We should be clear what the actual object of this "epidemic" is. It isn't really about vaping. It's about Nicotine. And this fight is just one battle in a larger war: the societal struggle to define the proper moral dimensions of chemical dependency.
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.)
Yes to the moral dimension -- obscured by the health issue.
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.
Im not against drugs by any stretch of the imagination, and not necessarily against addiction- despite the fact that dependency on anything must limit some aspects of your autonomy.
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.
No. It's a public health issue. while I would not be surprised if some have moral opinions about it, that's not the point. nicotine is objectively a toxic substance; it is an immunosuppressant and there is evidence mounting linking it with cancer. there is science to back this up. if there are other studies that paint a different picture, or other data that is pertinent, then reviewing and comparing the evidence we have so far is what we should be doing, and then shaping public policy based on the best evidence we have.
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.
> You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction".
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.)
Great article, thanks for sharing. Having quit cigarettes many years ago now, I can absolutely relate. I spent the first couple of years fighting myself (mentally and emotionally) on a daily basis, stuck on the fact that I was deprived. Eventually the feelings and cravings subsided, but I still felt like I had lost something. The key and lock analogy were indeed perfect. I didn't feel like myself. I had trouble talking to others. I felt less intelligent. I developed some social anxiety. I often wondered if I was self-medicating through nicotine and if I'd never be the same.
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.
I agree. I am very dependent upon matcha green tea. If I don’t have at least two cups per day, I feel terrible. But when I do take it daily, it provides an incredible amount of clarity and energy. I’ve come to accept the downsides - and there are always downsides - because overall, it’s a net positive in my life. I don’t doubt there are people in similarly positive but dependent relationships with far harder substances.
That’s a fascinating essay, thanks for sharing. I sometimes fret over my caffeine habit - in fact I’ve quit several times, enduring headaches and nausea, just to start again. But maybe caffeine is what would be prescribed to me anyway to optimize my productivity and happiness, and I should stop fighting it and feeling ashamed of “dependency.”
The reason they go after nicotine is because kids use these vapes and become addicted to the nicotine in them, much of the time without wanting to do so. It is pernicious. It’s why cigarettes were demonized, but not banned. Cigarettes were doing everything that Juul and Co. are doing now, hooking kids, spreading because it’s cool and marketed to children. It’s kind of like rape. Hooking you without your consent, and taking advantage of the most vulnerable market, kids.
The fun part about the e-cigarette epidemic: states have a perverse incentive to keep cigarette smoking rates from dropping too quickly. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement gave states an annuity from tobacco profits, and many states took a lump-sum payment instead. That money has already been spent. If cigarette smoking rates (and thus, profits) drop too much, they have to pay back the money.
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.
> 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.
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.
> That money has already been spent. If cigarette smoking rates (and thus, profits) drop too much, they have to pay back the money.
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.
Do you have any citations for this? If it's true and the states are actually acting on that incentive, it's an epic conspiracy. I wonder if you could look at differences in anti-vape policy between states that took a lump sum payment and ones that didn't to validate it.
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.
Just my personal take but as an adult who just quite smoking a few weeks ago the availability of vaps has been tremendously helpful. I feel night and day better in terms of health despite consuming probably similar levels of nicotine.
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.
This narrative that high schoolers are all about cotton candy and mangos, but when given menthol they find it disgusting, is absolutely hilarious and so clearly woven by old men in a government complex somewhere. Kids were smoking long before ecigs popped up, and they'll keep doing all sorts of drugs as long as they exist.
Taste means practically nothing. But it sure does sell better to worried mothers.
As an adult, I like flavors. Flavors aren't addictive, nicotine is.
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.
Nicotine is little different from caffeine. Either you ban both, none, or you decide your policy is arbitrary moral posturing supported by no 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.
I read an article the other day about how juul modifies the nicotine to make it less painful so they can put more in each pod. An interesting side effect of this is that people who don't smoke can start smoking easier because it's less painful. That information combined with this report just makes me so upset on so many levels...
That's not the whole story. Juuls are ultra high resistance devices due to their size. Generally that means they can't vaporize as much liquid into vapor, which means traditional eliquid (lets say 3-9mg/ml) isn't as effective anymore, especially for someone trying to quit smoking.
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.
I don't know if it's 2/3, but there's a decent amount that don't. I teach high school, and they talk all the damn time about their JUULing habits (they have literally no concept of privacy anymore), and several of them say they only do it since it's nicotine free. They're shocked when I tel them that most they're smoking probably do contain nicotine.
Juul is cited many times in that document. I am generally intrigued by Juul. Their intention to "end combustible smoking" and help "adult smokers" smoke with less pain/more easily seems good for the target user (create a system with fewer toxins-to-nicotine ratio). The side-effect of engineering a better system is that it's easier for all users to smoke, i.e. intended for adults, but tech-savy kids will devour this concept).
fwiw, vaping is treated the same as tobacco use by most insurance companies with regards to what is provided to employees.
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.
I have had COPD for a little over 9 years, about two years ago, I began to do a lot of research and learnt about a COPD TREATMENT from Rich Herbs Foundation and their success rate with the treatment,i immediately started on the treatment, few weeks into the treatment, i experienced significant reduction in major symptoms, including the shortness of breath, fatigue, cough and wheezing. Visit RHF page ww w. richherbsfoundation. c om. Its been over 1 years since treatment, i feel great and breath well
E-cigs haven't shown to be harmful in the least bit, in fact, there's a lot of evidence that nicotine is a nootropic with neuro-protective properties. Increases cognitive performance and decreases the likelihood of developing Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.
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)
lol nicotine is addictive as shit. I got hooked via ecigs, not that I'm complaining. Anecdotally I agree with the so-called cognitive benefits. It's similar to caffeine in many respects. But let's not be coy and pretend it's not an addictive substance.
Why are there conflicting reports on the stats from the CDC?
The CDC's website[1] 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?
> Why are there conflicting reports on the stats from the CDC?
There aren't.
> The CDC's website[1] 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.
Especially when you compare overall tobacco and tobacco derivative consumption across time. Simply put, the overall rate of tobacco and nicotine consumption now is significantly lower than 20 years ago, which was significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was
significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was...
well you get the idea.
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.
[+] [-] md224|7 years ago|reply
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:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/can-nicoti...
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.)
[+] [-] winchling|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] awakeasleep|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sosilkj|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fpgaminer|7 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] darkerside|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] code_beers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] i_am_nomad|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gurumeditations|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gvhst|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 13of40|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gehwartzen|7 years ago|reply
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.
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredi...
[+] [-] 013a|7 years ago|reply
Taste means practically nothing. But it sure does sell better to worried mothers.
[+] [-] scythe|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stefan_|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] snek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 013a|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] crushcrashcrush|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbronitsky|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsmarsh|7 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|7 years ago|reply
I find this very, very difficult to believe.
[+] [-] dorchadas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwkoss|7 years ago|reply
I think there are even some companies making some with only THC and/or CBD.
[+] [-] brianwawok|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpflan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russley|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] johnlehnertz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sctb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juulia|7 years ago|reply
https://vsco.co/search/images/juul
[+] [-] mruts|7 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] rubbingalcohol|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diminoten|7 years ago|reply
* 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".
[+] [-] wc-|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nulagrithom|7 years ago|reply
The CDC's website[1] 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?
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
There aren't.
> The CDC's website[1] 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.
[+] [-] ProAm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happytoexplain|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RosanaAnaDana|7 years ago|reply
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/ci...
[+] [-] badrabbit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannasanarion|7 years ago|reply
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.