Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm sorry, but is <10% of high schoolers an "explosion"? Obviously e-cigarettes are more appealing than tobacco products, but regular cigarette use was 15.8% in 2011 [1]. Marijuana use is at close to 6%, so not that big a gap from the apparent "explosion" of kids vaping.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...
> Obviously the rate increased, it's a fairly new device.
It's not necessarily so that "new device" therefore "rate increase." It could be flat or declining since earlier surveys. The fact that it isn't flat means that it's popular and likely warrants further study and/or intervention. The descriptor "explosive" applies here because many other similar public-health-impacting behaviors which are studied by similar researchers change much more slowly over time.
Sure, there's been an explosion in vaping, but no change to overall nicotine consumption.
The US was slowly reducing the number of middle schoolers who smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, cigarette use dropped from 4.3% in 2011 to 2.2% in 2016. [1]
This would be a 5x reversal in less than a year. That's huge.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...
Re-reading the high school numbers cigarettes are down 15.8% -> 8.0% (2011-2016) but eCigs are up 1.5% -> 11.3% (2011-2016).
The gains in eCig usage still appear to cancel out the reduction in cigarette usage ("(20.2%) reported current use of some type of tobacco product"). But definitely a less dramatic effect than I originally claimed.
And that's still a significant net victory, given that eCigs don't have the awful health consequences regular cigarettes have.
Is the concern just that the activity is nominally unlawful? Or that it will be a “gateway drug” (is there any evidence of that)? Or that it is a waste of students’ time? Or ...
Or are we worried about stimulants in general? Or is there still some significant cancer risk from vaping? (Are people freaking out about high school students drinking too much coffee?)
If students are just replacing cigarettes with vaping, that seems like an unambiguously positive development.
When walking around town with my 1.5 year old, I commonly see people smoking cigarettes outside freak out and start apologizing, worried that they might blow one puff of smoke in the general direction of a baby. But at that point we are talking about a ridiculous level of concern for a trivial risk.
As they say, the dose makes the poison. We should make public policy based on careful risk analysis, not absolutist reflex.
We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well.
But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.
It’s a bit wearying to hear the old chestnuts trotted out here of all places. It seems like bad arguments and FUD never really change, they just finds new adherents.
It seems to me that jacobolus was not defending vaping but merely wondering if we're all being a bit over-reactive at this point.
That position is not so much comparable to your referenced four-dog-defense as it is to something like "you've got a better chance of being killed by a lightening bolt than killed in a terrorist attack".
And that is a valid point to make when discussing any issue involving risk. Humans are prone to reacting to perceived risks without considering comparative risks factors. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
Studies here: https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/28-proven-health-benefits-ni...
Also, because once you get addicted, nicotine withdrawal is bloody awful.
For all you that haven't done it: smoking causes pleasure. A fast, intense and repeatable pleasure.
I quit smoking years ago and of course I strongly discourage people from smoking, it's very bad for the health, etc.
But spreading disinformation is not the way to fight it.
Edit: BTW, the first times you do it are the worst. While you get used to the smoke.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/#__ffn_...
Long before that publication, however, Wright SC (et al) published a paper still referenced today in toxicology textbooks entitled "Nicotine inhibition of apoptosis suggests a role in tumor production" [ FASEB J. 1993; 7:1045-1051 ]
We've eliminated all the really worrying stuff but people like to worry about kids so now we're down to sugar and vaping. Of the two I'd bet sugar is a lot worse, long term. Though since vape juice is unregulated and kids probably buy the cheapest they can find, I'd wonder what kind of chemicals are actually in it.
If you think getting addicted to inhaling chemicals is not harmful you are deluding yourself.
Just like there are no ‘safe’ cigarettes, there is no ‘safe’ vaping. Even inhaling nicotine itself is harmful.
Vape coils are typically kanthal, the same material as in my ceramic kiln wires, and were not designed for food/smoking purpose before people started using them for that.
It's also more addictive than cigarettes because the devices can be tuned to deliver much more nicotine than a cigarette.
The CDC report doesn't report clearly on the overlap between modalities, but if e-cigarette uptake is cancelling all the reductions in non-e-cigarettes, it's quite alarming that nicotine consumption isn't being reduced as previously though.
Edit: I bought him the vape after a friend that's been smoking for a long time made the switch and raved about the benefits. I don't doubt that the best course of action is to quit altogether, but a 50+ year addiction is pretty difficult to quit. It can be done but you really have to want it. I don't think my dad really wanted to quit. I know that seems silly, but given his circumstances I can understand.
I tried to quit several times, I tried the gum, the patches, Chantix and cold turkey. None of them allowed me to successfully quit. Vaping was good enough to temper the nicotine cravings enough that I could otherwise function without regular smoking. I have cut back on nicotine content over the years. Now, I'm using the lowest nicotine content liquid that I find readily available. The next step is to mix it with 0 nicotine liquid until I can make another attempt at quitting.
I agree that non-smokers (especially children) shouldn't do it because it can lead to nicotine addiction but for smokers, it's a miracle product.
I still want a cigarette every once in a while, but I think that’s going to pass in the next month or two. At least enough for me to quit the vape as well.
I’d never recommend one to a nonsmoker. But, for me, it has been an effective way out of a vice. If anyone wants out, it has been working for me. Definitely worth considering.
so, yeah. n=1. not data, just an observation. I think unrestrained smoking will kill me. Perhaps the damage is done, at it will kill me regardless. That said, continuing smoking only expands the risk profile. Vaping likely narrows the risk profile. Even if it does not, vaping is a temporary thing for me. I'll be done soon.
The pattern, as explained to me and IIRC, was as follows:
Started vaping insteadof smoking.
Tried vape with less nicotine. Worked equally well.
Tried with half strength.
Tried with even less. Also worked.
At this point it just felt silly so they just stopped.
(Note that these where young people.)
Of course there's some parallels there for the software world, like the endless A/B testing social-media sites do to maximize the amount of time people spend glued to their product.
The problem I had was that a cigarette has an obvious stop point - it runs out - whereas a vape will go on as long as you have juice and power.
Over the 6 months or so getting used to it I've been vaping it's started to fizzle out. I know, n=1, but I think it's something worth noting in case people see an increase in nicotine intake immediately after switching
A proven strategy.
Is vaping harmless? Unlikely. Based on current understanding is it likely much less harmful than smoking tobacco? Yes.
https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
>There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.
And Heart disease is associated with pollution from burning fossil fuels: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStro...
Some people are so offended by the idea of smoking that even doing something much less harmful, like vaping, is enough to cause them to panic for the future of our children.
Much as your physical health is probably best by quitting, mental health certainly has to be considered as well.
it's hard to convince people some times (also not helping that things are still fuzzy and depending on your friends, you can also hear horror stories like lung cancer due to weird vaping byproducts ..)
How about: Nicotine users more likely to use nicotine.
Non-snarky question: why is that a concern? Nicotine -- in the absence of burning tobacco -- isn't bad for you.
I'm entirely supportive of people who want to study this stuff, but the impulse that any new product should be illegal until it's been proven safe to fairly arbitrary standards seems unreasonable to me. And I think there's a bit of a baptist-bootlegger coalition between the medical researchers and tobacco companies.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164...
> AAMODT: So the changes that happen between
> 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts
> around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through
> that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully
> developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to
> inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to
> reach a goal.
If nothing else, there's a monetary cost, a possible convenience cost, etc., and people should choose maturely whether that's something they want to take on.
(And there are some plausible health risks still with vaping, as others have noted.)
Metal content is negligible unless you dry hit. No one likes that so it's pretty much a self-limiting problem.
Flavoring compounds, though... there are liquids out there that contain diacetyl (a "buttery" flavoring). It's relatively common in foods, but is known specifically to cause issues when heated and inhaled.
ETA: I just saw that this is mentioned in the article.
> Any one of those components could be harmful.
Yep. The best harm reduction strategy at the moment seems to be to stick to well-known and establish manufacturers of eliquid.
That name rang a bell; diacetyl is the compound behind "popcorn lung", so called because its use for its buttery taste in microwave popcorn was common but is damaging to the lungs if the fumes were inhaled; e.g. https://nyti.ms/2h7ls4G. Interesting to see that it's being used as a vaping flavorant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchiolitis_obliterans#Dia...
I... I... need get to bed.
I assumed when people were talking about metal content, they were referring to metal vapors from the heating elements or something, but I'll admit that I don't know enough about this, or what a dry hit is vs. normal use, or how we know when metal vapors or whatever are/aren't a concern.
(I feel so old right now, hah!)
The only study I've seen that shows that heavy metals in vapor is an issue used conditions that are unlikely to occur in "real life" because of this. The argument seems to be that one could become accustomed to it through the cravings associated with nicotine withdrawal, but I honestly find that unlikely. In reality, you'd burn your coil up in short order, and if you can afford a new coil you'd have been buying more liquid in the first place.
https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/study-toxic-me...
"For their study, the researchers selected five leading brands of so-called first generation e-cigarettes, which are referred to as cig-a-likes because they resemble traditional cigarettes. (Newer ones look like small cassette recorders with a mouthpiece. In the newer devices the liquid is added from a dispenser prior to use. In contrast, the liquid in first generation e-cigs is stored in the cartridge together with the coil, which increases the liquid’s exposure to the coil even in the absence of heating.) The five brands are sold across the United States in big-box retail stores, convenience stores and gas stations, as well as online. Three of the five brands constituted 71 percent of total market share in 2015. If a brand came in more than one flavor, the researchers chose one flavor for consistency’s sake."
Almost no one uses this piece of junk cig-a-likes. Try and find a person using one on the street, compared to people using proper high powered mods, which their "market share" statistic most certainly does not include.
"This study was funded by the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health."
Shocking.
I have yet to read a negative study that does not contain obvious blatant lies.
Who do you expect to investigate tobacco products, if not the institute of tobacco control at America's #1 medical college?
edit: also, if your "high power mod" still uses a nichrome heating element, you will have the same problems. Chemistry is chemistry.
71% of the market of product sold in big-box retail stores, convenience stores and gas stations, as well as online. That market is perhaps 10% (that's being generous) of the overall ecig market, because those tiny things suck.
I'm less worried about metal leeching in higher end mods, the juice doesn't sit for months on end with significant surface area touching metal as the juice is typically vaped in << 24 hours, and the physical designs are quite different.
That said, there is still an element of unknown risk, both with the metals used, as well as the wicking materials, but it seems reasonable to expect high end products where they have better margins and more concern with reputation to put much more emphasis on safety and quality.
EDIT:
I think I will have to eat some crow, after doing some googling it seems there are in fact thorough real studies being performed on real world equipment:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2175/
I mostly just skimmed this article, figuring out whether these detected levels are beyond what is considered "safe" or how they compare to both regular cigarettes and background environmental exposure I suppose would be nice to know, but based on this article I am going to change my stance to believe that yes, in fact I am exposing myself to heavy metals even when using a high end mod. I think I'm going to do some more research later as I would expect this report would have gotten a fair amount of publicity in the enthusiast community, will be interesting to see how honest their reaction is to this.
We're talking about exposures to ten micrograms in various e-liquids, versus 7,000 micrograms for smokers. On a daily basis, in both cases.
Even more curious, traditional smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis.[2] Should those flavors be avoided? Yeah, but I honestly wouldn't get hysterical over it. We're talking about fractions of micrograms in the end product. You certainly are exposed to far more diacetyl in second-hand smoke than a vaper is exposed to in a day, on average, in liquids that contain this flavoring.
FYI: I quit smoking completely using e-cigarettes, and quit using e-cigarettes last year. I wrapped my own coils and built my own atomizers at one point, so I'm probably biased, but the numbers speak for themselves.
To say nothing of my opinion on the hysteria over nicotine, which has never been shown to have strong reinforcing properties in any study. Nicotine, by itself, has simply never been shown to be more addictive than caffeine.[3]
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.20153/abstrac...
[2] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.882...
But as other people here said - diacetyl / popcorn lung has been known on the popular vaping scene for almost a decade now. Not to speak in absolute terms but I think it would be hard to find a retailer these days that carries any liquid with diacetyl in it.
Maybe there aren't enough regulations around vaping ingredients? If so, the solution is to regulate it (much like food). In the meantime, it's up to the buyer to find reliable suppliers who use good ingredients. This isn't impossible.
To the best of my knowledge, the only place where they still use caffeine from coffee is Japan.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/funding/supplemental-information-n...
I don't think we know this. routine use of Nicotine alone is one of the world's most effective and safest appetite suppressants, with robust evidence of sustained weightless. It's quite possible a small decrease in the obesity rate means its net effect is positive.
California and Massachusetts (and oddly enough, Mississippi) are stoking up a new hysteria with public health spending in an effort to keep people of all ages from switching from conventional cigarettes to e-cigs.
I see six-figure earners on the sidewalks of San Francisco smoking old-fashioned cancer sticks and very few vaping. I wonder- did my tax dollars dissuade them from upgrading their habit? Second-hand smoke is substantially safer from vaping, but actual health of nonsmokers must not be these states' priorities.
There are rumblings about regulating nicotine content in real cigarettes. If they were to regulate vape juices (like limit the worst precarcinogenic bases), I think that's a much better (and cheaper!) place to devote public resources.
The fact that you see a few people smoking cigarettes outside an office building doesn't mean both of these campaigns didn't work.
It definitely isn't for lack of trying of my school district's part, and yet high single digit percentages of my peers in high school were using some form of tobacco/nicotine when I graduated in 2015.
It's well settled science that using these types of products cannot possibly be good for you. It baffles me why anyone would intentionally create an addiction/habit that, at absolute best, is neutral for your health.
reasons:
1). exclusive social 'networks' - see smokers gathered during 'smoking breaks'
2). looks cool
seriously, someone should make a e-cigarette that looks exactly like a cigar...
ps: as for all those non-smokers, pretend to cough when someone is smoking on public space. tell them it looks shit when someone smokes.
To look cool.
No, seriously, that's one of the main reasons. To look cool in front of one's peers. You might not have cared about such things, or feel pressure to engage in them. If so, I'm happy for you. But that doesn't mean others don't.
FYI smoking and diabetes have about the same negative effect on life expectancy so I wouldn't say neutral. Adult on set diabetes can be avoided with diet and exercise yet people still eat poorly.
Because nicotine feels good. It's really not that complicated.
If someone tells me not to do something, it makes me want to do it. I smoked for a while when I was 18, back before I believed anything could really harm me. It was fun and upset all the people I wanted to upset.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not recommending that anyone, especially children, self medicate with psychoactive substances.
Do you take Meth to 'even out'?
Me, I just quit smoking entirely 3 years ago.
That was one of the appeals of smoking.
I take it you're a non-smoker now. I wonder how a vape would affect that.
http://www.ti.ubc.ca/1997/10/31/effective-clinical-tobacco-i...
I don't personally take meth or anything like that, but low dose amphetamines are widely used to treat ADHD and related disorders.
It's good that you quit. I'm certainly not recommending nicotine to anyone. Just pointing out one factor behind the growing trend.
Stimulants affect people with certain disorders differently, as the parent mentioned (ADHD, etc.).
I'm not sure what the new vapes can do, but old vapes didn't have the ability to put a ceiling on dose for a single session (ie turn off after x pulls). With a cigarette, the act of burning through the cig acts as an indicator to stop. With a vape it's more difficult to understand when to stop because there is no physical indicator.
This is the most absurd hyperbole I've heard so far this week. Granted it's Monday so you had a lot working against you. An entire generation? Every thirty minutes?
But there's certainly NO reason to vape other than "monkey see, monkey do."
EDIT:
Regarding my comment earlier about whether or not tobacco is worse than alcohol: Looks like tobacco is actually the #1 cause of death [1]
What, exactly, is the problem with kids vaping/using e-cigarettes if they don't contain a controlled substance (THC or nicotine, in these cases). We don't ban kids from consuming caffeine, so what's the problem with inert vapors? I agree that the liquid to be vaporized needs to be regulated to prevent health issues, but that's no different than the FDA regulating food safety.
I think a blanket ban on vapes for everyone under 18 and a ban on tobacco for 21 and older would probably have beneficial public health impacts.
That's a fair compromise, although I'd like an outright ban on cigarettes. If someone wants to vape to get their nicotine, or chew gum, fine (I am a supporter of safe recreational drug use). But smoking has been proven to be downright ruinous to your long term health.
Disclosure: I am putting a Kickstarter together to use GMOs to eliminate tobacco long term.
Could you elaborate on this? It sounds interesting, but it also sounds kind of "Scorpio-like" [0] like you are some Bond villain plotting to take over the world's tobacco supply with a genetically modified super-tobacco that will strangle other tobacco at the roots unless farmers pay you for weed killer. [1]
Just to add to this. Your gastrointestinal tract has evolved for millions of years to deal with all sorts of crap you can throw at it. It's always the safest route. Snorting or inhaling compounds is a quick way to the bloodstream, but an unsafe route since the sinuses and lungs aren't as good at protection and general healing as the stomach and gut.
"You must be at least 21 years old to purchase products on JUUL.com.'
Not sure if this might be a self-interest thing where the store just doesn't want to be on the hook if a kid drinks too many. (The bottle specifies not to drink more than two a day, "several" hours apart. Kids who drank six have ended up in the hospital.)
There's also evidence that smokers find vaping useful as a cessation tool. So we need a way to balance the harms and benefits.
It doesn't help that vape suppliers in England will sell to children who've never smoked, despite the code of conduct telling them not to. This small number of bad actors will attract stricter regulation.
The bigger problem is behavior. Focusing on particular substances is mostly a scapegoat for our lack of self control.
are all unhealthy for kids.
Vaping might not be that much healthier for the consumer, but its widely popular because its so much nicer for the non smoker.
How much of the campaign to stop smoking was out of concern for the health of future generations? And how much of it was out of the annoyance of second hand smoke?
Even if Vaping proves to be equally dangerous to cigarette smoking, our desire to stop it just isn't in the same ballpark.
I'd like there to be more information on the health effects of vaping so that people can make better-informed decisions, but I doubt it would have a big impact. The health effects of smoking have been well-known for decades, but I think we didn't see significant declines until it became less socially acceptable.
Aren't they often the same thing? You don't want your kids breathing other people's smoke at restaurants, parks, museums, and ballgames.
More traditional e-juice can range in nic content from 0mg/ml to as high as 40-50mg/ml, but the most common variants you see are 3mg/ml and 6mg/ml. Relatively low compared to the gas station stuff.
Its also worth saying that the two aren't directly comparable due to the action of vaporization. Gas station ecigs are pretty bad at generating vapor, which means you get less vapor on each inhale, which means less actual nicotine. Reusable, higher tier vapes that you use with usually lower nic juice produce significantly more vapor. So its hard to compare.
Which comes down to the biggest problem in the world: regulation and standardization. Its a complete wild west. You have no idea what standards the e-juice manufacturers hold themselves to. The "brands" on many juices are hidden behind flashy flavor names like "Quadruple Laser Berry". There's an advertised nic content, but who knows if that's actually what's in there. Often you can purchase nic strengths that are absurd, like 40-60mg/ml, that would make any reasonable person instantly puke. Physical stores will often card, especially if you look young, but there are many online retailers where you can buy whatever you want with no verification. There are states where you can't legally buy this stuff online, but most online retailers don't care.
I'm not sure of the chemistry in this specific case, but it sometimes happens that adding more solutes just causes a solution to get denser, so it doesn't decrease the mass of solvent per unit volume.
Nicotine wears off very quickly. While it can remain detectable in your system for days, the feeling it gives only persists for 10-15 minutes after inhale, if that. Varying the dosage only really affects the intensity, not duration.
Speaking of intensity; if you don't have a tolerance, high levels of nic can be physically and mentally uncomfortable. Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might get slightly nauseous and uncomfortable even at 6mg/ml, definitely at 9mg/ml, unless you have a counteracting agent in your system like alcohol (which is why "leveling out" is a thing).
The chemically addictive properties nicotine has is only one part of the story. There's also the "throat hit"; the feeling of inhaling something warm and slightly uncomfortable. That's a major part of the addiction.
It also tastes great. And its "something to do"; kind of like a fidget spinner, it keeps you busy.
That only makes sense if there's a standardized inhalation size, which there isn't. I've seen people using vaporizers specially designed to make huge clouds, and they're obviously using low concentration. If they used a stronger concentration they could get the same effect with a smaller inhalation size.
Golden age syndrome. It happened, you just forget about the negative parts.
Anecdote: when I was in highschool quite recently (2004-2008), many students were regular smokers or dippers (chew tobacco). At this point, the health effects of smoking (and to a lesser extent, chew tobacco) were obviously well understood. Nevertheless, students picked up smoking etc.
Picking up vaping nicotine probably isn't great, but it beats cigarettes (and probably chew tobacco).
The important thing to remember is that overall drug and alcohol use among American teens is down, and trending down. "According to a major longitudinal study of teenagers called Monitoring the Future, high schoolers’ use of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs (other than marijuana and vaping) have dropped to the lowest levels since the survey began in 1976."[0]
Notably, from the above December 2016 article:
> E-Cigarettes (Vaporizers): The rate for e-cigarettes among high school seniors dropped to 12.4 percent from last year’s 16.2 percent. Of note: only 24.9 percent of 12th graders report that their e-cigarettes contained nicotine (the addictive ingredient in tobacco) the last time they used, with 62.8 percent claiming they contain "just flavoring." (emphasis added)
> Attitudes and Availability: This year, more 10th graders disapprove of regular use of e-cigarettes than last year. For example, 65 percent of 10th graders say they disapprove, up from last year’s 59.9 percent. In addition, more 10th graders think it is harder to get regular cigarettes than last year; 62.9 percent said they are easy to get, compared to 66.6 percent last year. This represents a dramatic shift from survey findings two decades ago, when 91.3 percent of 10th graders thought it was easy to get cigarettes.
[0]: https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2016/12/...
When I was a schoolboy everybody believed kids that smoke don't grow as they get older, nobody wanted to become a gnome :-)
If there is a real health threat we are to be able to explain it to the children, if there isn't - we probably should just let the do what they want.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but, like, what?
AFAIK that approach hasn't been tried anywhere. I think I heard a while back it was discussed in Russia but never actually happened? I don't see any good argument for not doing this.
A lot who have smoked and quit probably understand the pschological aspect; the constant need, the schedule, the loss of enjoyment from taking a deep breath of fresh air.. I don't want to be addicted to inhaling nicotine in any form.
I find this title confusing - I thought it meant that vapes were physically exploding.
Maybe they should just sit in the chair and do what they're told instead
"ABC is a gateway drug/activity/event. It leads to XYZ, which is way worse!"
Sure, so educate them on real consequences and safety and not the external imposed consequences. Also, don't lie about ABC since they'll assume you lied about XYZ as well.
Seriously, who still doesn't see the same 5-10 year pattern at this point?
Let's fix this recurring problem.
Edit now the third page.
8 min later, 4th page.
Edit: You edited your reply after I started. I think abstinence works fine for something like nicotine. Unlike say sex humans don't have any innate craving for nicotine, I've never consumed it in my entire life and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything.
Btw, do you know if schools in the U.S. sell sweets? (My school used to have a 'tuck shop' for this purpose).
The success rate of quitting is really up to the individual, much like weight loss or other self improvement stuff. But even if it's hard it's the thing you should do.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing. "Quitting is hard and a lot of people fail so .. don't quit." That's some lame mentality right there.
No, I asked: what should vaping be replaced with?
Obviously the goal is "not inhaling things that aren't air".
Do you mean nicotine gum? Isn't that bad for your gums? Or do you mean plain chewing gum?
Ultimately, all cessation methods are aiming to require 0 nicotine at their conclusion. As for the "best thing" to do when trying to quit, financial loss seems to be a good incentive. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414293
If they're not smoking you don't want them to start vaping.
If it were, then nobody would start smoking.
This is like saying the rhythm method has a 100% success rate. It's only true if you do it perfectly. Nobody does.
On a related note these days I think most kids are banned from using cellphones in school. So they'd have to purchase a separate calculator.
I don't remember the finer details of anti-drug propaganda from school that well anymore, but I do remember my anger at how patronizing, insulting and obviously ineffective most of it was. And how it often used the exact same manipulation tactics that DARE told us drug-pushers would try to use on us. Why, when people grow up, do they not remember the well intentioned but misguided intervention programs they were subject to in their own youth?
Then vaping screwed it all up.
I hate the myth - which I assumed is being propagated by the companies that profit off of it - that vaping was a replacement for smoking, and that people who vape would otherwise smoke. No. There was a clear period of time between when smoking was on its deathbed and when vaping exploded.
Yes. In my social circle a whole bunch of us switched from smoking a pack+/day to vaping, about 10 years ago.
I smoked ~4 years light/social post high school. Dipped Copenhagen Pouches for ~10 years. I've tried to quite with some success with the longest streak being 2 years. It is incredibly hard and all in the mind.
I found ZYN pouches last year and they have replaced my needs. It "... is a tobacco leaf-free nicotine product. The nicotine salt used in ZYN is derived from tobacco leaves, but once the salt is extracted, no part of the leaf remains." The rest of it is says its food-grade.
Obviously the best would be not to use anything. But would anyone happen to know if this is still leaving a lot of risk exposure? My thought is its probably about as safe as I'll ever find, and really just giving me the nicotine I've become used to without the bad stuff, as nicotine itself is not what causes problems. But if anyone has more informed opinions that would be helpful.
In terms of recreational nicotine, Swedish snus has the most established, long term evidence base for very significantly reduced risks.
It's reasonable to expect that a product like Zyn would fare even better than Swedish snus in long term studies because of the lack of tobacco specific nitrosamines. Although Zyn doesn't have a long term, formulation specific evidence base like Swedish snus, there is good evidence for its components.
Pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy products like nicotine gum could be options too. Guessing you've already tried that though... but even the FDA now says NRT can be used indefinitely.