation is that the current trend in the war against ecigs is to ban pretty much any good tasting flavors (all but menthol), and I don't like that what entails for our future. I don't even vape, but the idea that the majority will go around banning what they don't like "for the good of the children" is something I refuse to support.
It's not going to stop if it gets started.
Maybe this time it would make sense to start this process sooner?
If you go off caffeine, you're drowsy for a few days, no big deal.
If you go off nicotine, you're condemning yourself to months or years of craving that never fully goes away: the physiological components of nicotine addiction are more or less permanent.
That's just off the top of my head. I wouldn't be surprised if there are detrimental dosage effects of nicotine that caffeine doesn't have.
Once I quit,I felt a bit uncomfortable like a very mild headache(almost background annoyance) for about two weeks and that was all there was to it. Now,I've never been addicted to caffeine even though I drink espresso shots daily for weeks and for a few more weeks might not drink any caffeine,so I have no frame of reference for comparison.
Stress does still cause me to be tempted but it's no worse than being tempted to eat fast food.