It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market.
Both are valuable bits of info, but "e-cigs do confirmed damage" is extremely important info from a public health perspective.
Let the state go after the businesses promoting and selling e-cigs to kids—and levy astronomical fines against them. Sponsor PSAs that scare kids away from doing it. Educate everyone on the potential risks. If these “kids” are 18, they’re adults, so let them do as they please.
Cigarettes don’t require a prescription to get hooked on them. Adults should be free to recreationally use e-cigs just as much as cigarettes, weed, alcohol, and plenty of other substances. It’s their body. Increase taxes on them to try and discourage it and pay for PSAs against vaping. Whatever. But let’s dispense with the think-of-the-children crap, and let adults be adults.
Or try taking some strychnine because it's an alkaloid like nicotine and caffeine and see how well that works out.
Since you picked coffee as an example, most of the studies I've seen indicate probably health benefits from it. Nicotine it's not.
So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why should they be subject to a prescription?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664775/
> Despite scientific uncertainty regarding the safety of inhaling aerosol and flavorant substances from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to inhaling smoke from traditional cigarettes, some consumers and vape shop employees suggest that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation of constituents provides clear evidence of overall e-cigarette safety.
> Although the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has clarified that the GRAS program only assesses product safety for ingestion in food, not inhalation, public confusion appears to continue.
Nicotine isn't even on the GRAS list at all. Some of the additives (like glycerol) and flavorants are.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=GR...
I know exactly what GRAS means. Why do you assume otherwise? I never claimed that vaping is safe; you'd have to be an idiot to make that argument. That doesn't mean you ban it.
I could have sworn it was on the list... but either way, it doesn't change the fact that nicotine is, by itself, not significantly harmful. What argument are you trying to make here?
It seems like all you want to do is nitpick and completely avoid the subject at hand. Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?
I "assume otherwise" because trying to bring GRAS into the discussion about vaping at all indicates a lack of understanding of what GRAS applies to.
Contrary to your assertions, nicotine isn't "not significantly harmful": https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/vdp/2005/00000002...
> Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?
As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.
Coffee does not appear to be harmful, as we previously discussed in this comments thread. Cigarettes should be further restricted alongside e-cigs. Beef isn't addictive. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem, but societal acceptance makes it a difficult to tackle one on a practical level. Whataboutism isn't a great approach to medical issues, either.
>In this paper we review these implications of nicotine use and also examine the role of nicotine in the development of several cardiovascular diseases.
That would be nice to read. I can't find anything conclusive that would suggest it is a significant risk factor such that should be outlawed in the name of protecting adults from themselves.
>As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.
Yep, they have, and it's a shame. That doesn't mean the correct course of action is to take it away from adults. I am all for further regulation of companies who make the liquid. I am not for banning them, scheduling them, or outlawing flavors that don't taste like crap.
I started smoking when I was very young. E-cigs are the only thing that helped me to quit. You take them away and, guess what? People go back to smoking cigarettes. Some of us just like to smoke and will always do it.
>Beef isn't addictive
You sure about that? Perhaps not chemically, but there are many examples of food addiction. Why not ban everything that is potentially harmful?
I understand that food and nicotine aren't on the same level, just as you knew heroin and nicotine aren't. It's not "whataboutism" to hold the opinion that freedoms shouldn't be handed over at the first sign of a negative affect Your argument seems to boil down to "but think of the children!".
Drug class is irrelevant in this situation.
The problem is that places are banning e-cigs, which presumably drives people back to smoking. Which is worse for everyone.
Regarding your nurse friend, it's not that surprising to me that addicted medical professionals engage in motivated reasoning related to their addictions. It seems like just another version of the classic "I'm fine; I can quit any time" routine.
Thats your nurse friend's own personal choice for their own body. The health professional aspect not being an endorsement, but maybe helps them decide what they will tolerate for their own body.
Quite a few doctors I know drink alcohol, but it doesn't mean they don't know the health risks of that activity.
Only difference between US municipalities and other markets is that it is masqueraded as an endorsement for good under a respected system of due process (even though it is often unilateral decisions by unelected officials at health agencies with delegated powers)
That is obvious. But switching the current cigarette smokers to electronic cigarettes seems clear to be a better alternative for both the smokers and the people around them.
This is mentioned a lot, but I find it questionable. I’ve never seen an ad that made me feel like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man did when I was a kid. My teenagers haven’t ever thought vaping was cool based on ads or plenty of people doing it. This sounds too much like a general truism of capitalist enterprise—always find ways to expand your markets—while combining it with a direct accusation that it’s being done perniciously to “hook” them. Everyone who is selling anything is trying to hook people on their product, if that’s the terminology we’re using—new clothes, new cars, new TVs, the latest deals ... every company is using advertising to hook people on their products. People go into financial ruin for cars and homes and stupid stuff. Maybe we should just ban advertising to people so no company can try to hook young people on their products to expand their markets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping....
> In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.”
Yes, we should.
Advertising works. It influences you, affects your behaviour. To extract money from you. For someone else's benefit. Without your prior informed consent.
We should ban it.
At the same time, I find it a bizarre bit of cognitive dissonance when people blame the product, and not the people in the company behind it. In most cases, at least. The product isn’t pushing itself on the public. It’s people doing that work, and people should be held responsible for it. Yes, there are bad products—but they aren’t making themselves.
It’s strange that we find it so easy to think up ways to ban a product, but never consider banning the advertising that pushes it on everyone and convinces them they just have to have it.
Let's be honest. It is great money. People do not give that up. It gets taken from them.
How can this be clear without long-term usage data?
It certainly stands to reason that inhaling vaporized nicotine will be better than inhaling vaporized nicotine plus ash and tar and pesticides and whatnot.