We should be clear what the actual object of this "epidemic" is. It isn't really about vaping. It's about Nicotine. And this fight is just one battle in a larger war: the societal struggle to define the proper moral dimensions of chemical dependency.
Many people have a knee-jerk reaction to "chemical dependency"... they assume it must be a bad thing. That somehow sobriety is the "natural" state of human beings, and that any dependence on a mind-altering chemical is a weakness, a deviation.
You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". People treat the former as if it were equivalent to the latter, but it isn't: "addiction" is when the harms of a dependency outweigh the benefits, when it becomes "maladaptive" (a vague, value-laden term). But a dependency by itself isn't necessarily maladaptive. Sometimes it's a positive adaptation.
Consider this, one of my favorite essays, about a woman whose relationship with Nicotine appears to have enriched her life:
There are certainly chemicals that cause far more harm than good... there's no denying that. I'm not saying we should embrace Fentanyl. But it would be a mistake to treat every chemical dependency as an obvious evil. The moral valence of Nicotine dependency is far from black-and-white. Sometimes we depend on something because it's good for us. (Notice how nobody's complaining about a coffee epidemic.)
Yes to the moral dimension -- obscured by the health issue.
It's also about children. Most parents won't allow young kids to drink coffee, for instance. Childhood ought to be a preparation for freedom and addictions have the potential to limit that freedom before it even gets started.
Adults may weigh the benefits for themselves. Sometimes the result is indeed positive.
Agree about the age issue... it does change the equation, especially if these companies are targeting their advertising toward younger kids.
I also appreciate that you brought up the issue of freedom. Dependencies do require freedom to be sacrificed, and perhaps that partially explains the aversion to them. When we need something, we give it power over us.
Yet a life without dependencies would be a life without friends and family, a life without valued people, places, and things. We give up total freedom for the benefit of forging deep and meaningful connections. And these connections are, in important ways, like any other dependency: when you lose someone you love, you go through a powerful kind of psychological withdrawal. But a life without love would be an impoverished existence.
I think it would be useful if we, as a society, stepped back and considered the nature of dependency, how our dependencies can hurt us and help us, and why certain kinds are valued over others.
I don't know a single kid at my current high school or my past high school that was not allowed to drink coffee. I mean, kids literally come into school with starbucks cups and thermoses. My old school actually sold coffee in the morning to students. Furthermore, Caffeine in my opinion is a lot worse than nicotine, because it disrupts sleep a lot, and will cover up the symptoms of short term sleep well enough that someone will think they are fine when in reality they are chronically sleep deprived.
Im not against drugs by any stretch of the imagination, and not necessarily against addiction- despite the fact that dependency on anything must limit some aspects of your autonomy.
However! Nicotine itself is specifically not a good drug. In the vast majority of people, myself included, it induces cravings that quickly upgrade your brain's ACh receptors to the point where you no longer experience the enjoyable drug effects, and you're only left with a habit. Technology promises to limit the harm of that habit, which is terrific. But the habit doesn't provide any benefit to the vast majority of people, and technology hasn't made any progress on that front.
As someone else referenced: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine - there _is_ research that indicates that nicotine is not as addictive on its own as it is in cigarettes. And that's it's not, on its own, harmful.
And could you not say similar things about caffeine and caffeine dependence?
No. It's a public health issue. while I would not be surprised if some have moral opinions about it, that's not the point. nicotine is objectively a toxic substance; it is an immunosuppressant and there is evidence mounting linking it with cancer. there is science to back this up. if there are other studies that paint a different picture, or other data that is pertinent, then reviewing and comparing the evidence we have so far is what we should be doing, and then shaping public policy based on the best evidence we have.
But to paint this as a moral issue -- and do things like compare it to caffiene -- seems like rhetorical trickery and which results in diverting the discussion.
science and public health are topics that companies like jl, etc., would very much like us all to avoid engaging in, so i am not surprised (though i am saddened) to see the parent post so highly voted.
> You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction".
I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have any issue teasing apart the two concepts. We do not have qualms with someone who is dependent on an insulin pump, tetanus shots, or HIV medication.
These days most fair people also wouldn't have issues with someone being dependent on marijuana, for example.
So I think the concepts are quite clear in people's minds.
When talking about an epidemic of vaping, people aren't worried about dependency. We're worried about addiction.
Is it, strictly speaking, possible for someone to have a healthy, beneficial relationship with nicotine? Sure. But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.
The reality is that human history is filled with death and misery caused directly by substance abuse. And we can see that history reflected in our public consciousness and policies.
And I believe that is rightfully so. I'm happy to agree with you in theory, that we should take a measured approach to substances to view their objective benefits. But reality makes that metered approach difficult.
Because the reality is that we have no real treatments for addiction. Which means we live in a world where a large percentage of people are addicted to substances they probably wouldn't want to be on if given the choice. And of those people, most will have degraded quality of life, some will commit violence against others, and some will die.
So in this world we live in today, I can't fault people for having prejudice against addictive substances. And in many ways I view that prejudice as helpful.
I certainly don't agree with the way we've waged war on drugs (at least in America). But I don't disagree with the reasons, and I don't view a prejudice against addictive substances as "knee-jerk" but rather a well informed policy birthed from a long human history of pain and suffering at the hands of these chemicals.
(P.S. Re: the war on drugs; the crux of the issue is that we demonized not only the chemicals but also the victims of the chemicals. It is the former that I have no qualms with. It is the latter that has lead the war to perhaps cause more harm in itself than the chemicals ever did. But I'm really not trying to incite a discussion on those topics.)
> But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.
If something's good for you, you're per definition not addicted to it. That was the main point of the post you responded to.
I know people who can enjoy the occasional cigarette. Are they addicted in your opinion? Nicotine is also used extensively by people to self-medicate emotions. Are they all addicts? Would they all be better off if they didn't smoke? Some would, some wouldn't. Who are you to tell?
Great article, thanks for sharing. Having quit cigarettes many years ago now, I can absolutely relate. I spent the first couple of years fighting myself (mentally and emotionally) on a daily basis, stuck on the fact that I was deprived. Eventually the feelings and cravings subsided, but I still felt like I had lost something. The key and lock analogy were indeed perfect. I didn't feel like myself. I had trouble talking to others. I felt less intelligent. I developed some social anxiety. I often wondered if I was self-medicating through nicotine and if I'd never be the same.
My dependency on chemicals never really went away, but I found a better way to feed it: exercise. Working out gave me that little boost of whatever it is, je ne sais quois, that made me feel more confident, more comfortable in my own skin. It wasn't the same at first (and at this point, I'll never know if I'm back to "baseline"), but for me at this time in my life, it's enough.
It's funny because objectively, life is so much better post-smoking. You don't smell, you don't have mandatory breaks, airplane rides aren't hell, family and friends don't complain, etc etc etc. And yet, while I don't miss smoking, I can distinctly remember all that trouble being worth it at the time.
I agree. I am very dependent upon matcha green tea. If I don’t have at least two cups per day, I feel terrible. But when I do take it daily, it provides an incredible amount of clarity and energy. I’ve come to accept the downsides - and there are always downsides - because overall, it’s a net positive in my life. I don’t doubt there are people in similarly positive but dependent relationships with far harder substances.
That’s a fascinating essay, thanks for sharing. I sometimes fret over my caffeine habit - in fact I’ve quit several times, enduring headaches and nausea, just to start again. But maybe caffeine is what would be prescribed to me anyway to optimize my productivity and happiness, and I should stop fighting it and feeling ashamed of “dependency.”
Just make sure your caffeine habit isn't masking unhealthy sleep habits.
Usually when I notice that my caffeine intake is going up, it's because I'm not sleeping enough for whatever reason, including staying up late to play video games.
The reason they go after nicotine is because kids use these vapes and become addicted to the nicotine in them, much of the time without wanting to do so. It is pernicious. It’s why cigarettes were demonized, but not banned. Cigarettes were doing everything that Juul and Co. are doing now, hooking kids, spreading because it’s cool and marketed to children. It’s kind of like rape. Hooking you without your consent, and taking advantage of the most vulnerable market, kids.
The fun part about the e-cigarette epidemic: states have a perverse incentive to keep cigarette smoking rates from dropping too quickly. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement gave states an annuity from tobacco profits, and many states took a lump-sum payment instead. That money has already been spent. If cigarette smoking rates (and thus, profits) drop too much, they have to pay back the money.
Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off. Most of those teen smokers who took up vaping instead of cigarettes will likely never become cigarette smokers. This alters the math on the annuity payments that were already cashed in for up-front money, and thus the states could end up in the red on their bond payments. Thus they have a financial incentive to keep e-cigarettes from fully replacing combustible cigarettes, even if they are a definite harm reduction tool.
> Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off.
Yes. E-cigarette usage wasn't an epidemic until usage “took off”.
That's just the definition of “epidemic”; everything else you try to associate is irrelevant.
Don't epidemics usually create sick people? I realize the counter-argument will of course be "we don't know the long-term effects," but people have been exposed to aerosolized glycerine/propylene glycol for decades in the form of fog machines at concerts and clubs. Surely if this was the next asbestos we'd be seeing something by now.
The dictionary definition is: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
"Infectious disease" being the key. If we limit the definition to "took off" then any new and popular software becomes an epidemic.
It's naive to assume that something like this couldn't possibly be politicized simply because it relates to health. His points absolutely could be relevant to how the Surgeon General chooses to describe the uptick in vaping.
> That money has already been spent. If cigarette smoking rates (and thus, profits) drop too much, they have to pay back the money.
I don't believe there was a clawback provision when the states securitized their MSA claims into Tobacco Bonds. These bonds aren't general obligation bonds and therefore cannot tap into the states general fund. That being said, the states would like to avoid the bad publicity of a default, and thus some states have pledged additional tax revenue as a restructuring plan. In short, there is some incentive on the states end but its not as strong as you implied.
Do you have any citations for this? If it's true and the states are actually acting on that incentive, it's an epic conspiracy. I wonder if you could look at differences in anti-vape policy between states that took a lump sum payment and ones that didn't to validate it.
June 23, 2014: "E-cigarettes could stub out tobacco bonds sooner than thought"
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The rapid growth of electronic cigarette sales poses a rising but under-appreciated risk to holders of as much as $96 billion of bonds tied to payments tobacco companies make to U.S. states from a sweeping legal settlement in 1998."
But what different does it make? Whether you're getting the revenues from the indefinite future, or you need to keep the sum over several years at a certain level, you're incentivized to ensure sales don't fall.
Just my personal take but as an adult who just quite smoking a few weeks ago the availability of vaps has been tremendously helpful. I feel night and day better in terms of health despite consuming probably similar levels of nicotine.
And while I don't view nicotine (or vaporized VG, PG) as particularly harmful it probably should be reserved for those 18+. What doesn't seem to be helpful is that vaping comes in all sorts of flavors (beyond synthetic tobacco flavor)that would probably appeal to people minors (mango, cotton-candy, etc). In contrast any flavorings of those types in cigarettes was banned a decade ago (with the notable exception of menthol).
> Currently, no flavors are banned from other tobacco products, although research suggests flavors may also make these products more enticing to youth and young adults. Data from FDA’s Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health found that nearly 80 percent of youth ages 12-17 and nearly 75 percent of young adults ages 18-25 who were current tobacco users in 2014 reported that the first tobacco product they ever used was flavored.25 Alternatively, FDA is aware of self-reported information suggesting that the availability of flavors in some noncombusted tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and other ENDS may help some adult users reduce cigarette use or switch to potentially less harmful products.
This narrative that high schoolers are all about cotton candy and mangos, but when given menthol they find it disgusting, is absolutely hilarious and so clearly woven by old men in a government complex somewhere. Kids were smoking long before ecigs popped up, and they'll keep doing all sorts of drugs as long as they exist.
Taste means practically nothing. But it sure does sell better to worried mothers.
As an adult, I like flavors. Flavors aren't addictive, nicotine is.
As a teenager, I used to steal bottles from my parents' liquor cabinet and drink them neat. Needless to say they (with few exceptions) don't taste good this way.
Kids use drugs (partially) because they want to play at being adults. Requiring the e-cig to taste bad isn't going to inhibit that at all. It is going to inconvenience a lot of law-abiding adults who enjoy flavored e-liquid.
Stop trying to ruin my e-cig based on narratives and weak evidence.
Nicotine is little different from caffeine. Either you ban both, none, or you decide your policy is arbitrary moral posturing supported by no evidence.
Ultimately, there is little in the way of physical dependency; nicotine is as addicting as sugar and fat loaded burgers and fries, and the health risk to the population of those blow any risk from nicotine out of the water. In fact, the evidence probably shows we could promote the use of vaping instead of overeating on junk-food, and should ban minors from entering fast food places.
>Nicotine is little different from caffeine. Either you ban both, none, or you decide your policy is arbitrary moral posturing supported by no evidence.
They are quite different in their mechanism of action. Caffeine works via Adenosine, Nicotine works via Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptors.
I read an article the other day about how juul modifies the nicotine to make it less painful so they can put more in each pod. An interesting side effect of this is that people who don't smoke can start smoking easier because it's less painful. That information combined with this report just makes me so upset on so many levels...
That's not the whole story. Juuls are ultra high resistance devices due to their size. Generally that means they can't vaporize as much liquid into vapor, which means traditional eliquid (lets say 3-9mg/ml) isn't as effective anymore, especially for someone trying to quit smoking.
Going anywhere above 12mg/ml with traditional eliquid production techniques produces a liquid that is very harsh.
So, here are your business requirements: You've got a device that is high resistance. You want high nicotine content because your primary market is ex-cigarette smokers. You can't use traditional eliquid because it would result in a harsh experience, which reduces the probability of cigarette smokers quitting and using your product. So you invent something new.
Juul uses nicotine salts, where as standard vape juice is just freebase nicotine. The salts are said to be 'milder' or easier to consume.
In the US, vape juice comes in 0, 3 and 6mg/mL doses. Juul does not publish nic levels, but its probably closer to 48+mg/mL.
Public health doesn't talk about your individual child. It talks about a population of 100,000 children.
If none of them smoke, and they all take up vaping, some of them will be harmed by vaping (because nothing is risk free). Do they get any benefit from vaping? Does that benefit outweigh the risk? How much regulation does a society impose?
There's been a bit too much talk of vaping as totally harm free. Partly that's because we were comparing it to smoking, which is very much worse than vaping. But if non-smokers are taking up vaping we need to have the different discussion about risks and benefits.
Yes, almost certainly. Nicotine is effectively a nootropic, having "significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory". Nicotine has a (afaik) unique mix of stimulating and anxiolytic effects and there's reasonable evidence that it has antipsychotic effects helpful in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia. There's even evidence that nicotine has general neuroprotective properties helpful against brain trauma or neurodegenerative disease. There are many studies highlighting potentially beneficial effects of nicotine, you can find a handful linked here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&f...
That isn't to say that vaping has no dangers or potential downsides, but I think, likely in large part due to how dangerous tobacco smoking is, there's been a dearth of communication to the public of the variety of potential positives of nicotine. For many non-smokers who use nicotine the significant benefits may well outweigh the downsides.
It is rising faster than any of those which is concerning. In terms of danger, it's hard to say since we don't know what the long term effects of vaping are going to be, and how many of these teens are going to consume other tobacco products in the future.
Airborne pollution and sugar are both orders of magnitude worse than vaping could ever be. The authorities certainly seem to pick and choose which battles they fight.
I think it's an issue of really [deliberately] inconsistent messaging. The general public thinks e-cigs are harmless compared to tobacco and what little common counter argument (maybe the coils are degrading and leeching into the vapor?) exists is not particularly compelling to the average person. Thus we have a perfect storm where manufacturers have a literal chemically induced captive audience and we're starting to see how they're making use of that feature to make money. Most of us don't see it but if you go to the right communities, everyone and their sister is vaping furiously. It has a rather distopian feel to it...
From what I've heard, vaping can be dangerous because if it condensates into the lungs all chemicals used to get the fragrance can't be expelled anymore, so it's not that different from traditional cigs.
Luckily I quit smoking over 20 years ago and never ever considered trying ecigs. But still like the smell of burning tobacco, which is why since the day I quit I didn't have a single puff, not even to light one for a friend; after all those years I still like it.
The point is they like to make a big splash about problems that aren't really huge and are cheap to fix for the government with minimal pushback. The actual huge problems are ignored, mostly due to money.
The nicotine in e-cigs are produced using tobacco and I'm pretty sure big tobacco doesn't care if kids are smoking actual cigarettes or e-cigs, only that they are smoking.
I don't know if it's 2/3, but there's a decent amount that don't. I teach high school, and they talk all the damn time about their JUULing habits (they have literally no concept of privacy anymore), and several of them say they only do it since it's nicotine free. They're shocked when I tel them that most they're smoking probably do contain nicotine.
I'm a high school teacher (and kids have no concept of privacy and talk openly about everything), and I completely agree. Not sure if it's 2/3, but I'd say definitely over 50% don't realize that most probably contain nicotine.
Juul is cited many times in that document. I am generally intrigued by Juul. Their intention to "end combustible smoking" and help "adult smokers" smoke with less pain/more easily seems good for the target user (create a system with fewer toxins-to-nicotine ratio). The side-effect of engineering a better system is that it's easier for all users to smoke, i.e. intended for adults, but tech-savy kids will devour this concept).
Isn't higher concentration better? Users titrate the dose to their preferred subjective effects, so the only difference concentration makes is the exposure to the carrier liquid and the flavorings, which are less well understood than nicotine.
If all alcoholic drinks contained 1% mystery liquid, would you rather drink beer or spirits?
I see. I'm not very familiar with their product. I would think that their product is good for weening "adult smokers" off of nicotine through tapered usage (e.g. reducing nicotine intake over a timeline by using specific dosage cartridges). Which of course go against a sustainable business?
That is true, the concentration is higher. But you get a lot less vapor so it evens out. Think about the people who blow clouds the size of cars. Even with 3mg nic the volume of vapor makes the difference.
fwiw, vaping is treated the same as tobacco use by most insurance companies with regards to what is provided to employees.
I have been amazed at how some who vape think it is acceptable indoors in public places that other tobacco use is not. At work it had to be reminded more than once it was not acceptable outside of designated areas. It simply is an addiction that is easier to partake of and hide than most.
People who vape are under the impression that exhalation only releases water vapor into their immediate surroundings; I've heard this on multiple occasions from smokers. The question then of course becomes, how does it have a scent if it is just water vapor?
I've heard people say this but it's never even been water vapor. It's vegetable glycerin and/or propylene glycol even if there were no other flavorings or nicotine.
Readit News
Many people have a knee-jerk reaction to "chemical dependency"... they assume it must be a bad thing. That somehow sobriety is the "natural" state of human beings, and that any dependence on a mind-altering chemical is a weakness, a deviation.
You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". People treat the former as if it were equivalent to the latter, but it isn't: "addiction" is when the harms of a dependency outweigh the benefits, when it becomes "maladaptive" (a vague, value-laden term). But a dependency by itself isn't necessarily maladaptive. Sometimes it's a positive adaptation.
Consider this, one of my favorite essays, about a woman whose relationship with Nicotine appears to have enriched her life:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/can-nicoti...
There are certainly chemicals that cause far more harm than good... there's no denying that. I'm not saying we should embrace Fentanyl. But it would be a mistake to treat every chemical dependency as an obvious evil. The moral valence of Nicotine dependency is far from black-and-white. Sometimes we depend on something because it's good for us. (Notice how nobody's complaining about a coffee epidemic.)
It's also about children. Most parents won't allow young kids to drink coffee, for instance. Childhood ought to be a preparation for freedom and addictions have the potential to limit that freedom before it even gets started.
Adults may weigh the benefits for themselves. Sometimes the result is indeed positive.
I also appreciate that you brought up the issue of freedom. Dependencies do require freedom to be sacrificed, and perhaps that partially explains the aversion to them. When we need something, we give it power over us.
Yet a life without dependencies would be a life without friends and family, a life without valued people, places, and things. We give up total freedom for the benefit of forging deep and meaningful connections. And these connections are, in important ways, like any other dependency: when you lose someone you love, you go through a powerful kind of psychological withdrawal. But a life without love would be an impoverished existence.
I think it would be useful if we, as a society, stepped back and considered the nature of dependency, how our dependencies can hurt us and help us, and why certain kinds are valued over others.
However! Nicotine itself is specifically not a good drug. In the vast majority of people, myself included, it induces cravings that quickly upgrade your brain's ACh receptors to the point where you no longer experience the enjoyable drug effects, and you're only left with a habit. Technology promises to limit the harm of that habit, which is terrific. But the habit doesn't provide any benefit to the vast majority of people, and technology hasn't made any progress on that front.
And could you not say similar things about caffeine and caffeine dependence?
But to paint this as a moral issue -- and do things like compare it to caffiene -- seems like rhetorical trickery and which results in diverting the discussion.
science and public health are topics that companies like jl, etc., would very much like us all to avoid engaging in, so i am not surprised (though i am saddened) to see the parent post so highly voted.
I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have any issue teasing apart the two concepts. We do not have qualms with someone who is dependent on an insulin pump, tetanus shots, or HIV medication.
These days most fair people also wouldn't have issues with someone being dependent on marijuana, for example.
So I think the concepts are quite clear in people's minds.
When talking about an epidemic of vaping, people aren't worried about dependency. We're worried about addiction.
Is it, strictly speaking, possible for someone to have a healthy, beneficial relationship with nicotine? Sure. But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.
The reality is that human history is filled with death and misery caused directly by substance abuse. And we can see that history reflected in our public consciousness and policies.
And I believe that is rightfully so. I'm happy to agree with you in theory, that we should take a measured approach to substances to view their objective benefits. But reality makes that metered approach difficult.
Because the reality is that we have no real treatments for addiction. Which means we live in a world where a large percentage of people are addicted to substances they probably wouldn't want to be on if given the choice. And of those people, most will have degraded quality of life, some will commit violence against others, and some will die.
So in this world we live in today, I can't fault people for having prejudice against addictive substances. And in many ways I view that prejudice as helpful.
I certainly don't agree with the way we've waged war on drugs (at least in America). But I don't disagree with the reasons, and I don't view a prejudice against addictive substances as "knee-jerk" but rather a well informed policy birthed from a long human history of pain and suffering at the hands of these chemicals.
(P.S. Re: the war on drugs; the crux of the issue is that we demonized not only the chemicals but also the victims of the chemicals. It is the former that I have no qualms with. It is the latter that has lead the war to perhaps cause more harm in itself than the chemicals ever did. But I'm really not trying to incite a discussion on those topics.)
If something's good for you, you're per definition not addicted to it. That was the main point of the post you responded to.
I know people who can enjoy the occasional cigarette. Are they addicted in your opinion? Nicotine is also used extensively by people to self-medicate emotions. Are they all addicts? Would they all be better off if they didn't smoke? Some would, some wouldn't. Who are you to tell?
Deleted Comment
My dependency on chemicals never really went away, but I found a better way to feed it: exercise. Working out gave me that little boost of whatever it is, je ne sais quois, that made me feel more confident, more comfortable in my own skin. It wasn't the same at first (and at this point, I'll never know if I'm back to "baseline"), but for me at this time in my life, it's enough.
It's funny because objectively, life is so much better post-smoking. You don't smell, you don't have mandatory breaks, airplane rides aren't hell, family and friends don't complain, etc etc etc. And yet, while I don't miss smoking, I can distinctly remember all that trouble being worth it at the time.
Usually when I notice that my caffeine intake is going up, it's because I'm not sleeping enough for whatever reason, including staying up late to play video games.
Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off. Most of those teen smokers who took up vaping instead of cigarettes will likely never become cigarette smokers. This alters the math on the annuity payments that were already cashed in for up-front money, and thus the states could end up in the red on their bond payments. Thus they have a financial incentive to keep e-cigarettes from fully replacing combustible cigarettes, even if they are a definite harm reduction tool.
Yes. E-cigarette usage wasn't an epidemic until usage “took off”.
That's just the definition of “epidemic”; everything else you try to associate is irrelevant.
The dictionary definition is: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
"Infectious disease" being the key. If we limit the definition to "took off" then any new and popular software becomes an epidemic.
It's naive to assume that something like this couldn't possibly be politicized simply because it relates to health. His points absolutely could be relevant to how the Surgeon General chooses to describe the uptick in vaping.
Overall tobacco usage is still going down: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...
I don't believe there was a clawback provision when the states securitized their MSA claims into Tobacco Bonds. These bonds aren't general obligation bonds and therefore cannot tap into the states general fund. That being said, the states would like to avoid the bad publicity of a default, and thus some states have pledged additional tax revenue as a restructuring plan. In short, there is some incentive on the states end but its not as strong as you implied.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The rapid growth of electronic cigarette sales poses a rising but under-appreciated risk to holders of as much as $96 billion of bonds tied to payments tobacco companies make to U.S. states from a sweeping legal settlement in 1998."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tobacco-bonds-ecigs-insig...
But what different does it make? Whether you're getting the revenues from the indefinite future, or you need to keep the sum over several years at a certain level, you're incentivized to ensure sales don't fall.
And while I don't view nicotine (or vaporized VG, PG) as particularly harmful it probably should be reserved for those 18+. What doesn't seem to be helpful is that vaping comes in all sorts of flavors (beyond synthetic tobacco flavor)that would probably appeal to people minors (mango, cotton-candy, etc). In contrast any flavorings of those types in cigarettes was banned a decade ago (with the notable exception of menthol).
> Currently, no flavors are banned from other tobacco products, although research suggests flavors may also make these products more enticing to youth and young adults. Data from FDA’s Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health found that nearly 80 percent of youth ages 12-17 and nearly 75 percent of young adults ages 18-25 who were current tobacco users in 2014 reported that the first tobacco product they ever used was flavored.25 Alternatively, FDA is aware of self-reported information suggesting that the availability of flavors in some noncombusted tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and other ENDS may help some adult users reduce cigarette use or switch to potentially less harmful products.
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredi...
Taste means practically nothing. But it sure does sell better to worried mothers.
As a teenager, I used to steal bottles from my parents' liquor cabinet and drink them neat. Needless to say they (with few exceptions) don't taste good this way.
Kids use drugs (partially) because they want to play at being adults. Requiring the e-cig to taste bad isn't going to inhibit that at all. It is going to inconvenience a lot of law-abiding adults who enjoy flavored e-liquid.
Stop trying to ruin my e-cig based on narratives and weak evidence.
Deleted Comment
Ultimately, there is little in the way of physical dependency; nicotine is as addicting as sugar and fat loaded burgers and fries, and the health risk to the population of those blow any risk from nicotine out of the water. In fact, the evidence probably shows we could promote the use of vaping instead of overeating on junk-food, and should ban minors from entering fast food places.
They are quite different in their mechanism of action. Caffeine works via Adenosine, Nicotine works via Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptors.
Going anywhere above 12mg/ml with traditional eliquid production techniques produces a liquid that is very harsh.
So, here are your business requirements: You've got a device that is high resistance. You want high nicotine content because your primary market is ex-cigarette smokers. You can't use traditional eliquid because it would result in a harsh experience, which reduces the probability of cigarette smokers quitting and using your product. So you invent something new.
Or exposure to traffic pollution?
Or reduced freedom to roam?
It would seem that there are many social threats to my children, and vaping is maybe in the top 10? Should it be higher?
If none of them smoke, and they all take up vaping, some of them will be harmed by vaping (because nothing is risk free). Do they get any benefit from vaping? Does that benefit outweigh the risk? How much regulation does a society impose?
There's been a bit too much talk of vaping as totally harm free. Partly that's because we were comparing it to smoking, which is very much worse than vaping. But if non-smokers are taking up vaping we need to have the different discussion about risks and benefits.
Yes, almost certainly. Nicotine is effectively a nootropic, having "significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory". Nicotine has a (afaik) unique mix of stimulating and anxiolytic effects and there's reasonable evidence that it has antipsychotic effects helpful in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia. There's even evidence that nicotine has general neuroprotective properties helpful against brain trauma or neurodegenerative disease. There are many studies highlighting potentially beneficial effects of nicotine, you can find a handful linked here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&f...
That isn't to say that vaping has no dangers or potential downsides, but I think, likely in large part due to how dangerous tobacco smoking is, there's been a dearth of communication to the public of the variety of potential positives of nicotine. For many non-smokers who use nicotine the significant benefits may well outweigh the downsides.
https://medium.com/s/love-hate/confessions-of-a-juul-junkie-...
Luckily I quit smoking over 20 years ago and never ever considered trying ecigs. But still like the smell of burning tobacco, which is why since the day I quit I didn't have a single puff, not even to light one for a friend; after all those years I still like it.
I would personally put vaping in the top 10.
Deleted Comment
They have much to lose because e-cigs are not used for tobacco, in my experience.
So they (tobacco corps) will lose future tobacco addicts to e-cigs and vaping liquid producers.
peace.
-US schools not offering nutritional meals
-Waking up kids so early in the morning it hurts their sleep
-Not having soda and candy machines on school property
-Proper sex education
-Vaccinations and other healthcare for children
I find this very, very difficult to believe.
I think there are even some companies making some with only THC and/or CBD.
If all alcoholic drinks contained 1% mystery liquid, would you rather drink beer or spirits?
I have been amazed at how some who vape think it is acceptable indoors in public places that other tobacco use is not. At work it had to be reminded more than once it was not acceptable outside of designated areas. It simply is an addiction that is easier to partake of and hide than most.