Let's not become the 'no fun allowed' society.
E-cigarette vapor disables key immune cells in the lung and boosts inflammation: Effects similar to those seen in regular smokers and patients with chronic lung disease. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180813190148.h...
E-cigs shut down hundreds of immune system genes—regular cigs don’t
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/e-cigs-shut-down-hun...
Widely used e-cigarette flavoring impairs lung function
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180523172310.h...
It may turn out that e-cigarettes are, on the balance, safer than cigarettes, however it's way too early to make that claim with any level of certainty. Realistically, we're probably going to find out through long-term longitudinal studies in a few decades.
No, it isn't. Tobacco contains 70 known human carcinogens and is known to directly cause lung cancer. No one is claiming that vaping causes cancer. The possibility that's being raised is that after decades of use vaping may cause lung disease. I know which is worse.
And importantly, as you say, the matter in unsettled and it is just as likely that it does not.
Is your point that it should be pre-emptively banned, just in case?
"To evaluate possible long-term effects of vaping, the team assessed DNA damage in the cells of the volunteers' mouths."
"Dator and Balbo identified three DNA-damaging compounds, formaldehyde, acrolein and methylglyoxal, whose levels increased in the saliva after vaping."
"Compared with people who don't vape, four of the five e-cigarette users showed increased DNA damage related to acrolein exposure."
"E-cigarettes can damage DNA" https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-e-cigarettes-dna.html
You're trying to imply something you have no evidence for.
There should be an obvious logical difference in your mind between "DNA damage causes cancer" and "all cancer is caused by DNA damage". If you want to know whether something is a carcinogen, checking whether it causes DNA damage is not enough for you to conclude "no". But it may be enough for you to conclude "yes".
But the thing is the cells can usually repair the damage on their own.
While being skeptical of the claim that vaping is healthy is a tenable position, your arguments lack honesty.
Based off the headline/intro I thought they were going to demonstrate that inhaled ejuice leads to macropahges being disabled (which would be very bad). That’s not the case however.
FWIW, I don’t think vaping is harmless to the lungs. I do think it’s an order of magnitude better than smoked tobacco.
Personally, I never smoked tobacco seriously (took occasional hits of a cigarette while drunk and that was it). Meanwhile friends of mine would smoke tobacco out of a bong 10-12 times a day. (One of the craziest sights ever to see someone smoke so much tobacco at once that they lose muscular function for 60 secs).
OTOH, I did become dependent on vaporizing nicotine. So please don’t think I’m saying there’s no harm of addiction/damage etc. But let’s please actually analyze the scientific studies from a critical perspective rather than link dropping to make an argument look more well founded than it is
Ehm, but you should be ‘allowed’ to post source-less claims like the parent did?!?
Public Health England, which informs NHS policy estimates vaping is 95% less bad for your health than smoking cigarettes.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I acknowledge that this is an appeal to authority, and that there's valuable research still to be done. But, cigarettes are one of the worst possible things that people habitually do to their bodies. It's reasonable that it wouldn't be hard to do a lot better.
I think it's fair to describe the NHS's public health arm as a decently conservative organization. Public health is a conservative practice after all, and they're decent at it. I read these numbers in that light.
> 'Some flavourings and constituents in e-cigarettes may pose risks over the long term. We consider the 5% residual risk to be a cautious estimate allowing for this uncertainty.'
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
One vape pod is a pack of cigarettes, with no barrier to puffing.
Kids can't smoke cigarettes all day long in school. They can vape all day long in school, and some do, limited only by availability of money.
W/r/t definition, the second linked pdf makes reference to measured composition of known bads in vapour:smoke and asserts the ratio is smaller than 1:20. Also refers you to the preexisting literature. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/360220 That paper defines harms as a combination of health and social factors, with a large weighting towards morbidity.
Vaporizing by definition does not combust so there is no harmful irritating and inflammation causing smoke (although my vaporizer allows the temp to go so high as to start to combust weed, up to 260 celsius) so it would stand to reason it has to be safer on its own, especially if you remove from cigarette tobacco all toxic chemicals like polonium and others like MAOIs that supposedly boost the addictive potential and all you're left is pure nicotine.
There is also snus or those small tobacco pouches you put under your lip but I recall hearing about them causing gum damage etc so even that may be more harmful than vaping.
Tobacco (and snus) also have the littering problem. People throw away more or less non degradable garbage on the streets all day every day.
I wonder how much big tobacco (excluding Altria now that they're in the vape game) lobbies against vaping because it eats into their profits?
I wonder how much big pharma lobbies against vaping because it eats into their profits. It is not cool that likely the safest way to ingest nicotine is also likely the most expensive (gum, patches, etc). And these people have the audacity to fight vaping in order for it to be either _smoked_ tobacco or their extremely expensive pharma products.
Surely vaping is the lesser evil compared to smoking and society should allow it OR remove tobacco overnight. Otherwise it seems weird and illogical. (I don't know if removing all external chemical catalysts from society is what should happen.)
Unless I've missed something, the evidence for red meat being a carcinogen is actually still up for debate and it's nowhere near conclusive. I've skimmed some sources making this claim, but I wasn't convinced by their research methodology.
I've discussed the weed issue enough times that I luckily have this article [0] in my bookmarks, which analyses our current knowledge. I'm not aware of any more modern article which does the same in-depth analysis on the state of things. I won't claim that weed is a magical drug without any kind of side-effects, but the research on its impact still seems fairly young. My key take-away from the linked article was that young people should probably avoid regular usage, maybe aside from trying it out once or twice.
This is the problem with all of science, or at least the popular discussion of it. Things get presented in little bite-sized chunks stripped of all context. It's significant effort to read the original papers and supporting papers and decide for yourself, and that's neglecting the domain knowledge that's required to do that properly. On top of that there are conflicting results where even experts may disagree. All you can do is wait for a consensus position to emerge.
i might draw the line at addictiveness. But then caffeine is also mildly addictive...
I agree only because caffeine has such a slow half life in the body and it's hard to control withdrawl.
If you had something almost the same as caffeine, that you could use to wake up faster and get tired faster, with the only negative effect being ten minutes of zombie in the morning, that would be great for so many people.
Though how much evidence would you need for someone being able to quit caffeine? If they abstain for a month, is that enough?
You can only expect someone to disrupt their appetite so much to prove a point. Is it effectively impossible to prove to your satisfaction?
I'd add mental health/anxiety issues as another reason to avoid it. It can be a fine cognitive enhancer - but caffeine as a crutch will give you a limp.
I've yet to see anything that I'd actually consider "marketing nicotine to children," besides the ads they show on tv complaining that "the industry" is marketing to children, that is. Those "warning" ads are way more appealing to kids and raise their curiosity in my mind than any actual vape ads I see. Talking about the flavors and showing the kids picking up the pretty packages and oohing and aahing over them...sheesh.
Adults like flavored e-juice to vape, way more than flavorless. I don't think flavoring something can be directly equated to marketing to children. Where are these ads marketing to children that everybody keeps mentioning?
um, you can get vape 'juice' any anything from unflavored to cigar to brownies to blueberry pie...
While making dessert flavored juice might not be specifically aimed towards children, you know LITTLE children and teens are going to be like "hey, I want to puff clouds of dessert too!" unlike cigarettes "hey I want to puff caustic, nasty, nauseating, burning paper!"
The FDA, several state attorney generals, senators have all moved in the past few years to attempt to outright ban any flavored tobacco products (including menthol) specifically because they provide an easy gateway for children.
The most recent high-profile case I can think of is San Francisco banning the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, this summer specifically for this reason.
"Nicotine as a cognitive enhancer." (1992): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1579636
"Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment" (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466669/
"Cognitive Effects of Nicotine: Recent Progress." (2018): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29110618
A study measuring higher effective IQ (1994): https://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1994-stough.pdf
> We therefore hypothesised that nicotine is acting to improve intellectual performance on the elementary information processing correlates of IQ. [W]e tested this hypothesis using the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) test. APM scores were significantly higher in the smoking session compared to the non-smoking session, suggesting that nicotine acts to enhance physiological processes underlying performance on intellectual tasks.
"Will a Nicotine Patch Make You Smarter?": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-a-nicotine-p...
These may be reasons why people choose to use it. I've certainly spoken to people who believe they're more productive or effective on nicotine.
I don't know what the current research is on whether these benefits are short-term only or can be sustained long-term. I'm not an expert on this - I'm just casually interested in nootroptics. I don't consume nicotine or tobacco.
There is also debate about how addictive nicotine is by itself. While tobacco is extremely addictive, there is evidence that nicotine, alone, is habit-forming but only mildly addictive or perhaps even nonaddictive (but still habit-forming). Psychopharmacologist Paul Newhouse makes this point in the Scientific American article above.
An essay by Gwern Branwen presenting an overview of data on nicotine addiction: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
> My take away is that there is addiction but it’s drastically overestimated by almost everyone and may been conflated with the habit-formation capability
An in-depth review and critique of the evidence of nicotine addiction: "A critique of nicotine addiction" (2000): https://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/2002-frenkdar.pdf
> We submit that an objective evaluation of these data leads to the conclusion that [nicotine] is not an addictive drug and that the popularized equation of the addictive properties of nicotine [...] has little to do with science.
Even the addiction is, in a strange sense, pleasurable. A nicotine craving is a purely objectified need that can be satisfied in a very direct and immediate way; that is a powerful experience if you have other important needs that cannot be satisfied. I might be miserable at work, I might be depressed and anxious in ways that do not respond to drugs or psychotherapy, I might be poor and lonely and justifiably hopeless about the future, but this one specific need of mine can always be satisfied with a pack of smokes or a Juul and a five minute break.
When you have very limited control over your circumstances, cigarettes give you some modicum of control over your mood. If you have never felt completely trapped by your circumstances, it is difficult to express how significantly that sliver of control can affect your sense of self.
The sociability of smoking simply cannot be emulated in any other way, because the act of smoking itself provides a profound sense of communality. Non-smokers do not and cannot understand why the smokers choose to huddle outside, which is precisely why we feel able to start conversations with complete strangers. We are bound together by a bewitching, maddening and frequently lifelong relationship with a very peculiar alkaloid.
I believe that nicotine has, for entirely respectable reasons, been demonized by the anti-smoking lobby; it has been characterised as a completely pointless drug that persists only because of the aggressive marketing of tobacco companies and its highly addictive nature.
I would argue that the potent addictive potential of nicotine is a product of its potent psychoactive effect and the complex role it plays in the life of smokers. E-cigarette users see e-cigarettes as a potentially lifesaving technology that satisfies a profound psychological need. I do not wish to endorse e-cigarettes, I certainly would not encourage anyone to take up nicotine use, but I would beg for some modicum of empathy on the part of non-smokers towards their nicotine-dependent peers.
He doesn't have a lot of control over his circumstances, and I can definitely understand the sense of control you can get from satisfying a nicotine craving. He's also mentioned the social aspect quite a few times. He frequently tells me that the best times in his life have all been smoking cigarettes.
My issue is that he is undoubtedly going to suffer major health problems, likely dying much earlier than he would have head it not been for the two pack a day habit. He knows this, and routinely jokes about dying before he hits thirty. I don't know if he really understands how young thirty is.
I do have empathy for him, but I love him very much and hate to see the damage he is doing to himself...
I am moving to a first-floor apartment purely because I've lived in two apartments where the downstairs neighbour likes to smoke. I can't keep a window open because their fucking shit-smell leaks into my living space, it's extremely infuriating.
The "huddling outside" thing is also quite annoying. Often smokers "huddle" right next to the entrypoint of a building. Now anyone who is entering/exiting has to go through a cloud of smoke. I've also noticed that even when building managers put "No smoking" signs around these areas, smokers do not care.
Honestly, I started this comment in a friendly tone, but deleted most of it just to hate on smokers after I realized that I actually hate them.
You think it's cool and by the time you realise it's not, you are physically dependant on it to function.
At least alcohol and marijuana do something.
Which is why vaping is so dangerous. If you can think of a flavor, it's available. No flavor, cigar, blueberry pie, chocolate brownies, etc. More flavors than a shaved ice stand. Unlike cigarettes where you have "nauseating burnt paper" and "menthol nauseating burnt paper".
Even if you personally don’t respond to it, others do.
Once you're that far —and we're only talking days— smoking is not getting you a desirable outcome, it's merely returning you to your new baseline dopamine level.
Simply put, it's just too addictive to be used recreationally.
Also, you're now longer making your initial point, that nicotine isn't fun, instead you've moved on to 'the fun wears off or you'll need to consume more to get the same effect'.