Do we have any statistics on percentage of vape users quitting analog smoking vs. recreational/teen experimental usage? If there are strong recreational vape trends in youth I can see why anti-vape ads might be a thing.
We should immediately reject all governmental proposals that aren't backed up by rigorous science. Not only would this stop a ton of abuse, but we'd save a fortune in tax money that could then be spent on initiatives that actually save lives.
Hardcore coffee addicts don't usually end up smoking coffee with 4000 other random addictive chemicals mixed in.
And wrt your question, who knows what other chemicals are in ecig juice, as the ingredients seem to be completely unregulated.
http://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/reports-submissi...
To neotek: No problem, it's easy to misunderstand people on the internet.
I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed...
Just because it may be (and who knows until there are long term studies), doesn't mean as a society we should be encouraging, or even allowing vaping.
At the very least I think there should be some kind of regulation around the ingredients, otherwise how can anybody say the vapor is safe for the inhaler and the people around them?
Even if they were having a nic fit they'd still vape - you can get stronger fluid and vape more than you can get via smoking without feeling sick.
> I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed...
There's no probably about it. Smoking kills, and we don't see Vaping doing that.
> Just because it may be (and who knows until there are long term studies), doesn't mean as a society we should be encouraging, or even allowing vaping.
So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future?
You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.
Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.
If you asked me to make a recommendation, it would be to make smoking illegal immediately. It's ridiculous that it's allowed at all, when it kills so many people for no good reason other than "it's not illegal, so get over it". It's so dangerous that it kills thousands of people that don't even do it!
I just don't want to see the horse bolt like it did with smoking. If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet so don't insinuate that has been proven.
Like I said, if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then that's a very low bar indeed.
> You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.
It's a problem with democracy that I want a new drug delivery system to be proven safe before being allowed/recommended?
I find you rude.
100%.
> if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then [...]
That's not the threshold for playground equipment, or shampoo, but for a smoking replacement.
> If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet
Oh yes, we do. I don't have to say rock climbing is safe to know that shark-taunting is unsafe. We have a really good idea how many people die from smoking and we aren't seeing vape users have that issues, or at least not 1/50th as much.
The open questions isn't "is vaping unsafe" but "which fluids are unsafe to breathe the vapors from?" Even if we discovered that propylene glycol is unsafe that doesn't mean the idea of atomizing nicotine is a bad one.
> Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.
Actually, it is exactly that. This isn't a thought problem of "Which drug would you want your citizens to be hooked on," the question is "given that they are already hooked on cigarettes, ...".
> I find you rude.
Another typical liberal thug. Willing to use the might of the government to kill people in the guise of helping, and whose greatest insults are "You hurt my feelings."
I'm sure you do find me rude, but I'd rather hurt the feelings of a few uninvolved busybodies than let the millions of innocent people who got hooked on cigarettes die from cancer.
>This has raised concerns that the use of electronic cigarettes could lead to the ‘renormalisation’ of smoking and provide a gateway to smoking for young people. Yet so far there is little evidence that this is happening. The use of electronic cigarettes by people who have never smoked has been, and remains, negligible.
>If electronic cigarettes are a gateway, they currently appear to be a gateway out of smoking.