1. I vape and this hasn’t happened to me, therefore I’m an expert on public health policy
2. I vape and because it’s better than cigarettes, it’s safe on those terms alone
3. What the hell is wrong with you idiots, safer than cigarettes is not the same as safe
You’re either irrationally defensive (1, 2) because you feel attacked, or you’re a smug dick (3) that trivializes addiction.
I certainly think we should be sympathetic with addicts and help them where we can. But I don't think that requires accepting the obvious bullshit that addicts come up with in justifying their behavior. And it's not like vaping is the only way to kick a nicotine habit.
High school kids have been able to find weed for decades despite various stringent laws. Many drug dealers are high school kids themselves. I wouldn't be surprised to find kids selling vape oil and cheap chinese vape pens.
This should ultimately be about balancing real alternatives, doing our best to minimize harm, and educating the people who will do it anyway. Although most education attempts have laughably failed like those 90s TV spots by out of touch ad companies paid for by the gov.
People like to argue in some fantasy idealistic world where people will stop engaging in non-violent activity which harms themselves because policy makers say so.
It's also an addiction provided on a for-profit basis. That means strong incentives to create new addicts. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for us as a society to work against that.
1. There is has been a sharp drop in the number of smokers
2. There is has been an even sharper jump in the number of the vapers, especially concerning among youth.
3. The available evidence says that the inherent risks of vaping are an order of magnitude less than smoking.
As a society we're discussing whats the optimal public health policy to reduce vaping and smoking. Unfortunately these are substitutes so as we crack down on the availability of one we increase consumption of the other. And this is why it's important to understand the relative risks of vaping versus smoking. If they're similarly unsafe then it doesn't really matter how hard we crack down on vaping. But if smoking is far more dangerous than vaping(which the evidence points to) then we need to be much more careful about reducing vaping availability.
I don't see anything wrong with the second part of that statement. Of course, the first part comes across as being an pretentious twat, but it's important to remind people who actually believe vapes are perfectly safe and can do no harm.
And you can't buy either at a corner store. Methdone > heroin and vaping > cigarettes but we still should not encourage vaping. It is dangerous and we should treat it as such.
Besides, it's a different issue. It is general knowledge that alcohol has some serious health consequences.
I wouldn't say this to anyone who was previously addicted to cigarettes and switched to vaping as a safer alternative.
I would, however, say (a nicer version of) it to any non-smoker who wants to try vaping. And, I would push back against anyone who vapes and thinks it's safe, lest they create more people in the aforementioned category.
That would not point to "vaping" being specifically dangerous, but a specific dangerous product batch either vaporizer or fluid causing lung disease. It wouldn't be surprising given the loosely/unregulated status of many of these things and the ease of importing supplies from questionable origins.
In medicine and medical jargon, the verb “to cluster” and noun “cluster” have a specialized definition. It’s a loaded term, intended to signal that observations of coincidental medical conditions found close together and at around the same time are presumed to be strongly related in an as yet unknown way.
It’s usually stated in a public health context, when an alert or warning is announced.
Example: A sudden spike in food poisoning at restaurants is noticed by way of shared reporting between hospitals. If there are 10,000 incidents within 48 hours in the entire state of Texas, statistical “clustering” helps shake out the unrelated noise of the usual incidental food poisoning, to locate the unexpected events according to shared qualities. Same restaurant chain, correlated ingredients across chains (all lettuce), associated factories or farms, suppliers, freight shipping company, style of prep work, common equipment (all had same blender or mixer brand), and so on.
It’s a way of problem solving during fluid events as they unfold, in an attempt to get out in front of a problem, as it happens.
The official recommendation from the NHS in the UK is now that vaping is indeed less harmful than cigarettes:
Public Health England's 2015 independent evidence review found that, based on the available evidence, vaping is around 95% less harmful than smoking. The Royal College of Physicians came to a similar conclusion in its 2016 report 'Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction'.
Perhaps we don't have enough data yet, but as a matter of public health policy it is definitely useful to know which is less harmful for you.
I've made a comment similar to that before and I stand by it. Wish I would've known I could get paid to post it!
None of them obviously. But the standards of trust I have in my friends is higher than in strangers.
I'm not certain that there really are paid shills on this particular topic online (I actually somewhat doubt it because it would open the companies up to serious legal issues). But we should always be aware that the interests of strangers may not align with ours.
It’s a dry herb cannabis vaporizer —- oddly, one of the very few that’s a certified medical device. (it’s a storz and bickel crafty)
There’s a vast difference between concentrate/ejuice/distillate vapes and something like a crafty.
It would be nice if the two categories of vapes could be separated more cleanly when discussing health effects because it would separate a lot of the variables.
More than likely, given how this hasn't happened in the rest of the WORLD, they vaped something extremely dodgy that they knew was dodgy.
if you need me to spell this out for you, this has NOTHING to do with vaping and everything to do with dodgy drug dealers.
pro tip, don’t buy carts unless it’s from a dispensary. And even then, flowers nicer :)
S&B makes awesome gear; i just prefer on-demand.
Millions of people use nicotine vaporizers daily with no ill effects.
People were putting synthetic cannabinoids in e-juice over a decade ago, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't still a market for it. I'd also be surprised if the actual chemicals being used haven't evolved to keep up with regulations - at this point they'd probably be dozens of analogues away from what was presented in the original Huffman papers, huh?
I think it's probably a very bad idea to knowingly use that sort of thing, but I guess the underground market might not have very well-regulated labeling standards.
From what I've read about opiate analogues, whatever thc analogues they're using ~15 years after the Huffman paper are far removed from their original state.
I can also confirm there is a tremendous demand for thc carts in non-legal states.
I have medical so thankfully I don't need to mess with the black market at this point. I would _highly_ advise against using any synthetic cannabinoids.
Any specific reasons to say this? Medical knowledge, personal experience or other?
I did have one experience with a synthetic cannabinoid and it was very bad indeed, took me days to recover. FYI. I'd not rule out trying it again but with great care. Though now it's illegal in the UK, so prob won't happen.
AMB-FUBINACA caused a "zombie outbreak" which sent 33 people to the hospital in Brooklyn:
Anecdotally, AM-2201 seems to cause enlarged liver and other health problems with long-term use:
I remember CP-55,940 and WIN-55,212 having serious side effects but I couldn't find information..
They've lead to seizures and have been linked to at least a few deaths.
>Studies have found that these compounds tend to activate the CB1 receptor to a greater degree than does THC, suggesting that synthetic marijuana compounds have the ability to induce far more intense effects than marijuana, according to the review.
>Much of our understanding of cannabinoid tolerance, dependence and withdrawal has been based on studies involving Δ9-THC, a relatively weak partial agonist at CB1 and CB2 receptors. However, the SCBs commonly found in quasi-legal commercial products such as K2 and Spice are typically full cannabinoid receptor agonists. Importantly, a drug's efficacy determines how “powerful” its maximal effects may be in biological systems. A low efficacy cannabinoid like Δ9-THC will have a less pronounced maximal effect than a higher efficacy cannabinoid, such as the SCBs present in commercial products, and this difference in maximal effects cannot be overcome simply by increasing the dose of Δ9-THC. In other words, no amount of Δ9-THC can stimulate cannabinoid receptors to the same degree as the SCBs currently emerging as drugs of abuse. This has left researchers working with these high efficacy SCBs in the unusual position of having to determine whether their effects are related to the unprecedented degree of cannabinoid receptor stimulation elicited by these compounds, or whether they are produced by interactions with other, non-cannabinoid receptor systems.
There's so much shit in these cartridges. They are concentrated, so pesticides used during growth can also be concentrated in the cartridges.
It's completely absurd to me that this stuff isn't more regulated.
The correct way to extract solvents is under vacuum.
Good CO2 extraction uses two passes at different pressures. One to extract the terpenes and one for the cannibinoids.
"The researchers also found the presence in seven products of the solvent dichloromethane, which can cause wheezing and shortness of breath, at levels above food safety limits."
The movement against tobacco hasn't failed, but it is in the trough of its cycle.
It's harm reduction for me and allows me to still perform at a reasonable cardio level in beer leagues. Now my evidence is shotty, but my lungs "feel" better and I have a noticeable improvement in cardio when I haven't touch a cigarette in a few days and have just been vaping. My ability to stay on the ice (I play hockey) is noticeably better. I don't start getting really tired until the third period, whereas with cigarettes I am dead by the second period.
It might be given the issue is apparently with young people. One of the controversial aspects of vaping is it has been sometimes marketed to teens, potentially creating a new generation of nicotine addicts — maybe a dark side to a tool otherwise seen as being beneficial as a safer alternative for smokers.
As an ADHD-diagnosed person, to function properly I need some sort of a stimulant. It's really "choose your adventure" kind of a situation - I need either sugar, ritalin or nicotine, and the less I take of one the more I need of another to function properly.
Keep that in mind when you see someone smoking - unless you're 100% sure that they are neurotypical, you don't know if it's addiction or self-medication.
Then this new nicotine delivery method comes along, smokers try it, and find it an acceptable substitute.
The "they" above is me. I switched a couple years ago and have had nothing but improvement in my health. My stamina is better, my chronic cough went away, and I don't hear that faint whistle when I breath in.
I'm sure if and when I give up nicotine completely, I'll feel better still. But right now I'm taking this partial win.
(For those who can't listen to this right now, it's a short Mitchell and Webb radio sketch that humorously illustrates that it's quite difficult to stop an addiction simply because you know it'd be good for you.)
Better question is whether it's more dangerous than smokes cause people will want their nicotine fix one way or the other
I vape but I simply don't get how bad it is compared to the normal smog and other impure air we breathe. Nicotine aside,what makes vaping risky? Like are there specific chemical substances? When i starter it I assumed it was nictone,water vapor and flavorings which have no known side effects on the lung.
Both of which have a long record of safety as an inhaled vapor. They're the standard ingredients in theatrical fog machines, so have been investigated in detail by occupational health and safety agencies; the worst identified risks are minor respiratory irritation.
>Some flavourings can be seriously bad, look up popcorn lungs.
All reputable manufacturers removed diacetyl from their products years ago, as soon as the risk came to the attention of the industry. Popcorn lung is extremely rare, with only one known case involving non-occupational exposure.
Many things are harmful, but not obvious at low doses. People used to use lead as a sweetener. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate
The current consensus is that vaping is harmful. https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-...
However, it’s not really been around long enough for long term effects to be obvious.
The first link in my comment is a report on precisely that - workplace health and safety for theatrical performers and technicians who spend every day in close proximity to high-volume fog machines.
>The current consensus is that vaping is harmful.
There are undoubtedly some harms associated with vaping (nicotine is associated with a somewhat elevated risk of cardiovascular disease), but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it is vastly safer than smoking, which is the most pertinent point of comparison.
I haven't thoroughly reviewed the references in your linked article, but one issue leaps out at first glance. The article states "E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds", which is a substantial misrepresentation of the facts. Acrolein is used in some niche applications as an aquatic herbicide, but it is a naturally-occuring byproduct of the thermal decomposition of glycerol and is found in most fried foods. The acrolein content of e-cigarette vapour is far lower than cigarette smoke, and can be reduced to negligible levels through the use of a temperature-controlled vaping device.
So, your link demonstrates harm from these smoke machines and recommends limited exposure mentioning a range of respiratory issues. The only thing they say is not linked is Asthmatic symptoms.
Occupational hazards (chronic exposure) might be expected to show something if it had serious long term effects.
> However, it’s not really been around long enough for long term effects
Long term effects often have early outliers (the tail of the graph leading up to a long term problem) - we would likely be seeing something measurable already if there were a very serious problem.
And for many users, it's a very good bet that vaping is safer than long term smoking.
And if there are extra vapers, but fewer smokers, then it seems probable everyone is way better off. Weigh a small unknown risk against a large known risk.
Out of interest: do vapers show the same physical signs of damage as smokers?
Someone who smokes significantly for say two years has clearly visible changes to their skin, and often obvious indicators of unhealthy lungs: strong indicators of long term damage effects. I don't know well enough any people that have only ever vaped for me to have a inkling about the visible side-effects of vaping (to use as a proxy for making a guess at long term damage compared to smoking).
That does not seem to follow. Based on existing trends you just get extra vapers without fewer young people smoking.
In terms of health issues for young teenagers vaping is fairly high on the list largely due to simple numbers. If we need to have young teens taking nicotine, why not the patch or gum which seem to be safer.
Can't they test this on rats and monkeys easily to see if there is an obvious side effect? Or maybe they have and the results are inconclusive?
Seriously, could they be any more vague than "Natural and Artificial flavorings?"