Make the legal limit for everything 21, I don't care. I'm an (young) adult and would like to consume the same substences humans have been consuming for 100s of years; alcohol, cannabis, & nicotine (tobacco), It shouldn't matter that I'm mitigating the harm of the worse one (tobacco). The goal isn't to be 100% safe, otherwise I'd also have to eliminate driving, red meat, etc.
The social ROI on driving is a net benefit, in our current society (95% of us would be dead in a few weeks, if all cars and trucks disappeared tomorrow.) They cause long-term problems, and we absolutely must be working towards a low-carbon future. Do you have a roadmap towards a low-vaping future? I assume not - so I'm not entirely sure your concern for public health is entirely sincere.
It's also been argued to me that prohibition did not have a particularly large impact on overall crime rates, but may have had a positive impact on public health. Depending on which statistics you want to cite, you can very easily make this case. 
So, no, it's not at all clear that prohibition was a disaster, and its entirely possible that had we let that experiment run a generation or two, alcohol consumption today would have been much, much lower.
They're not banning tobacco, they're banning e-cigarettes, specifically because there is a ton of evidence that youth get addicted to nicotine via e-cigs.
If you want to smoke tobacco, go ahead, you're still free to do so. No need to hyperventilate.
If you want to quit smoking tobacco, don't use e-cigs. Start using products like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc in addition to therapy or other medical interventions. These nicotine delivery mechanism have not been shown to get youth addicted to nicotine.
So we should freak out about youth using a thing that's a 95% harm reduction compared to smoking tobacco, and not ban tobacco. Got it.
> Start using products like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc
Last I checked these were half as effective as e-cigarettes for quitting.
All options with abysmal success rates. It's so easy for people with enough knowledge to be dangerous and no skin in the game to support nonsense like this.
Isn't the evidence of toxicity/carcinogenicity of red meat mixed?
"You're going to die anyway, die with us!"
Need a citation here. I've read the literature and the current consensus (as far as I'm aware) is "we don't know what the harms are". There is a study which suggest that nicotine may increase cancer risk in mice, though it is not a direct cause and even then the study was inconclusive.
Your link is a chart which shows relative lethal doses of substances. Nicotine requires a "very high" dose, not one you would ever get in practice. Not sure what point you were trying to make with that.
Not only is there vanishingly little “evidence” that e-cigarettes are harmful to health, most of the evidence we do have is for knock-off street THC or cheap Chinese juice. That’s hardly a logical reason to ban e-cigarettes entirely. Especially given the fact that many of these people will go back to smoking real cigarettes.
Illegal importation from legal foreign factories will probably happen, but those foreign factories are going to be building to the same standard regardless, and compared to normal contraband like "plant leaves" it's going to be pretty easy to tell where they are coming from.
Wait, isn't that exactly the problem that's lead to what's happened here? Unregulated THC cartridges causing health issues in states where marijuana is still illegal?
India probably banned both though the article only discusses the former, if so banning the latter is unfortunate since as you note banning it has serious health risks.
By that I mean: I don't think the e-cigarettes themselves are wildly more complicated to produce than the cartridges--though I might be wrong on that.
Note: mechanical mods are a great way of setting your batteries on fire. Most regulated mods are built around a relatively small number of platforms (https://www.evolvapor.com/), but there's no magic involved and if there aren't open-source hardware now, there will be soon. If you don't care about unit-cost, size, and scale, I'm absolutely sure any electronics hobbyist could build something as functional as most of the commercial platforms.
I can see two obvious consequences of banning e-cigarettes:
1. The Arduino brigade whining loudly that they can't get the parts for their plant-moisture monitor "because you could build an e-cig with that."
2. A rise in trouser explosions from improperly constructed vapes. (Contraband rarely gets UL listed, right?) I would like to officially nominate the term "jake leg" for the resulting limp, in honor of a previous attempt at regulating morality in the name of public health.
Not necessarily a bad thing, however, as the filters have little to no health benefit and are a huge environmental issue.
So, no, e-cig use could not possibly be higher, or have a higher health impact.
Health risks are less clear. Vaping hasn't really been around long enough to examine life-long vapers for the really long term effects. Still, based on available evidence, I'd guess the risks are much lower than smoking. But if it converts non-smokers into vapers, that will increase the overall number of people at risk. Of course it can (and does) convert smokers to vapers, which may not reduce the raw number of people doing something risky, but it may decrease the overall pooled risk of that whole population.
So I don't know. From a public health policy point of view, it's not an easy equation to balance. What amount of new people with health risk is worth it to reducing the overall risk? Should there be such a utilitarian calculation? Should they try to reduce both the number of people with risk and the overall risk pool by both banning vaping and making traditional tobacco products harder/more expensive, or more education to prevent initial use? What about freedom to make these not-so-great choices, people make bad but not illegal choices all the time, why should this be different?
I don't propose answers to the above. I'm simply saying the India ban may not purely be a case of moral panic. That's all.
I'm not offering this up as "the way it should be", that a ban should be instituted, I offer it up as an important consideration. Personally, I think we might do best by reaching for the best of both worlds-- get rid of flavored vapes the same way we got rid of flavored cigarettes, continue to push traditional smokers into the healthier option, at the same time convert our anti-smoking education & awareness campaigns into ones that include warnings against vaping.
Most people don't vape, so it's much easier to get on a moral high horse and tell others what to do; there's no consequence for the majority.
If they reacted to vaping the same way to cars, coffee, sugar, fast food, etc... they would suffer a loss of freedom. And people don't like to lose their own freedom, but plenty of people are eager to restrict others.
It makes sense for me: most people don't work on self improvement so imposing self improvement on others is a way to feel that society is improving.
Meanwhile untold numbers of people have been able to quit smoking, which we know absolutely causes harm, thanks to vapes.
#1 e-cigs are not as harmful as normal cigarettes
It will take several decades to prove or disprove this point. However, early research points to this not being the case.
#2 e-cigs make it much easier to quit tobacco
Again, early research doesn't indicate that e-cigs don't outperform other smoking cessation techniques.
The main concerns I've heard are from a public health perspective. Most tobacco researchers and public health officials are concerned that e-cigs are essentially a "better" product. "Better" meaning perceived as being less offensive, cooler, convenient, and less harmful. The concern is that since the youth perceive e-cigs as cool and safe, while cigarettes as uncool and harmful, it's seeing significant adoption in younger people which is undoing the gains from the anti-tobacco campaigns in the 90s. Essentially, the hypothesis is that e-cigs are a slightly less (but really the distinction is minute and trivial) harmful product that is significantly more compelling to people. The net effect is the threat of e-cigarettes is that it can do significantly more harm to humans that cigarettes (since more people perceive it as safe).
With this evidence, are you willing change your stance on it?
#2 is nonsense. I did it personally and you can hop on any vaping forum to find millions more.
Are you sure this isn't just another puritanical flap?
> She also pointed to “surprising” growth in e-cigarette use among US middle school students — up 48.5%, per stats she cited.
It's interesting that they are citing US data for this decision directly. Not that you can't learn from others, but you'd think the Indian government would be able to gather its own domestic statistics on this.
If I had to spin a theory about the reason for this ban, I'd say that this is more about preventing the urbanized middle to upper class youth - who are more likely to mimic trends form the US - from starting the habit. It seems like more of a political signal that "we are in cultural control" to conservative voters (who are mostly middle to upper class in India). Also, note the similar ban on flavored e-cigarettes by the US administration just a few days ago. Perhaps one government is taking political queues from the other? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened lately.
It can't be practically related to health, since as others have noted, the extreme urban air pollution is likely the primary broad-based driver of respiratory disease in India, not vaping.
Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether or not nicotine by itself is harmful, however, I would use the precautionary principle here for the following reasons:
1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? which leads to...
2) risk profile: the risks associated with not vaping are virtually non-existent whereas the risks associated with vaping include consuming chemicals other than nicotine and any risks associated with chronic nicotine consumption (both the risks we know and the risks we don't know about).
In other words there's no actual benefit from chronic nicotine consumption.
Now, I do believe occasional nicotine consumption can be used to enhance cognitive performance. Of course, the business model for vaping doesn't support occasional use. Vaping is all about getting people addicted so they're forced to buy your product even though your product doesn't benefit them beyond just alleviating withdrawal symptoms - symptoms which wouldn't exist if they hadn't been addicted in the first place!
For those who can control their addictive urges I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while (as long as you're in good health).
I don't think it's not related in some marginal way to health. I just doubt that it will have much impact on health given the terrible air pollution that people are already subjected to, regardless of whether they smoke. The stronger explanation is the political moral signaling.
It would be a different thing if e-cigs were banned in a country that had very low air pollution and, say universal health care like Canada, because in that case the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for whatever the negative health effects of vaping are - and the connection between vaping and the condition would be much clearer.
All of those options have abysmal success rates. Here's a paper, 10% success over placebo.
>1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk?
Because I enjoy smoking, got off of cigs by vaping, and I want to. By your own admission we have no idea what the long term health effects may be. Your argument is backed only by fear, not facts, but is easy to make because it doesn't affect you.
I don't see a need to ban things that don't hurt others. I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their actions.
Edit: I was under the impression that e-cigs don't produce second hand smoke harmful to others like old cigarettes, but if they do then I would change my position. I was under the impression e-cigs are harmful to their users only.
And how has that worked for smoking levels in Japan, South Korea - I would say they have pretty high levels of education, with no dearth of information on bad consequences of smoking.
Edit: I think people are assuming I am for the ban. I am not for the ban. I don't think bans like this work. But plowing more resources into the education system is just not particularly effective at preventing addictive behaviors.
On the scale of things causing negative externalities to society, e-cigs are not at the top of my list. Although, the smell of cigarette smoke and its effects on others's lungs is of course harmful to others, so I could get behind stricter regulations or banning of those.
I am saying that education does not dissuade addictive behaviors.
The traditional idea behind education is enabling independent reason and judgement, not promoting specific consumption patterns.
Passive smoking is indeed harmful for everyone in a few meters radius of the smoker, and they smell awful. Both these statements are known facts.
I agree that it's not the best of implementations. Unsure how effective it will be though, but it's one of the easiest to cook up.
edit: I fully support downvotes if you think this comment is insensitive, but at least provide a bit of logic so I can understand what I might be missing?
> we like smoking, and we're not going to stop
I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)? For them, cigarette's not going to be a substitute as it is for smokers currently. Cigarettes are already that icky thing old people do and cause lung cancer (basically their favorite movie star told them so for 2 years).
By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.
I do, and please spare me the "think of the children" argument. It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health. Kids have and will do things that are bad for them. It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.
>By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.
Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".
For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and can't go back to a nicotine-free life?
> It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health
What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.
> It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.
I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going? "We like it and we're not going to stop" -- that's what an entire generation which didn't have full knowledge about the ill effects of smoking might be saying. That's what a million vapers from the next generation are going to say because they didn't have full knowledge of the harms, and people better hope it's just an addiction issue and not a health one. Kids will probably always do what's bad for them, but it's up to the adults to minimize damage. And yes, there's a gap. A Juul is going to reach middle India faster than the knowledge that it's addictive and should be handled with care.
> Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".
Yes, and I didn't say it was perfect; in fact I believe it might end up having an opposite effect. But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well. There's a very high probability that the government knows this too, and is going to end up trying all the steps you suggested. But at least the message is out.
Because it's an emotional response that gets people all worked up and all of a sudden facts, logic, and adult choice go out the window. There is a wide array of actions which can be taken to curb child use which are far short of a complete ban, and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!" headlines, an issue which has nothing to do with vaping in general or its long term effects.
>What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.
How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?
>I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going?
Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?
>But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well.
What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still perfectly legal!
Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and tobacco products. Full scale cancer pictures on cigarette boxes. Why not a blanket ban? Because, well, people want it, just as much as you're vigorously defending now... the ban on vaping is before the majority starts wanting that too. It sucks, but in the eyes of the government, it's something which is easier to defend.
> and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!"
No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.
> How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?
Vaping might not be bad health-wise. Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods), and might be multiple-packs-a-day bad, because you know, addiction. I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.
> Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?
Yeah, and look what that took. Millions of people dying before a dent in the numbers (and let's not attribute that to vaping, at least in India, because it hasn't caught hold on that scale yet). A developing country can't see people die for that long for addiction risk declines. And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country. You might be benefiting from vaping, but I don't see an issue in preventing large companies peddling more bad stuff to people, kids or otherwise.
Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO. We can trade arguments all we want, and honestly, I'm not fully antagonistic against anything here, but it is my belief that I'd like to make a smoke-free person's opinion heard alongside people who are struggling with quitting, or don't want to. I enjoy a smoke-free and addiction-free life, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it took me a lot of fighting peer pressure + manipulative advertising to be in this position today. It shouldn't have been a fight at all, but there's no company which is going to profit from non-smoking/teetotalism/whatever, and governments aren't going to see revenues from it.
I thought we were talking about vaping. I already said I was more than fine with restricting purchase, advertising, etc. in the same way we do with tobacco. But no, it's now a ban, and we've tried nothing.
>No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.
That's ridiculous. Of course the current hysteria did. Whether or not I want to be hooked on nicotine is none of your damn business.
>Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods)
Again, don't need to be people's nannies. Do we have real data on that or are you just thinking aloud? Are there no other vices that would take its place? C'mon.
>I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.
I'm not sure it should be up to you. That's my point.
>And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country.
You don't know it's a bad thing. In a vacuum where it is the only harmful substance known to man, sure, but you ignore the fact that people are just going to go back to cigarettes. Why isn't your country as concerned with those?
>Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO.
I'm not out to defend nicotine. I wouldn't want my son to start vaping, but we have to weigh what we lose at the same time we discuss what we may gain.
One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.
Sorry to hear that. I didn't intend to add to your worries; this was all for purposes of a debate. I do hope things turns out well for you.
the solution people come up with?
ban legal e-cigarettes
India already has a problem with heavy pollution that basically amounts to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day just living in most of its cities. Add to the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are widely available, why even introduce more ways to destroy peoples health.
Nicotine, without the array of other chemicals present in tobacco, isn't very addictive. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of MAO inhibitors going around, they potentiate nicotine's addictiveness and without them nicotine is less addictive than table sugar.
Using just US statistics, you get the following result:
> ...if a public e-cigarette ban reduces the number of smokers who switch to e-cigarettes by 2%, you’ve just killed an extra 9000 people per year – about three 9-11 attacks, or twice the number of US soldiers who died in the Iraq War.
Maybe it should be offered as a prescription drug to quit smoking...
If you make vapes harder to acquire than cigarettes, you will cause mass death. Cigarettes are available without a prescription. You can get them at any gas station, corner store, or supermarket. If vaping isn't as convenient or as available, you will get more smokers and worse health outcomes.
Again, a 2% increase in the number of smokers in the US is 9,000 deaths per year. I understand where you're coming from. It certainly doesn't feel good to let a bunch of teenagers get hooked on vapes. But you are weighing a hypothetical, unlikely harm against a concrete ongoing harm that is several thousand times larger in magnitude. One's intuitions simply can't be trusted in these cases.
as a person with a nicotine addiction, i can tell you it's a hard one to crack. as a person who has smoked, i can tell you vaping is hardly a substitute.
that being said, i know some friends who have gotten way worse nicotine cravings as a result of vaping more or using stronger liquid than what they'd have in their regular cigs.
something worth noting, in countries outside the US, you can get approximate dosage labels on your cigs.
something else worth noting, my own nicotine dependency seems to have been made way way worse by using hooka, instead of cigarettes. surely, this is n=1.
edit to add: i don't actually think they should be banning any of this shit... but if you want to prevent people from getting hooked on a substance that can later be further used to manipulate behavior (e.g. by adding other things to it) then you should ban the nicotine.
in the end, i think they're wanting to ban vaping because they want to prevent people from smoking thc.
I smoked a pack a day for fifteen years. Vaping was the only thing that got me off of cigarettes because it is far more enjoyable. Cigs now taste like eating a bonfire.
You should preface that with "IMO" because obviously it doesn't apply to the tens of millions who have successfully switched over.
Even saying that 31% of youth vapers citing flavors as a reason for trying vaping feel flimsy. Are they heavy or repeat users in any way? Do they switch to tobacco flavor in the absence of other flavors?
Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?
I don't think that is "obviously directed towards youth." It's only obvious that it's directed toward people who like Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops, of which many are adults.
>Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?
No, because those ads are obviously aimed toward children. They're full of kids and the boxes contains toys! Nothing like that is happening with vape juice (and it shouldn't if it is.)
That all said, I'm with you; bring down the hammer on that sort of thing. Get rid of the flashy packaging. Keep the warning labels. That does far more good than harm. Just don't take the flavor away from me if I want it.
Are there any studies on the relative addictiveness of various forms of tobacco? IIRC, cigarettes have been explicitly engineered to deliver a high, short-lived dose quickly, while cigars and pipe tobacco, and apparently vaping liquids, do not have the same psychoactive effects.
If a person comes to my house I prefer that he smokes e-cigarette over a real one at least while he's visiting me.
IMO is a good decision. And I say this with full cynicism; I really don't care either way. I don't have many people in my circle who're smokers or vapers, and I've never done either, so I can't really relate.
I feel this is a good decision because:
- Cigarette and beedi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi) companies have been entrenched in this society for long, so they can battle things out for the existing products. Most people have started to wisen up to these though, so the effects on mass population are reducing day by day (education and those large images of cancer help). In e-cigarettes' case, getting something out before it becomes entrenched, is IMO, a good thing, however unpopular. It took so damn long for people to realize tobacco is dangerous. Better this info gets out quicker now, especially in a country like India where accurate and well-rounded information is hard to get.
- E-cigarettes still contain addictive nicotine. While the current war against normal cigs/bidis might be about the smoke and other stuff, the central hook is still an addictive substance. E-cigs have the potential to dial up delivery of this addictive stuff up to 10. This isn't good for most people.
- Say whatever you want about e-cigarettes. It's known that it's seen as a cool thing among kids, and the packaging is damn near perfect. a country could do better to avoid getting its future generations getting hooked up with a snazzy-looking thumb drive before realizing too late that their parents' money is now captive to fruit-flavored pods. I've noticed juul usage amongst teens in the US, and some seem hooked beyond repair (just like smokers are today).
I don't really care however this goes, I'm not going to be the one who'll be vaping or smoking or whatever so I don't have much of a stake in this (I don't even like the current politics either). But to me, getting something out of the picture before it becomes a huge issue might be a good idea (unless, like in Harry Potter parlance, where the best thing Umbridge did to make sure The Quibbler was read was banning it...)
I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive. I know giving up addictive stuff is hard. But if you think that having something which is less harmful for people already consuming more harmful stuff and more harmful for the rest who might be pulled into this, I'd believe that some action to reduce the damage being taken is not a unilaterally bad decision.
I try very hard to not get addicted to stuff, because I know it's damaging. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep something we are pretty sure is bad (nicotine addiction) around just because it's an easy out for someone who's already doing harm for himself and people around him.
People fought to contain smoking, they lost. Clearly neither forced abstinence or knowing temperance is an awesome solution. But I'd rather ban something small which has the potential to get to the big bad real soon (e-cigarettes don't come with a doctor's approval as far as I know), because it's doable, than handhold people into something we know is not ideal, and can possibly be much worse.
I'm disappointed that with the big tobacco settlement (1998) they didn't start automatically raising the legal smoking every year by another year - and basically phase out tobacco forever.