Any time I see discussions or articles about vaping or e-cig being dangerous, I automatically assume it is funded by a part of the tobacco industry that has not invested in vaping. There is no logical reason otherwise. The vape juice quality can and should be addressed by the FDA and consumer reviews. By all means, educate people on risks, but every attempt to keep people on cigarettes needs to be nullified.
Fighting all use of e-cigs throws the baby out with the bath water. That's my frustration with all the anti vape campaigns you tend to see.
It's like advocating against teen education of condoms because not having sex as a teen is possibly healthier.
The war on cigarettes has gone on so long that we've lost perspective. Part of the strategy of that war was to make nicotine out to be some horrendous and horrendously addictive poison, which was an easier sell for some people than explaining the varied and complicated effects from smoking combustible tobacco.
Kids shouldn't be using nicotine because of their developing brains. Kids experimenting with vaping out of ignorance should be educated.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that cigarette smoking is unfathomably more harmful for society. From an epidemiological perspective, if this was a zero-sum game it would make perfect sense to trade vaping for cigarettes, even if that meant teens were vaping at the same rate as they were smoking cigarettes at the peak.
If people want to obsess over flavored poisons, we should start by banning wine coolers (if not all wine!), alcoholic cider, and the myriad brands of flavored hard liquor.
2) Adults like flavors too. We shouldn't ban anything appealing that kids shouldn't have just because it might appeal to kids.
“The whole problem with nicotine is that it happens to be
found in cigarettes,” she told me. “People can’t
disassociate the two in their mind, nicotine and smoking.
It’s not the general public that annoys me, it’s the
scientists. When I tell them about the studies, they should
say, ‘Wow.’ But they say, ‘Oh well, that might be true, but
I don’t see the point.’ It’s not even ignorance. It’s their
preconceived ideas and inflexibility.”
“To my knowledge, nicotine is the most reliable cognitive
enhancer that we currently have, bizarrely,” said Jennifer
Rusted, professor of experimental psychology at Sussex
University in Britain when we spoke. “The cognitive
enhancing effects of nicotine in a normal population are
more robust than you get with any other agent. With
Provigil, for instance, the evidence for cognitive benefits
is nowhere near as strong as it is for nicotine.”
I've never smoked (though I tried and failed to be pick up vaping 10 years ago), but I think it should be abundantly clear that for centuries many smokers have been effectively self-medicating, either to blunt some mental disorder (Schizophrenia, etc) or for what today we might call a cognitive enhancer. It's just that the addictiveness of smoking has masked that phenomenon. Vaping is unmasking it because nicotine alone is not nearly as addictive as smoking. (Seems unclear if vaping is as non-addictive as, e.g, nicotine patches or gum. Probably not, but we'll see.)
Ex-smokers still want to smoke, vaping is just barely decent enough to switch if you want to.
I used to chew nicotine gum to enhance my concentration but after reading research that nicotine by itself causes lung cancer I stopped.
research that nicotine by itself causes lung cancer
As for vaping itself causing cancer, I would be interested in seeing the studies and who is funding them. Applying any heated material to your tissue can increase the probability of cancer, just about as much as walking in the sun for a short period of time. This is still substantially lower risk that sucking tar/smoke that is radio-active, which all cigarettes are.
If someone outlaws vaping, I will help my son avoid said laws until such a time that people snap out of it.
In the 19-29 year old demographic, e-cig vaping is cannibalizing cigarette smoking. That's a net public health gain, since e-cigs have dramatically fewer carcinogens.
Is it as bad as coca cola? If so it should probably be discouraged.
Americans clearly eat way too much Sugar or Sugar like substances. Even if best case HFCS is ruled as healthy as Sugar, it should still be drastically cut back / avoided.
That's a mere 5% difference, plus the fact that the gut doesn't need to cleave the fructose from the glucose using sucrase. But AFAIU the cleaving happens readily and rapidly.
It wouldn't be shocking if HFCS was consequentially different, but it seems unlikely. HFCS just seems like a misleading distraction outside arguments about agricultural politics. Worse than a distraction, actually, because relying on flimsy and unnecessary arguments makes it easier for those defending the arguably excessive use of sugar in the food supply to inject FUD into the debate.
To my knowledge addiction to nicotine poses no known health risk. Its interesting that the anti-smoking movement that was motivated by the public health risk associated with smoking has gradually turned into a puritanical drive to eliminate addiction.
It seems to me that identifying less harmful alternatives to smoking (ecigs) is a more realistic path to smoking cessation than saying it's all bad.
That page has tons more detail. The first footnote is a report commissioned by Public Health England, the British equivalent of the US FDA.
Here's a joint statement by 13 of the most influential - and most neutral - UK public health organizations, including the Royal College of Physicians (US equivalent: American Medical Association) and the British Lung Foundation (US equiv: American Lung Association): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
These aren't obviously biased studies or people and they aren't easy to dismiss.
Whether the health difference is 20x ("at least 95% healthier"), 10x, or 50x, there's now a nicotine delivery method - vaping - that, while far from healthy, almost everyone agrees is far healthier than traditional smoking. The difference may be large enough to justify removing paper cigarettes from the retail market entirely.
The report is published by, and commissioned by, Public Health England.
PHE is an executive branch of the Department for Health and Social Care. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-en...
Do you want to be dependent upon this particular chemical? Do you want to permanently change your brain? (I highly recommend against)
Also, the heavy metals in vape liquid and the spiking addiction rates in teenagers and children beg to differ with their conclusions.
Where did you see anything about them being psychologists? Closest I could find was a handful of authors being associated with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience - neuroscientists and psychiatrists are very far from being psychologists...
> Also, the heavy metals in vape liquid
Very curious about your sources about the "heavy metals" in e-juice.
> the spiking addiction rates in teenagers and children beg to differ with their conclusions.
Addiction is caused nicotine, which hasn't been found to be particularly harmful by itself. Addiction rates speak nothing about harmfulness.
You're making a whole lot of unexplained claims here.