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.