In the ‘Juul room’: E-cigarettes spawn a new form of teen addiction
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
At the same time we should be skeptical of anecdotes like the ones in the article.
> But it was his demeanor that scared her most. Cade Beauparlant’s anxiety and mood swings worsened, his outbursts so sudden and so explosive that his mother said she came to fear him.
I really think that might for the most part simply be due to this thing called puberty.
> “We kind of lost four years of Cade to this addiction,” Kristin Beauparlant said. Now that he has cut back, “He just seems like a different kid. You can’t help but say there’s a correlation.”
Yes, a correlation maybe, but who is to say of what nature.
When I was a teenager I also had a pretty rough time dealing with my family and in particular my overprotective mum. So did many of my mates to varying degrees.
Nicotine addiction certainly doesn't help, but at that age people are easily "addicted" to many things. I believe video game addiction was more common than tobacco in my peer group (, my point being that it might not matter too much whether that thing is vaping or some other activity that's addictive and, important, frowned upon by parents, unlike for instance sports). Also a time to engage in generally stupid and dangerous behavior. Nobody likes to get their favorite thing/toy/or freedom to go out get taken away. In puberty teenagers start to realize that they can actually try to stand up to their parents. Parents are scared when their precious child doesn't follow the rules, or speaks up, which ends up in a spiral of back and forth that sometimes escalates to the point where parents "don't recognize their kids anymore".
Then typically after a few years shit calms down again with stabilized hormones, everyone having pushed and explored their boundaries, and the prospect of only a short amount of time left under the parents' direct control before leaving for college.
So yes, puberty does things to you, but they tend to be temporary. The cognitive triggers of nicotine addiction stay long after you "quit".
People who have given up eating meat for health reasons will also often lust for a steak when they see one being eaten in a movie.
But my intention is actually not to claim there's no such thing as nicotine addiction.
My claim is that I find it unlikely that it's vaping or smoking that turns teenagers into crazy impulsive, and moody people.
Changing the flavor sounds needlessly draconian, as adults like apple and bubblegum, too.
You can flood your system with caffeine using over the counter caffeine pills, or ultra-high caffeine drinks.
You can flood your system with alcohol with everclear or unconventional ingestion methods.
Neither of these behaviors are as common as this article is trying to push about nicotine, probably mostly due to education and possibly due to the relative addictive nature of caffeine and alcohol.
This whole article, though, talks about teens, presumably underage ones, vaping. Isn’t that already illegal? Shouldn’t we get better at that part before we add more things?
Pretty much the answer to every law that's passed. Why not just enforce the laws that we have?
Because that's harder than patting yourself on the back for making it double illegal. You need to allocate funding, convince enforcement to care, etc, etc. Doing a good job enforcing a law requires buy in on basically every level. Making a law is a cakewalk by comparison.
As if teens didn’t just get packs of cigarettes before, they just had to be more discrete about them. Kid next door smoked in his back yard and threw the butts over the fence into mine, that was just last year.
The whole thing is a joke, stores need to do a better job checking ID cards instead of the government creating draconian restrictions. The corner stores I frequent will sell me alcohol without carding me because they “all know who I am”, but the local smoke shop will card me EVERY SINGLE TIME even though they’ve seen me a dozen times (I personally appreciate this).
What they should do is just apply some friction. Like when you had to start getting OTC meds like Sudafed from the pharmacist. I don’t know if that’s federal or my state. But if you buy too much Sudafed you get on the meth cooker list.
I‘m a bit afraid that alarmists and the likes will manage to restrict the sale and use of electronic cigarettes and nicotine-liquids for adults, as they already managed to do in a number of countries.
Products like the Juul are orders of magnitude less harmful than real smoking and I think adults should absolutely have the choice to use them. And yeah, many of them apparently like flavors such as Mango and Bubblegum instead of using liquids that claim to taste like tobacco.
Source?
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/promote-e-cigarettes-widely...
A quote:
"Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure"
> the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine
> Smokers should be reassured that these products can help them quit all tobacco use forever.
> This new report builds on that work and concludes that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society.
The report is pretty clear in that vaping is likely to be better than cigarettes on the health of the UK.
Not that vaping is harm free, to be clear.
I don’t think there’s clear evidence that the contents of ecigs are safer (too new), but we know how terrible tobacco combustion is.
We also know that nicotine itself isn’t particularly harmful.
Source?
That article contains no information that clearly states that nicotine is harmless, just that using vapes and nicotinic gums are less harmful than the use of cigarettes. To be clear, it does not say that nicotine is harmful, nor does it say that it is harmless.
I.e. not harmless, but not especially harmful. Like caffeine. Remember, humans have a 100% mortality rate.
All we know is that we have yet to find evidence that nicotine is especially harmful, and that’s just how it works in the biological sciences. If everything required proof of no harm, we would simply die of starvation.
https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/...
In the context of tobacco the nicotine is addictive; possibly carcinogenic; but there's a load of other stuff in tobacco which is far worse.
I think it would be foolish to allow 16 year olds to have access to nicotine products unless they're already smokers.
Let's analyze Juul using the second point. Juul is an experiment modern technology is being leveraged to determine how quickly an addictive substance can be used to alter brain chemistry. The techniques learned from e-cigarettes (using data from tens of thousands of users) will in a few years be used for other hard drugs. Juul is turning a blind eye to kids using its products, but the drug mafias will actively pursue kids and get them hooked onto highly dangerous drugs using new high tech drug delivery devices. Yes, these devices already exist, but they are not being widely used and studied by scientists in methodical fashion, and published in journals.
Now the first point. Pretty soon, competitors will decide that the easy way to beat Juul is to make their own e-cigarette more addictive. From there, its going to be a rat race to the bottom where every company in the space will devolve to R&D labs trying to create the most addictive e-cigarette possible.
Do you really want to live in this future?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5391327/
[2] https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/who_ban_t...
A lot of the vaping done by underaged kids is happening in public - some of it during school hours right inside the building. As a parent of teenaged kids I hear a lot about their peers vaping right in the middle of a classroom.
Addictions are very pernicious things. Other methonds to combat addictive substances have similarly failed and succeded in varying ways. Look at the Opiod crisis, despite the pills being highly controlled and only given out via the supervision of multiple highly educated doctors, it became an epidemic of additction in parts of the US. The opiods overcame the laws and many people's best intentions.
Nicotine is a different addiction, for sure, but the Opiod crisis provides a good case study.
To combat these things, using multiple overlapping methods is a good idea. Laws, yes. Enforcement, yes. Restrictions on advertising, yes. Taking flavors out, yes. taking candy out of the packaging, yes. All of it together, yes. It is likely to take a multi pronged approach.
Per the article, it does seem that these vape pens are a different animal from traditional cigarettes. It seems that there are significant health risks that are really hurting real people in the real world. It seems that these people are victims of their addictions and victims of the people in the companies that push and sell these things.
More data is needed, of course, and I am not a prosecutor in a court of law.
But, it seems like these companies are trying to hurt children for money.
They may be highly controlled now, but they weren't for decades which is how we have gotten to this point.
Those meds were licenced and controlled.
Has oxycontin ever been available without a prescription?
I heard this same sort of thing back when Obama banned flavored cigarettes. I wasn't very sympathetic to it back then and I'm still not. But with the passage of several years I think we should be able to evaluate the impact of banning flavored cigarettes. Have any adults been unduly impacted by this restriction? I can't imagine how anybody would be, but there is no reason to speculate since it's been several years. Is there any demonstrable harm caused by the banning of fruity flavor cigarettes?
loss of freedom.
you should have to demonstrate some value to the ban.
If something is legal for adults and illegal for children, then why is it okay to restrict the methods of enjoyment of that item in ways that do not impact other people (e.g. driving while drunk impacts other people).
Your whole argument seems to be built around protecting children, so let’s protect them by disallowing advertisement of the product, especially explicit or advertisement that can be reasonably expected to be viewed by minors, and by carding people that buy the products.
Let’s make all vaping, nicotine, thc or otherwise illegal for minors.
Please don’t come after my apple vodka. I like those flavors, too.
Ah, so you only care about your freedoms.
Is this as harmful as, say, Pringles? Or trampolines? I think the reason this stirs up outrage is because it's 'smoking' which is seen as an adult activity that children must be shielded from, whereas many other harmful behaviors are associated with children and thus 'okay'.
We're seeing studies showing that with nicotine there is arterial hardening.
Because we aren't doing anybody any favors when we permit the industry to give teenagers a chemical addiction to their commercial product, even if their product were harmful in no ways other than financial.
(Yes, I also object in strong terms to other addictive substances in consumer products, don't even bother replying with whataboutism.)
Please don't say "aargh, drugs!" and lose your cool. We need a rational not emotional response or things will be made worse.
Again, if they are advertising to children, that is a very, very serious problem and should be dealt with immediately. Selling apple or caramel or chocolate or mint flavor is not sufficient, in my opinion.
Arguably, advertising flavor at all is sufficient, but don’t we already have laws for advertising, period?
It's important to switch those children to vaping or not smoking.
But all those other children who aren't smoking? There's almost no benefit to them from vaping, and there are disadvantages and risks. Vaping costs money, it's potentially addictive, some of the flavours can be harmful, the devices can be low quality and catch fire etc. These might be small quantities of risk, but across a population of 350m people it adds up to a bunch of people harmed for no benefit.
The benefit is the most influential of all: catching a buzz. We do all kinds of things in search of that. It's the start and end to why people smoke.
Like alcohol, it is impossible to totally prevent teens from getting ahold of them as long as it is legal for adults.
If you completely ban vaping devices, smokers lose an effective option to quit.
Mandatory 0 nicotine juices would allow the adults who buy these products for underage users to discreetly give underage users non addictive juice. I suspect that kids don't really want a nicotine addiction, they just vape because it's trendy. If 0 nicotine juice were the default kids wouldn't get addicted and would get bored of vaping just like any other fad.
Educate people the best you can as a society, use legislation to support the distribution of truth, and allow natural selection to take care of the rest.
If your teen is addicted to vaping and it bothers you, then you have failed yourself as a parent; don't put that guilt on others. At least your son / daughter has one of the least hazardous addictions in human history.
See also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379814/
Also, I'm not sure but I think that this post was hidden from display?
" Although nicotine is generally considered to be the main compound responsible for the addictive properties of tobacco, experimental data indicate that nicotine does not exhibit all the characteristics of other abused substances, such as psychostimulants and opiates. [...] Because tobacco smoke contains monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and decreases MAO activity in smokers, we have combined MAOIs with nicotine to determine whether it is possible to obtain a locomotor response to nicotine in C57Bl6 mice. [...] Finally, it was found that, whereas naive rats did not readily self-administer nicotine (10 mug/kg/injection), a robust self-administration of nicotine occurred when animals were pretreated with tranylcypromine (3 mg/kg). Our data suggest that MAOIs contained in tobacco and tobacco smoke act in synergy with nicotine to enhance its rewarding effects. "
Tranylcypromine is an MAOI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranylcypromine)
Does anyone know what a locomotor response is? I did a search but got nothing usefu.
Ciggies contain MAOIs, vapes don't (I believe, and they should never be allowed to, but...). Nicotine is seemingly much less addictive without it. This fits in with my own experience, I used nicotine tablets for smoking reduction as a recreational drug, and as an alternative to coffee to wake me up (it's a light buzz, no more). I don't find it addictive, meaning I don't use it much and it doesn't 'call to me' in the way chewing tobacco did when I tried that.
"They are found in the central and peripheral nervous system, muscle, and many other tissues of many organisms. At the neuromuscular junction they are the primary receptor in muscle for motor nerve-muscle communication that controls muscle contraction. In the peripheral nervous system: (1) they transmit outgoing signals from the presynaptic to the postsynaptic cells within the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, and (2) they are the receptors found on skeletal muscle that receive acetylcholine released to signal for muscular contraction. "
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_recept...
I wonder what happens when mixed with DMT.
For information, DMT is a powerful psychedelic hallucinogen found in several plants. It isn't active orally because it is destroyed by MAOs. To make it active, it can be mixed with MAOIs, that's how Ayahuasca is made. A MAOI/DMT mix called Changa can also be smoked, but AFAIK, it doesn't contain tobacco as a main ingredient, Ayahuasca vine is used instead.
And at less than 30 quid, that's cheaper than 3 packs of cigs and a damn sight more interesting.
Older box-style vaporizers are not inconspicuous, chic, or sexy - but the sleek form factor of a Juul is easy to carry around and looks cool.
Maybe restricting their size/portability would help make them less attractive?
I am a college student (probably Juul's main target audience) in the US. Juuling in unbelievably popular, for a couple of big reasons.
It's discrete -- no visible vapor, smell is noticeable, but not an obscene scent.
Widely available - pods can be bought anywhere, pawned off friends, etc
Crazy addictive -- there's someone else here talking about research into MAOI prompting nicotine, but it's important to note nicotine is available in two forms -- as a freebase, and as a salt. Previously, vapes were limited in concentration of freebase nicotine to a few mg/ml of nicotine, owing to the harshness of anything higher. Juul turned freebase nicotine into a salt, allowing them to push the concentration waaaaaaaaaay higher. IIRC, it's something like 60mg/ml. They use benzoic acid, but also have patents on basically every acid you could think of, even choices that would be terrible for you, like sulfuric acid. The patent info is a wealth of interesting tidbits -- vaping a salt pushes nicotine into the bloodstream way faster than basically any other method except IV.
Excellent marketing. They say they don't market to kids, but let's be honest -- that ad spend is getting in front of kids well under 18, and they know it. All the need is the plausible deniability to say they didn't target 18 years, and they're good.
I should also point out these guys are making money hand over fist. They're selling, for $4, a pod with 700uL of liquid in it -- this works out to about $15,000 a gallon, for maybe $10 in ingredients, $20 if they switch to synthetic nicotine, which would let them push concentrations even higher. It's a printer and ink model, except the printer is probably the most addictive chemical we know of, other than maybe meth.
I should mention that while I greatly respect Juul's business savy, I have nothing but disdain for them otherwise.
They could EASILY create a program to taper smokers off cigarettes or their own product. There's a fucking microcontroller in the Juul, just reduce the total dose by say, 2% a day and sell pods with decreasing nicotine concentration until people are free of nicotine.
Regardless of what they say in front of congressional panels, their marketing IS reaching large number of kids, something that is just too convenient.
Their pod design also sucks. Not refillable, complicated, and leaky. Offer a program to buy back old pods (or a discount on a new purchase), or design a new pods.
I hear people say: "They make such sweet, fruity flavors to appeal to kids." Uh; what? Have you tried Juul Mango pods? (No, you haven't. Yet you write about it.) They aren't sweet. They aren't fruity. They're basically just north enough of disgusting to be palatable. They taste like what I imagine six year old freeze-dried astronaut food mangos steeped in embalming fluid would taste like.
I hear people say: "These nicotine addictions are so bad, they're so hard to quit." Uh; what? Have you ever had a nicotine addiction? (No, you haven't. Yet you write about it.) Not cigarettes; tobacco has additional MAOI chemicals which make the addiction substantially worse. I'm talking about pure nicotine. I'd grade quitting it as 25% worse than a caffeine addiction. I'd imagine it's worse for developing brains (which is why all nicotine should be 21+ at least). But it's not like we're talking about meth here.
I hear people say: "Juul is to blame for this." Shut the fuck up. Your kid illegally obtained a nicotine delivery device and is somehow illegally keeping it topped up with pods. The audacity that you have to sue Juul for this is, quite frankly, astounding. He may be going through 3 or 4 pods a week, maybe more; how the hell is he getting these? That's on you, first and foremost, as the parent. Secondly, and strictly secondly, there is an onus on society to make sure distribution of these chemicals is regulated and enforced. We've got some work to continue doing here, but let's be clear: getting rid of the "sweet" and "delicious" fruit flavors won't help even a little bit.