Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers
in.reuters.com
in.reuters.com
Moralizers focus on the corrosive elements of addiction and rationalizers say that e-cigs are still harmful but they miss the point that many people who smoke e-cigs are better off than they would be if they used cigs to get their nicotine.
E-cigs offer a better path to cessation through better control of the nicotine concentrations than cigs do, and e-cigs are probably one of the least harmful ways to get nicotine (and they're certainly cheaper than gum and patches).
I was very disappointed that the Obama administration tried to apply such heavy-handed regulations to the industry, it has its place and I think we'd be better off tolerating e-cigs. Give people an alternative to caffeine.
I think most productive people are dependent on some stimulant or at least most people find their productivity is enhanced through stimulation. Whether it's coffee, nicotine, or amphetamine, we should be honest about why people use it and focus on access that doesn't cause undue suffering.
Alternatively, e-cigs have made nicotine consumption cheaper, faster, more convenient, more socially acceptable, and available at much higher concentrations than tobacco. The aggregate being that nicotine addiction could very well increase overall, even if smoking rates drop. Most people don't realize that it's not really the smoke and lung cancer that leads to a majority of smoking deaths. It's the cardiovascular effects of nicotine leading to heart disease. Equating that to caffeine is ridiculous.
http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/29/7/1422
Edit: To clarify, there is still no contest at all between potential long term harm from smoking, and massively reduced potential for harm from vaping. Sorry for my lack of responsibility in making that point clearly, or at all.
NRT: nicotine replacement therapy
Do you see how that's kind of irresponsible?
"Acute exposure to electronic cigarettes with nicotine increases cardiac sympathetic nerve activity in a pattern of heart rate variability that recapitulates the same heart rate variability pattern associated with increased cardiac risk in multiple populations with and without known cardiac disease."
I'm not arguing that e-cigs may not be healthier than smoking tobacco for a current smoker trying to quit. But they are lulling people into a false sense of safety which may be even more dangerous in the long run.
> Most people don't realize that it's not really the smoke and lung cancer that leads to a majority of smoking deaths. It's the cardiovascular effects of nicotine leading to heart disease.
As described downthread, they keep finding associations that indicate that nicotine/heart disease associations may occur. But when they actually study the association, the association consistently fails to materialize.
I'm quite sure that your claim is flat wrong as stated.
I think in part it's driven by how low-status smoking is these days, to the point that some people even hate the optics of it. It looks like smoking so it must be just as bad, or close.
Which material are you referring to? This is an outrageous claim.
Look at this: http://stillblowingsmoke.org/ I mean right off the bat they're calling it smoke. That is so obviously an attempt to link e-cigs to tobacco. Hell, they even use the word tobacco on the page.
A bunch of like minded people who had a habbit which was the leading cause of preventable death coming together to figure out a way to kill themselves less.
Have there been things in the industry which were poisonous and could kill you over the course of it's history. Yes. Lots. Have those been slowly fased out as concerned consumers voice opinions, yes. Ni200 wire is a good example. Battery mooch is another.
The lack of regulation has certainly led to it being more dangerous for uninformed consumers, but it has also lead to lots of independent entrepreneurs innovating fast in the space.
Personally I see it as a great example of free markets vs. regulation. I also think it's only been able to exist because it's in a market which of its own is hazardous to health.
Also this entire industry as I understand it came from China.
Why not stop wasting time and lives, and prevent the harmful ones from being produced/released?
Ni200 which is a pure nickel wire was invented for temperature control. Required a specific device and chip to use as it has almost 0 resistance. Some stupid uneducated people or vendors sold it and and used it in non temperature controlled devices and poisoined themselves (not fatally), or blew up their batteries on non-regulated devices.
I just started vaping last month, and while I bought some kanthal wire, I also bought some ni200 and Titanium wire, which is dangerous if not used correctly. I personally didn't know, but also didn't use it until I looked it up.
With that said, ni200 wire did invent temperature control, which is a method of vaping these days.
The algebra for e-cig regulation is # of people saved by regulation - # of people killed by regulation(people who smoke more cigarettes because of the increased cost, and decreased variety of e-cigs)
And because cigarettes are sooooo dangerous even a small increase in smoking can causes the second term to overwhelm the first.
The motorcycle industry bifurcated, with one segment trying to maximize safety while still being fun, and the other focused on looking bad-ass with little regard for stability. That's a possible outcome for e-cigs, with some medical-grade and some vape-nation-grade.
I absolutely hate when this happens via regulation.
Consumers should be presented the information required to choose for themselves. If people aren't making the choice other people want them to make then incentives and presenting information that pushes people toward the "right" choice is still better than legislating what a product must do.
Let people choose but incentivize the right choice.
There isn't a whole lot of reason to believe these products are particularly safer, either. The heating coils are in direct contact with the fluid and get easily hot enough to decompose it. Glycerine is food-safe and very probably alright to inhale- the other products used in vape fluid and the unwanted side-products from overheating them are reactive unknowns.
E-cigs and vaporizers are/have the potential to be way more popular among people who wouldn't otherwise use them and they are not as simple or safe as just nicotine (which itself isn't as simple or safe as just being a stimulant). Because of those two factors and the current and past massive negative effects of smoking, it's an extremely good idea to regulate them carefully or even heavily. We already know how hard it is to get the genie back into the bottle from cigarettes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453
As for the safety of the vapor itself, it's a little tricky. Some studies faced a lot of criticism because the 'vaping' method did not reflect actual usage. In one protocol (unfortunately I can't recall the article) it was found they basically burned up the coil and reported combustion products as the vapor profile.
Similarly, this study appears to be reasonably executed, at least at first: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/
A few takeaways from the article: no long-lived free radicals present, and short-lived radicals in the range of 100 to 1000 fold less than cigarettes. Their estimates for a typical 'vaper' would be about a 10-fold higher dose than typical air pollution exposure for a 24 hour period (200 puffs/day). This certainly represents a real potential hazard, but is also a clear improvement over cigarettes (especially because this isn't the major hazard in cigarette smoke).
However, the protocol uses 5 second 'puffs' on a 1.5 ohm coil with an absolutely pathetic 500ml/min flow rate. For reference, 500ml is the typical breath volume for a human at rest, with >10,000ml/min being typical breathing for a person at rest (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...). In actual use, a puff is usually larger than the typical breath and taken in a span of 2-4 seconds. A flow rate of 20,000-40,000 ml/min is much more representative. It's no surprise that a coil with such a low flow rate would get far hotter than what is seen in actual use. Worth noting that high flow rates make for more comfortable and pleasant vaping, so are common in actual use.
Some good work has looked at variation in vaping protocol https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 These findings show just how drastic the differences are when you start to use higher power levels in ECs.
The data clearly show that high-power vaping likely presents a significant risk, but to date I've yet to see data that is convincingly representative of anything like normal use.
It's been a couple years now and tonnes of online shops started to sell and I'd see lots of local vapers while having coffee, so decided to give that a go.
It's been a month since I've had a cigarette now since I've started vaping. Energy is up and sense of smell is coming back. Used to smoke a pack a day.
I do run the risk of deportation, jail or heavy fines/bribes if caught with the thing, but I feel it's worth it for health reasons.
Also gov just increased tax from 130THB a pack to 150THB a pack.
i still want to quit nicotine entirely one day but until that day comes, my vape pen and i are good friends. 9 months ago i tried one out, and that same day was the very last day i ever smoked a cigarette.
Looks like he's doing pretty well. Nicotine is extremely addictive. One does not just quit smoking.
Plenty of people do.
Though I have a theory cold turkey quitting normally happens after a health scare of some variety. My father was a 45 year smoker and quit the day of his heart attack.
Another spot of anecdata, when I was a smoker I couldn't go a few hours without a cigarette. After 6 years of vaping, I can pretty much go 8-10 hours with no real craving.
It's unreal how much less of a hold vaping has on me versus cigarettes when that nicotine isn't coming along with a few thousand other chemical compounds.
I'm thinking of articles like https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-b...
I'm obviously talking about moderate doses. I know concentrated nicotine is very toxic :)
Best summary I'm aware of (note the many caveats): https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
I am a pretty serious athlete. Vaping - whether it was 3mg or 0mg e-juice - fucked with my lungs pretty badly, and caused a noticeable drop in athletic performance. Also made me feel way less motivated to lift weights and train, which I chalked up to the instant gratification of nicotine. When I did lift weights and train, I always felt like I wasn't able to give 100%.
I quit, but goddamn it was a pain in the ass to quit. It's not even the nicotine I miss, really, so much as it is the whole experience. The heat, the vapor, the flavor, the habit.
Friends of mine that have switched from smoking cigarettes to vaping e-juice have reported an increase in cardiovascular capacity; but as a non-smoker that started vaping, I definitely noticed decreased performance.
Kanthal requires a very specific heating profile after installation to develop its protective coating. Without that its basically just weird, fancy stainless steel. It becomes very brittle after the heat treat which causes gradual degradation especially during repeated, fast heating cycles. I would not use it.
I would also avoid low-alloy stainless like 400 series. That's the cheapest kind and at elevated temperature it oxidizes and corrodes. 300 series would be better, 500 would be best. Even within those two series though, some alloys will be much better than others.
Nickel... I don't know. It's very sensitive to composition and some can leach into liquid and others don't. It's more toxic than iron or chromium, but pretty resistant to temperature. Kind of a wash.
This is why I really wish someone would sell an ultrasonic vape, which the original patent included. That should be far safer, but so far, nobody seems to be making them.
At super low power it's pretty much totally safe and the impact on breathing is temporary[1]. At ~>18 watts formaldehyde starts to become a possible irritant, and there are also lots of other carbonyls. One of the really fun ones in the graph in [1] is acrolein- it's still at extremely low levels but that shit is not anything you want in your body. It's generated in small amounts any time anything fatty is burned, but absorbing it through your lungs daily is a totally different thing.
Vaping at low power (<20 watts) is pretty safe, but my girlfriends vape goes up to 200 and she uses it constantly at 85 or so. There are definitely significant amounts of chemicals besides glycerine and propylene glycol.
[1]: https://monq.com/vg/
I don't think it takes a huge leap to realize inhaling smoke is not good for you.
Cigar and pipe smokers as a rule don't have the kind of compulsive many a day habits that cigarette smokers do.
http://www.medicinenet.com/smokeless_tobacco/article.htm
To me it's unclear whether or not nicotine itself is actually bad.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines
That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?
How is that a bold statement? People run around vaping like there are zero consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if research eventually emerges saying certain lower quality fillers/vape mixtures will result in mechanical damage and cancer of the lungs and esophagus. Something similar was apparent with flavoring agents being used in the vape world.
My sentiment is more about where I think the research will go.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flavorings/
I'd be interested to hear of more.
I was friends with a major twitch streamer who used to vape literally 24/7, every stream. He got esophageal cancer and died after fighting it for ~1-2 years, roughly around age of 23. Now, obviously this is anecdotal, and obviously it could have just been bad luck/other factors/coincidence. But, I have always raised an eyebrow towards vaping since then. The only forms I consider safer with minimal consequence is dry herb based vaping with convection heat --- See silver surfer vapes for example.
Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking.
All apparent evidence is that vaping appears vastly healthier than smoking and there's no reason yet to believe vapor is harmful to the lungs; you breath water vapor all day every day. Calling something "foreign chemicals" might sound scary, but is not a plausible reason to call something definitely unhealthy. The word definitely is very bold, and not remotely justified.
> People run around vaping like there are zero consequences
No, they run around like it's vastly safer than smoking, which it clearly is. There's zero evidence anything to do with vaping has the cancer causing effects of smoke and burnt carcinogens.
Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. It substantially increases the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis, especially when combined with another chemical that produces clotting enzymes, such as estrogen. Speaking of estrogen, nicotine also antagonizes the estrogen receptor, which is pretty bad if you're a woman. Ever notice how women who have been smoking for a long time look pretty bad? It's not your imagination, it's because nicotine shuts down their bodies' ability to use estrogen (and estrogen is what causes smooth skin, curves, etc.).
Also, go look up "Green Tobacco Sickness" [0]. Too much nicotine can have all kinds of adverse effects, and since it can be absorbed by the skin, people who handle wet tobacco plants get all kinds of health problems. Oh, and too much nicotine can stop your heart. I've seen people seriously suggest it as a suicide method.
As for it being a vasoconstrictor, so is caffeine and any number of other stimulants, that itself in not inherently bad, it's simply an effect.
"Nicotine is bad for you."
"What about water??"
I don't know if it's intentional, but thanks for making my morning better. :)
We do that all the time. Ever worked in a newly constructed building? Wondering what that smell is? Plasticizers, monomers, adhesive solvents, etc.
Same with a new car. Or cooking over the stove, bbq'ing. Or walking down a busy street with cars on it.
Just because you are inhaling "foreign chemicals" doesn't mean there are significant risk associated with it.
I agree that we should get more information about the risk of vaping, but the wholesale banning of vaping is likely to be more harmful than just leaving things as is.[1]
[1]Not saying you are arguing for banning vaping, but FDA did take that position originally until they got smacked down
source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/e-cigs-and-second...
I'm not sure why you consider the OP's statement to be bold as I don't think there are many instances where ingesting chemicals into the lungs is considered healthy.
Eciggs make quitting smoking vastly easier, and eciggs are easier to quit than cigarettes. I routinely go half a day without hitting my ecigg, that never happened with smokes.
I was responding the the OP's statement that saying e-cigarrets were unhealthy was a bold claim.
There are always things that might be considered less harmful but that does not mean they are considered healthy.
"In its product safety assessment for propylene glycol, the Dow Chemical Company recommends individuals avoid inhaling the chemical"[1]
At least for commercial cigarettes. It's less clear how large the benefit would be for those smoking pipes or cigars, hookahs, using wild tobacco, freebasing tobacco, etc.
I was a pack-a-day clove smoker for years, and eventually one day I switched to an e-cig. I switched hard to vaping and didn't touch a cigarette again. Soon, I geared down to 4mg nic, and then I just... stopped about two months in. One day I realized I hadn't touched my e-cig in a week, and that was it for me.
That was four years ago, and I've only touched nicotine once since then (I smoked a single clove for old time's sake about two years after I quit... and then I declined a second one).
I vaped pretty hardcore for 3 or 4 years, it definitely has an effect on your lungs, especially if you're into dual-coil sub-ohm builds and all that jazz.
Nasal snuff has been a God-send and is much more enjoyable, at least to me. I still smoke a nice briar pipe with a few different pipe tobacco blends on occasion, but nasal snuff has definitely curbed my tobacco/nicotine usage.
I could never go back to cigarettes and dip is just kind of gross, although I think it's better than cigarettes.
If those 660,000 people were on average 95+ years old and would have died soon later anyway, then "saving" their life has a much lesser meaning. Of course this isn't the case, but the statistic is not very helpful as a measure.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2017/08/30/tobac...
I almost made the switch 2 years prior but I wasn't allowed to use it in my private office so I figured what's the point?
Call it habit or whatever but I still can't get as much work done at home when I'm not smoking so I consider it my weekend treat.
An intervention that has proved effective for saving lives from tobacco use is MPOWER from the World Health Organization. Raise the cost of tobacco through taxes, ban smoking in public places, hard-hitting, scary, anti-smoking ads, doctors talking to their patients about quitting, nicotine replacement therapy, telephone counseling support. In NYC the age for purchase is 21 as it is nationwide for alcohol. In NYC, the minimum cost per pack is $13.
[1] https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2016/08/protecting-...
That's what e-cigs are.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/health/quit-smoking-cold-t...
Not convinced switching people to a just as addicting, just as nasty way of killing themselves slowly is any better.
> "Researchers looked at nearly 700 long-term heavy smokers in England who wanted to kick the habit. They instructed half of the participants to quit abruptly -- that is, pick a quit day when they would give up smoking entirely. The other half were told to scale back their cigarettes gradually for two weeks leading up to their quit day.
> But even the abrupt-quit group was not exactly going it alone. The researchers gave them nicotine patches to use for two weeks before their quit day. During this period, the gradual group also got patches, as well as gum, lozenges and other types of short-acting nicotine replacement therapy to help them as they cut back. After the quit day, both groups got patches and short-acting therapy, in addition to counseling. "
This link refers to smokers switching to e-cigarettes, which is considering significantly less harmful than normal cigarettes, e.g. https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/e-cigarettes-95-less...
It is in ecigs
I smoked a pack a day for over 10 years and quit cold turkey without any patches or vaping.
The mental break thing is definitely real. I highly recommend just going outside. Maybe do a couple of laps around the block.
We have decades of data showing that isn't the case.
No, you know that most people who attempt to quit "cold turkey" decide that quitting smoking permanently isn't as important as relieving their current symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Its a minor point but an important distinction.
...guess what they get with ecigs? A far safer alternative which allows them to continue their nicotine habit and enjoy the pleasures of smoking. So you're in support of ecigs now?
Of course, that's not the reality. every single one of your arguments are hypothetical metaphors that have no connection to the facts of the issue at hand. You have no practical solutions. You're only answer is for people to 'toughen up'. Quite the problem solver you are.
The reason most people fail to quit isn't because they are weak, or anything like that. It's simply because they don't want to really quit.
I know of 6 people (including myself) who quit cold turkey after many years. The only thing we had in common was we were serious about quitting. One other person I knew who quit used the patch, but she was separate from the 6.
It is, which is why ecigs are so great and why patches and gum have largely failed.
It could be purely anecdotal evidence but it sure seems like it.
Best? No. Better? Probably.
One of the funny things with vaping is after two weeks smoking a cigarette becomes disgusting.
I'd say it's also a lot easier to quit vaping than smoking cigarettes. So that as well is a move in the correct direction.
"This systematic review appraises existing laboratory and clinical research on the potential risks from electronic cigarette use, compared with the well-established devastating effects of smoking tobacco cigarettes. Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes."
What are you basing that ludicrous statement on?
More research is required on long-term effects, but e-cigarettes, regardless of whatever other problems they may have, are likely far less damaging to users than continuing to smoke cigarettes.