|
The reason they're being confused is that suburban moms love sharing those articles on Facebook and they want someone to do something about their kids juuling in the bathroom
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:The reason they're being confused is that suburban moms love sharing those articles on Facebook and they want someone to do something about their kids juuling in the bathroom Funny you should mention that considering nobody is doing anything about menthol cigarettes. Wonder why? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...a80b_story.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Funny you should mention that considering nobody is doing anything about menthol cigarettes. Wonder why? Conversely, states banning ALL flavored tobacco products are accidentally screwing over pipe tobacco enthusiasts, who include a lot of elderly voters who are suddenly having a "gorram gubmint" moment. Loose-cut pipe tobacco is probably much less of a danger for kids, so far as the primary fear of viral smoking trends. vincentpricesboner posted:Have you considered that even the few people who hypothetically are being honest about not using THC carts, may have been using lovely black market CBD carts? One company I love flat-out stopped selling their vape units - they don't even use cart systems to begin with - and only sell dry herbal units now. The moral and possibly legal ramifications of people misusing their devices are not something they even remotely want to mess with. Shame because I love their vape products to death and I've seen them benefit a lot of people in the for-real medical sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:While this is very true, the idiotic part about it is is that lots of people have been using PG/VG/flavoring/nic juices for a decade with literally no known case of this. They should have clarified, as this will (epidemiologically speaking) probably kill thousands of people who now think all vaping is bad and more dangerous than smoking Smarter people correct me on this as it's hugely anecdotal, but from what I've seen of nicotine addiction rates and the absolutely insane rate at which these people churn through vape juice - and aren't really quitting cigarettes anyway - I'm not sure how much healthier it actually is. Anyone I know who's using vape juice - THC, CBD, or otherwise - has the exact same coughing fits as a very heavy smoker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
revwinnebago posted:Smarter people correct me on this as it's hugely anecdotal, but from what I've seen of nicotine addiction rates and the absolutely insane rate at which these people churn through vape juice - and aren't really quitting cigarettes anyway - I'm not sure how much healthier it actually is. They're almost certainly safer than smoking https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaping-in-england-an-evidence-update-february-2019
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
revwinnebago posted:Smarter people correct me on this as it's hugely anecdotal, but from what I've seen of nicotine addiction rates and the absolutely insane rate at which these people churn through vape juice - and aren't really quitting cigarettes anyway - I'm not sure how much healthier it actually is. the core derail of this thread is whether the short term benefit to three pack a day smokers 'switching' to vaping now is worth the spike in teen vape use that will lead to an overall continued population of lifelong nicotine addicts and continual health risks later anecdotally everyone i know who inhales psychoactives is largely agnostic as to the ingestion method. when i smoke with the guys at work often they'll finish a cig and then pull out a juul. the biggest market draw for vapes doesn't seem to me to be that it's healthier, just that it's more convenient. it's a lot easier to get away with consuming nicotine/THC in public using a vape of some kind
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the core derail of this thread is whether the short term benefit to three pack a day smokers 'switching' to vaping now is worth the spike in teen vape use that will lead to an overall continued population of lifelong nicotine addicts and continual health risks later You're leaving out a whole lot of detail in this statement. First off, the vast majority of teens who are using ENDS regularly have a history of tobacco use and those who do not are an extremely small minority. Around 1% of teens using vapes on 20 or more days (which I think we all agree is a sign of addiction) are never users. Everyone else using them regularly had a history of tobacco use. Of that "spike" only a small number of teens are actually using the products regularly. The rest is mostly experimentation or just a few days a month. Officials throw out the stat of 27% of teenagers are using these regularly, but when you look at the actual data it's only around 5.6%. https://www.qeios.com/read/article/384 If you're omitting this information then it's probably because it doesn't fully support a certain position. The information is readily available because it's our own government that did the surveys. So a more appropriate comparison would be would you rather have kids with a history of tobacco use move over to a less dangerous form of nicotine intake or keep doing what they're doing. In a perfect world you'd work to eliminate nicotine addiction. We just don't live in that world and it's better for current addicts to move over to a less harmful alternative. Luxury Handset disagrees with this. Also we know what the health risks of smoking are in the long term, and our ability to detect the relative harm in vaping is quite improved over the last few decades. If we were to analyze the harms of smoking without knowing the long term effects today we could come up with a pretty good estimate of how harmful they would be in the long term. When those kinds of tests are conducted on ENDs the estimates of long term risk are very small. Something to keep in mind when people say "Oh we didn't know how dangerous smoking was" well yeah it was the 1950s and our ability to understand long term impacts of anything were extremely limited. In 2019 that's not the case. In a perfect world I'd want everyone to eat a balanced diet, count their calories, and get some form of moderate or intense exercise every single day. I think everyone should take up some type of resistance training in lieu of a sport or activity. I think reducing the consumption of alcohol, even on weekends, is something we should strive for. Alcoholism runs in my family so I've got some pretty strong opinions on this. I'm not suggesting we redirect our attention to those things instead of focusing on vaping. This is just what I think would be best if you were to promote a healthier way of life. Can't have it all though and if there's a way to get people halfway to those goals and reduce harm somehow then I'm for it. quote:anecdotally everyone i know who inhales psychoactives is largely agnostic as to the ingestion method. when i smoke with the guys at work often they'll finish a cig and then pull out a juul. the biggest market draw for vapes doesn't seem to me to be that it's healthier, Considering almost all users are former smokers and most people say in cross sectional surveys that they're doing it to quit smoking your anecdote doesn't line up with the reality of what people are telling researchers. Also why the gently caress are you still smoking? I will buy you a starter kit and a small juice variety pack and send it to you myself.  quote:just that it's more convenient. it's a lot easier to get away with consuming nicotine/THC in public using a vape of some kind The THC part I agree with though. I don't believe THC vapes have much of a smell so it's easier to get away with using them. I'm not very well informed on that subject since it only intersects with nicotine devices by virtue of the fact that they also vaporize something. revwinnebago posted:Smarter people correct me on this as it's hugely anecdotal, but from what I've seen of nicotine addiction rates and the absolutely insane rate at which these people churn through vape juice - and aren't really quitting cigarettes anyway - I'm not sure how much healthier it actually is. There's enough evidence out there to conclude it is vastly safer than smoking by quite a few orders of magnitude. Anyone saying otherwise is deliberately ignoring huge bodies of evidence and the conclusions of countless health organizations including many of our own in the US. There's a lot of dual use going on that's for sure. Both of my parents went through a transition phase where they were going at each around 50/50, then gradually tapered down to one cigarette a day. Eventually both of them found the same thing happen to them. They were out of cigarettes and just decided they wouldn't buy another pack and found that last bit of the transition to be very easy. This is an anecdote for sure, but it's one I've seen some studies try and tackle. Some people use more liquid than others. I think the average is 4-6ml but I need to find a solid source on that. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Also why the gently caress are you still smoking? I will buy you a starter kit and a small juice variety pack and send it to you myself. no thanks, i'm not in denial about my relationship with nicotine or the tobacco industry
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:no thanks, i'm not in denial about my relationship with nicotine or the tobacco industry Neither am I. I also don't go out of my way to be a massive dick to everyone who disagrees with that though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Have you considered that even the few people who hypothetically are being honest about not using THC carts, may have been using lovely black market CBD carts? I'll consider just about anything hypothetically, without any consideration as to how likely they are, lacking data On Terra Firma posted:Neither am I. I also don't go out of my way to be a massive dick to everyone who disagrees with that though. [citations needed] quote:So the question I have is why after all this time and all this evidence pouring in from multiple states has the CDC still not fully clarified what products are riskiest? Just a few days ago they will still categorizing this as an e-cigarette (nicotine) epidemic when that is categorically false. A Trump-Era government agency has been unable to rapidly GC/MS all of the tens of thousands of products on the market, including a large number of generic-packaging things which look the same but may have entirely different contents? Shocking. Again, I'm not saying there's vit e in vape juice. I am saying that at this point we have no definitive evidence this has happened -- but we also don't know definitively that vit e is the singular cause of the issues we're seeing. There are way too many unknowns. People are free to continue to use whatever cheap vape juice your bodega has, I don't care, but I won't touch anything besides tobacco and home made cannabis products for some period of time. My tobacco use is a pipe every 2 weeks, so, not very worried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Apparently e-cigarettes are worse for your heart than traditional cigarettes. Er, wait, apparently they're better for your heart than traditional cigarettes. Both of those studies are reputable as far as I can tell, but this kinda illustrates the problem with this debate. There are single studies out there that support the claim that vaping is significantly safer than smoking, and an effective means of harm reduction, and there are single studies out there that say the opposite. A single study doesn't really prove that much though, and the most epistemically responsible thing to do would be to wait until we have high quality meta-studies/literature reviews. But it'll be years if not decades before we can expect definitive conclusions from those, so everyone cherry picks the evidence they want and takes it to be far stronger than it is. For the record I used ecigs to quit traditional cigs around 7 years ago and even if they were *just as bad for you* as traditional cigs, I'd probably still vape, as it is overall a far more pleasant experience. I think part of the reason why so many people who switch from smoking to vaping are so adamant about vaping is that it feels, at a physical level, as though there's no loving way it could be as bad as smoking. I don't wake up coughing, I can run up a flight of stairs without wheezing, and there's a visible difference in the amount of gunk in my lungs based on an xray from last year vs 8 years ago. Those are real tangible benefits and it's kind of a dick move to say poo poo like luxury handset posted:no thanks, i'm not in denial about my relationship with nicotine or the tobacco industry I don't know whether vaping is safer than smoking, or, if so, by how much, but not everyone who had the realization "hey I can walk up a flight of stairs without passing out" is a shill for big tobacco. (I mean gently caress I don't even support big tobacco, I make my own juice from nicotine that's made by a European pharmaceutical company that isn't owned by any large tobacco corporation.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
I can probably provide some thread assistance in better understanding those two studies tomorrow. I think we can go a bit deeper in our understanding of what is being explored and discovered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
That would be helpful and I'd appreciate it. Honestly I'm kind of frustrated by both sides of this debate. For every luxury handset who's dogmatically opposed to vaping you have some idiot on the ecig reddit who thinks vaping pure diacetyl is harmless. One of the hopes I had when vaping first started becoming a thing a decade ago was that there would be a bunch of research into how to make it as safe as possible. An 'analog' cigarette is pretty much fixed in how much harm it's going to cause you, but it stands to reason there are more or less harmful options when it comes to vaping (in terms of ingredients in the juice, coil material, wick material, temperature, etc). I'd really like to suck on robot dicks in a way that is least likely to gently caress with my health, but there's just not a lot of reliable information on how to do that, which sucks. I'm drat sure some of these flavor compounds are bad for me. I mean I only buy flavors for my DIY stuff that are made by reputable companies and I avoid anything that's been flagged as containing a potentially harmful ingredient, but I'm not so naive as to think that we've discovered every compound that might be harmful (and of course some might be more or less harmful at certain temperatures etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:For every luxury handset who's dogmatically opposed to vaping i don't really care if adults vape, i just think that adults need to put public health over their own convenience and consumer preference in continuing the work of making the pool of nicotine addicts ever smaller. it is my lived experience that vaping does not really lead to less nicotine consumption or healthier nicotine consumption, and the main arguments to the contrary happen to align perfectly with big tobacco marketing strategies which should make any observant person deeply suspicious it's telling that one of the main focuses of this argument has been to ignore medically proven smoking cessation therapies in favor of people advocating for their favorite ways to continue consuming an addictive substance. thus the argument can't really be about public health if the lower threshold is just how to continue consuming substances. diet nicotine is still addiction, and still unhealthy. a thread about drunk driving or alcoholism is a failure if it settles into goons posting their favorite cocktail recipes
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i don't really care if adults vape, i just think that adults need to put public health over their own convenience and consumer preference in continuing the work of making the pool of nicotine addicts ever smaller. it is my lived experience that vaping does not really lead to less nicotine consumption or healthier nicotine consumption, and the main arguments to the contrary happen to align perfectly with big tobacco marketing strategies which should make any observant person deeply suspicious This is such disingenuous bullshit and I cannot believe you keep coming in here to repeat it. There is 10 years of research that supports the argument that it's vastly less harmful than smoking. It's not up for debate anymore. This isn't 2015. To claim that it's not a safer or healthier way of using nicotine is such a massive loving lie. In 11 pages of this thread you have not once shown how the health organizations that have made public health statements about the safety of these devices are copying the playbook from big tobacco. You accuse me and others of saying we're regurgitating BT talking points, but you have never explained how or why these organizations are doing it. Do you think all of these health organizations are on the take from the tobacco industry? quote:it's telling that one of the main focuses of this argument has been to ignore medically proven smoking cessation therapies With success rates usually in the single digits while in randomized control trials ENDS are twice as effective but hey never mind that! https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779 quote:thus the argument can't really be about public health if the lower threshold is just how to continue consuming substances. diet nicotine is still addiction, and still unhealthy. Your arguments can't be about public health if you think the nicotine is the real danger, and not all the chemicals and tar in cigarettes. This is a backwards puritanical way of looking at harm reduction and public health and it's going to get people killed. You seem to be alright with that though. quote:a thread about drunk driving or alcoholism is a failure if it settles into goons posting their favorite cocktail recipes I've already mentioned I have some pretty strong feelings about alcohol, but setting that aside even I can recognize that millions of people who use alcohol do it in a way that's responsible that doesn't impact the health and safety of others. I would prefer people don't drink at all, but that's a loving dumb basis for public policy. Repeatedly lying about alcohol, what its effects on the body are, and repeatedly stating that nobody can consume alcohol in a responsible or ethical way is a joke but that's what you're doing with vaping so... WrenP-Complete posted:I can probably provide some thread assistance in better understanding those two studies tomorrow. I think we can go a bit deeper in our understanding of what is being explored and discovered. This would be incredibly helpful. This is my understanding of them, but I'd appreciate it if you could jump in and correct anything you see as incorrect. The first study was unpublished and not peer reviewed and was released at a press conference without any real notification. I'm not a researcher but I'm pretty sure that this isn't how it's supposed to work. You can't just release something and claim it to be true without documenting how you conducted the study. I don't believe they released any information about the device, the nicotine strength, what liquids were being used. Nothing. This is important because the time it takes for nicotine in ENDS to effect the body is different than in cigarettes (Juul and nic salts being the exception and even they only come "close") because of patterns of use. Earlier generations of products had lower success rates with cessation because of this. As the products got better and more efficient at delivering nicotine rates went up. I saw this with my dad when I switched him from an ego style pen to a kanger subtank. It produced a better "hit" and even caused him to lower his nicotine level because it felt too strong. He completely gave up smoking shortly after that. The second study looks pretty solid. All the data and methods are right there. They even set up a control with the nicotine free version which was interesting and must have been difficult to do. This is where I'd appreciate the help Wren because I don't see any glaring errors, omissions, or screwed up methods. The one curious thing is that women had a greater benefit than men. Not sure why that was or if cardiovascular impacts are just different in women and men. I know women will experience different symptoms of a heart attack but that's probably unrelated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:That would be helpful and I'd appreciate it. This is something I'm very curious about as well. I know that temperature plays a huge role since a lot of the dangerous compounds pop up at extremely high temperatures. It's why I use temp control on everything I own because if based on what has been found that's where any potential danger is. Even then, those chemicals are a tiny fraction of what you'd get out of one cigarette. I'm surprised nobody has done any studies on TC devices to eliminate any chance of dry hits and see what comes of it Also your point about seeing the benefits is a huge one. I might have mentioned it before but my mom was a swimmer when she was younger and took it up again as she came up on retirement. She'd usually go for around a half mile each session. I got her to switch to vaping and shortly after that she had to stop swimming because life etc. When she returned she had been vaping for a few months and hadn't done any type of exercise. She actually had gained weight from sitting all day at work. She took 5 minutes off her lap times because she could breath that much better. 5 minutes. The only thing that changed was she switched from smoking to vaping. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:This is such disingenuous bullshit and I cannot believe you keep coming in here to repeat it. There is 10 years of research that supports the argument that it's vastly less harmful than smoking. It's not up for debate anymore. This isn't 2015. To claim that it's not a safer or healthier way of using nicotine is such a massive loving lie. this is a pretty big overreaction to my post and a fairly blatant misreading as well i get you're defensive that i keep calling you a shill but... you can see why, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this is a pretty big overreaction to my post and a fairly blatant misreading as well Still waiting on your answer or position with regards to what you just quoted. Been waiting for weeks actually: On Terra Firma posted:In 11 pages of this thread you have not once shown how the health organizations that have made public health statements about the safety of these devices are copying the playbook from big tobacco. You accuse me and others of saying we're regurgitating BT talking points, but you have never explained how or why these organizations are doing it. Do you think all of these health organizations are on the take from the tobacco industry? I base my claims on the scientific consensus of countless health organizations. That's it. Nothing else. If you're calling me a shill then you're calling them shills as well. I'd like for you to reconcile that. This is the point where you usually bail. You come in and lie/misrepresent something, then make some vague statement about how I'm a shill or an addict, then leave without ever having to defend the poo poo you're peddling. It was old the first time you did it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I base my claims on the scientific consensus of countless health organizations. That's it. Nothing else. If you're calling me a shill then you're calling them shills as well. I'd like for you to reconcile that. This is the point where you usually bail. hey this is called an argument from authority, and it's a bad thing to do in a debate. calling out logical fallacies is a bit gauche but if it's the only tool in your kit then there's not much else for me to do. i responded to this specific point six weeks ago, you just didn't like the response i provided so you have to pretend like i'm incapable of responding to you (rather than not really taking you seriously since you are a cherry picking shill who has obvious reasons to be biased in favor of an addictive substance) luxury handset posted:credible, but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though your response was evasive On Terra Firma posted:This cuts both ways. I've seen papers where researchers took devices that have been off the market for years, turned everything to max power and took measurements of what chemicals were released as if that somehow replicated real world use scenarios. Those papers were used by anti-vaping researchers as a reason for banning the products. On Terra Firma posted:You come in and lie/misrepresent something, then make some vague statement about how I'm a shill or an addict, then leave without ever having to defend the poo poo you're peddling. It was old the first time you did it. i made enough posts in this thread defending my position against your substandard argumentation, don't mistake my lack of patience for a lack of substance. it's just clear that you will never change your mind about your preferred ways to use an addictive substance, which you have decided to justify to yourself as a benefit for public health just to make this clear, i'm not saying public health agencies are shills. i'm saying you're a shill because you fumble together a rationalization for continued substance use based on your highly selective interpretation of current research. and bad habitual arguments keep cycling through this thread, because we cannot meaningfully talk about public health when the merits of substance abuse and addiction are still up for debate. you draw a line at the concept of quitting nicotine use, or the urgency of reducing nicotine addiction in society, since the real point of this discussion is ways to make people more mentally comfortable about their continued substance abuse
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:hey this is called an argument from authority, and it's a bad thing to do in a debate. calling out logical fallacies is a bit gauche but if it's the only tool in your kit then there's not much else for me to do. i responded to this specific point six weeks ago, you just didn't like the response i provided so you have to pretend like i'm incapable of responding to you (rather than not really taking you seriously since you are a cherry picking shill who has obvious reasons to be biased in favor of an addictive substance) None of this is true. Your response, as you quoted, was to completely disregarding the findings of all the organizations I've cited. My view doesn't come from one study and it never has. I've repeatedly pointed this out to you and you just ignore it and try to assign motivations for my position that are completely untrue. When I say this, you say I'm an addict. I am not being evasive in what I say in that quote. I even point out an example of how and why some of the science that comes in gets debunked. The overheating element has been caught and called out multiple times. The findings do not appear when tests are conducted under normal usage (ie not lighting the cotton on fire). That's one of many issues that pop up and once again, the RCP and PHE reports (which are evidence reviews based on hundreds upon hundreds of studies) address that issue. I'm not only not being evasive, I'm directly addressing an issue that has come up a few times and explained why studies like that get debunked! I am not pointing to one specific study showing these are 100% risk free. I never have. I trust these organizations to come to a consensus based on the available research and data and publish those findings which they do. PHE has another evidence review coming up at the beginning of 2020 and from what I've read from officials at PHE the evidence is stronger than ever that they are a safer alternative to smoking. They're all shills looking for a way to justify their addiction though huh? quote:i made enough posts in this thread defending my position against your substandard argumentation, don't mistake my lack of patience for a lack of substance. it's just clear that you will never change your mind about your preferred ways to use an addictive substance, which you have decided to justify to yourself as a benefit for public health "You're an addict." wash rinse repeat etc quote:just to make this clear, i'm not saying public health agencies are shills. i'm saying you're a shill because you fumble together a rationalization for continued substance use based on your highly selective interpretation of current research. and bad habitual arguments keep cycling through this thread, because we cannot meaningfully talk about public health when the merits of substance abuse and addiction are still up for debate. you draw a line at the concept of quitting nicotine use, or the urgency of reducing nicotine addiction in society, since the real point of this discussion is ways to make people more mentally comfortable about their continued substance abuse There is absolutely nothing clear about this. If my views are indistinguishable from organizations like NASEM, RCP, BMA, PHE, Cancer Research UK, and countless others I fail to see how I am a shill or I fail to see how you're not calling them shills. None of this is "highly selective". They make very clear claims about their recommendations and their view of the relative risk of the products. I am not the one researching the health effects of these products. I'm not the one determining what to include or not to include in the evidence reviews or their reports. I am reading their recommendations and. That's it! So once again you're just lying and pretending you hold some moral high ground because you're enlightened views on nicotine and tobacco are clearly superior to my own. Public health policy cannot be discussed with people who are totally willing to ignore scientific consensus, and lie about the motivations of people who hold opinions that differ from their own. This is what you are doing and have done since I started the thread. If you're incapable of engaging without doing this then kindly gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So once again you're just lying and pretending you hold some moral high ground because you're enlightened views on nicotine and tobacco are clearly superior to my own. you keep calling me a moral scold despite me telling you that i am also a nicotine addict. you even offered to buy me a vape. i don't know if you keep forgetting this or if you just can't stop yourself from calling people who disagree with you prudes On Terra Firma posted:Public health policy cannot be discussed with people who are totally willing to ignore scientific consensus, and lie about the motivations of people who hold opinions that differ from their own. you're not discussing public health policy. you're not here for a discussion, you're here to advocate a position which you believe in strongly. that position is that nicotine use is fine and it is safer to use nicotine using an ENDS. every big tobacco company advocates the exact same position you do, without question. there is no tobacco company which advocates for people to stop using nicotine entirely. all of the medical agencies you hide behind, do you think they are for or against continued or expanded nicotine use in society? is your stance closer to that of medical professionals, or is it close to that of the tobacco industry? On Terra Firma posted:If you're incapable of engaging without doing this then kindly gently caress off. there's nothing to engage with here really, it's not possible to argue past addiction and you have a position close to evangelical regarding the ways to continue consuming nicotine without feeling like you're immediately killing yourself. that's not much a discussion really, it's a sales pitch. i can scroll past your posts without responding, but it doesn't seem like you can do the same to mine. i urge you to break the cycle and put me on ignore Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you keep calling me a moral scold despite me telling you that i am also a nicotine addict. you even offered to buy me a vape. i don't know if you keep forgetting this or if you just can't stop yourself from calling people who disagree with you prudes I did because continuing to use nicotine knowing there is a safer vehicle for delivering that into your system is loving stupid. Despite being an insufferable rear end in a top hat I'd rather you didn't knowingly harm yourself because you're too stubborn or dumb to realize there's a better way of using nicotine. quote:you're not discussing public health policy. you're not here for a discussion, you're here to advocate a position which you believe in strongly. Oh. quote:that position is that nicotine use is fine and it is safer to use nicotine using an ENDS. every big tobacco company advocates the exact same position you do, without question. there is no tobacco company which advocates for people to stop using nicotine entirely. If people who can't or won't quit move over to a safer form of using nicotine this is a good thing. What tobacco companies say is irrelevant to that. I cannot comprehend why anyone would disagree. It's as if a Exxon said they were making massive investments in renewable energy your reaction would be to roll coal because they can't be trusted. Okay? quote:all of the medical agencies you hide behind, do you think they are for or against continued or expanded nicotine use in society? is your stance closer to that of medical professionals, or is it close to that of the tobacco industry? Their position is that if people can't or won't quit they should move to a less harmful alternative. It's consistent across all of the organizations I've cited. That is my position as well. I'm not "hiding" behind anything. quote:there's nothing to engage with here really, it's not possible to argue past addiction and you have a position close to evangelical regarding the ways to continue consuming nicotine without feeling like you're immediately killing yourself. Yes I am for moving people over to a demonstrably safer product if the alternative is a 1/3 chance of death from the continued use of combustibles. I'm really struggling to see what there is to take issue with here. quote:that's not much a discussion really, it's a sales pitch. i can scroll past your posts without responding, but it doesn't seem like you can do the same to mine. i urge you to break the cycle and put me on ignore It's helpful because it might show someone else how shallow and often times toxic your position is. It's helpful because you sound a lot like every other anti-vaping individual who moves goalposts and cannot engage in any meaningful discussion. That's an obstacle to harm reduction that shouldn't be ignored. If you don't want to have me calling you on your bullshit don't post here. That's not hard. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
Terra, I applaud your effort but I don't think your are getting anywhere and you are just waisting your time. e: I always wondered how boomerification will hit our generation and it would be absolutely hilarious if e-cigs is one of the things the brain worms latch on to. Imagine space grandpa ranting about lazy space kids juuling all day at space thanksgiving 
GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
Alright, so let's take a deeper dive at these two studies. The first one is a study that was announced as an oral abstract ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions this week. This is not the best but not a super shady way of publishing research - and is more common in some fields than others. It means the result is published as conference proceedings, and it happens this way sometimes because of publishing cycles, etc. A few articles I read suggested that they are trying to get their publication out because of some FDA timing. So what did they do? quote:the team of researchers compared healthy, young-adult smokers aged 18 to 38 who were regular users of e-cigarettes or tobacco cigarettes. The researchers then measured participants' blood flow to the heart muscle—focusing on a measure of coronary vascular function—before and after sessions of either e-cigarette use or cigarette smoking, while participants were at rest and also after they performed a handgrip exercise which simulates physiologic stress. E-cigarette users or traditional cigarette smokers at rest and after a handgrip exercise There were also controls. They looked at 30 people total, only 8 women in the study overall. This is examining how chronic e-cigarette or traditional cigarette use affects the heart at the blood flow level, not seeing how well people perform in a stress test. So we should be looking for a set of comparative numbers in the results. quote:Physiologic changes between rest and a hand-grip exercise to simulate stress showed regular tobacco cigarette and e-cigarette users had fairly similar myocardial blood volume responses to stress right after a smoking session compared with non-smoking controls (-4.3% and -0.9% vs +2.7% from baseline). quote:In smokers who used traditional cigarettes, blood flow increased modestly after traditional cigarette inhalation and then decreased with subsequent stress. However, in smokers who used e-cigarettes, blood flow decreased after both inhalation at rest and also after handgrip stress. It shouldn't surprise anyone that e-cigarette and cigarette use is associated with some kind of blood flow dysfunction, so the control group finding isn't very surprising. What is weird in this finding is that blood flow to the heart decreased after both use at rest and after stress. Like, a surprising amount so (!) that's these numbers: (-4.7% vs +34.7% for tobacco, P=0.005), (-5.8% vs +30.5%, P=0.023). The authors of the study suggest that's because there is more than just nicotine in e-cigarettes, and whatever else is causing vapor is gunking things up (for lack of a better term. Specific questions: what e-cigarettes did they use, at what temperatures, etc? Unknown, but they are taking chronic users and testing them after a night of abstinence. Downsides: this study is only about 30 individuals. I don't happen to know how this sort of tests models impairment or dysfunction in users. We could look into that. We don't know how many of the e-cigarette users switched from traditional cigarettes and how long ago (and vice versa). We don't know much second hand smoke these people are exposed to, nor cannabis use. Positives: these researchers are top of their field, and they are using equipment that provides immediate detailed information. Weird finding! The second study is about something else entirely, so we don't need to even say they disagree. The second study is about people who switch between tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, is a much larger study (145 individuals), and here's the abstract quote:
They had people in the UK switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, and some of those e-cigarettes didn't have nicotine in them. They looked at people's flow mediated dilation as well as pulse wave velocity, and let us know that for every 1% improvement in FMD, there are lower risks of cardiovascular events. People improved their heart function, but women improved it more than men, and there wasn't a difference between nicotine and non-nicotine EC use. Specific questions - what e-cigarettes were used? Vapourlites Starter Kit I can write more in explanation later (my dog demands and deserves my attention) and I can simplify the language further but I hope that adds to the discussion. The two studies don't even contradict directly - one is comparing chronic users of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes and a certain kind of blood flow into the heart under different conditions, and the other is about people switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, and use a different set of heart measures. I wonder if the e-cigarette users in the United States (the first study) were using a greater variety of e-cigarettes and getting different ingredients in their lungs. I learned that one can measure compliance with e-cigarette use as opposed to tobacco cigarette use by measuring carbon monoxide levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I wonder if the e-cigarette users in the United States (the first study) were using a greater variety of e-cigarettes and getting different ingredients in their lungs. Thanks for the analysis, it is appreciated. Dunno if you're aware of this, but in Europe there's a hard limit on the nicotine content of e-juice whereas here, there is not. Juul and other pods sold in the US use a high concentration of "nicotine salt" (I'm not a scientist but iirc Juul specifically developed a chemical variant of nicotine that's more bioavailable more quickly). I hate that poo poo and it gives me a headache, but more to the point, Juul is a shady corporation and nicotine salt probably shouldn't exist. It wouldn't surprise me to find more dramatic health effects related to nicotine in a country where the nicotine content is pretty much unregulated. I thiiiink you can buy nic salt liquid that's around 50mg/ml, which is 5%, which is nuuuuts. To put that in perspective, I mix juice with 100mg/ml to dilute down to 6mg/ml, and I wear a lab apron/gloves/goggles when I'm handling the 10% poo poo. I'm honestly surprised some kid hasn't died from licking a cracked Juul pod somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I’ve smoked some form of tobacco since I was 15, and I presently use snus. 6 mg/mL was just fine for me and 12 mg/mL was unpleasant because you’d take a hit and you’d be done, and inasmuch as smoking is subjectively great apart from the deadliness, part of the greatness is taking a break for 10 minutes at a time or whatever. poo poo above 12 mg/mL scares the loving poo poo out of me. That’s the strongest I’ve ever had, and it was too much for me, and I once smoked a pack of unfiltered cigarettes and 7 cigars in one particularly ill-advised day in Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I wonder if the e-cigarette users in the United States (the first study) were using a greater variety of e-cigarettes and getting different ingredients in their lungs. The only difference between what is available in the EU/UK and the US is as Gnumonic mentioned the levels of allowed nicotine in the liquids. They have a hard cap of 20mg due to the Eu TPD I think where as in the states it's whatever you want. Every manufacturer is pulling from the same list of ingredients or very similar varieties. Flavorart is a big one that's used all over the world. So there shouldn't be any huge differences unless they created their own liquid specifically for this experiment. The funny thing about nic salts is that they were developed by Phillip Morris years ago as a way of making nicotine more palatable. I believe it's treated with benzoic acid to alter the pH so it can hit harder without making you cough. It also allows the vaporized liquid to mimic the "hit" of a cigarette and get it into your system more quickly. The idea is that this helps smokers quit more easily. There is a study that looked at smoking abstinence with Juul specifically but I need to look it up. How nicotine works in smoking vs vaping is a little different. Because the concentration in vaping is significantly lower (For the most part outside of Juul) it takes a lot longer to get into the system and have an effect similar to that of a cigarette. I watched a lecture about it a few weeks ago so I'm just recalling this from memory but from what I remember the peak effects of nicotine in cigarette users was within just a few minutes, where as with someone vaping it takes around 30 minutes to get the full effect. That could explain why vapers still had reduced blood flow compared to cigarette users. Again it depends on the device they used which they didn't disclose and these studies are notorious for using out of date or discontinued products. Wren thank you so much for your contribution on the studies. It's awesome having someone who understands the process in the thread and if you're not too bothered I'm sure it will be helpful in the future as well. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Good bit of reporting about the EVALI cases. Turns out people are actually lying about THC use pretty regularly! https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/doctors-treating-deadly-vaping-disease-face-problem-some-patients-lie.html quote:Aberegg treated a man in his 20s for EVALI who repeatedly denied vaping THC until a drug test came back positive. The patient claimed he had vaped CBD, the nonintoxicating compound in cannabis. Unconvinced, Aberegg told the patient how doctors were increasingly treating people for an illness tied to vaping and how important it was to tell him the truth. So even though the CDC has said roughly 89-90% of people are self reporting THC use, the number is probably substantially higher due to circumstances like what I quoted in the article. They are still lumping ENDS into this without any evidence they are contributing to the outbreak. Unsurprisingly this has caused people to have incorrect assumptions about where the risk is. This is dangerous because it means people using the substances that make you sick are probably not aware they are in any real danger. There is zero reason to do this unless you are trying to capitalize on the outbreak in an effort to demonize/ban ENDS. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6846e1.htm?s_cid=mm6846e1_w Just a reminder that the CDC knows that nearly all cases have been linked to THC use, and that THC is not used in e-cigarettes. It is like saying cigarettes and joints are the same thing and carry the same risks. At this point if they are not distinguishing between the two it's public health malpractice. They know there is a difference and are deliberately choosing not to present accurate information based on their own reports and their own test results. I think they're doing this to lend weight to the idea of banning the products entirely, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
From ‘Veronica Mars’ to toxic vapes: The rise and fall of Honey Cut https://www.leafly.com/news/health/toxic-vaping-vapi-evali-lung-injury-rise-and-fall-of-vitamin-e-oil-honey-cut Industrial chemical manufacturers have sold vitamin E oil for years, but only as an ingredient in hand lotions or gummy vitamins. So who turned tocopheryl-acetate into a wildly popular and potentially deadly vape cartridge additive? Multiple industry experts point to a mysterious, low-profile Los Angeles company called Honey Cut. By creating a new category of “thickening” vape cartridge additives, Honey Cut became a nationwide phenomenon. Its formula—and copycat products just like it—suddenly turned up last year in illicit THC vape cartridges nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
If anyone is interested in sitting through a few hours of lectures the latest videos of the London E-cig summit are up. Before you go thinking that they only invite proponents of vaping they have had the CDC and president of tobacco free kids there doing panels and topics of their own, so they pull in people from all disciplines and backgrounds to give presentations. It's usually some of the most informative and interesting discussion of the topic year over year. https://vimeo.com/showcase/5967858?page=2
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
So a few things have happened in the last couple weeks. More data from the NYTS came out, namely the reasons for why teens are trying ENDS. The American Lung Associating released a press release with their stance on ENDS. More tests were done confirming that basically all of the cases tested for the EVALI outbreak were associated with THC/Vitamin E acetate confirming what everyone thought to be true going back months. The first thing I want to deal with is the ALA's public statement and fact sheet. https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/join-freedom-from-smoking/quit-dont-switch.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-lung-association-urges-smokers-to-quit-dont-switch-to-e-cigarettes-300969266.html A few people in the thread question my position of not trusting organizations like this and this is a great example of why that is. They made numerous statements that are either lies, or incredibly misleading. Here is some of what they said: quote:E-cigarettes are tobacco products. No tobacco product is safe, and that includes e-cigarettes. Recent hospitalizations and deaths related to vaping underscore the fact that vaping is in fact harmful. They know, just like everyone else does at this point, that regular nicotine vaping products have not been linked to any of the hospitalizations or deaths. The CDCs own testing, as well as testing being done at the state level, confirmed this a while ago. There is no way they are not aware of this. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6847e1.htm?s_cid=mm6847e1_w quote:Switching to e-cigarettes does not mean quitting. Quitting means ending your addiction to nicotine, which can be very difficult. If you quit smoking, then you quit smoking. Whether you use gum, a patch, snus, or some other NRT you are still quitting. Nicotine isn't killing people. Smoking is. quote:The FDA has not found any e-cigarette to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit. The FDA hasn't done any evaluations or accepted and approved any PMTAs because they only recently issued guidance which included submitting evidence about how effective these products are. This isn't how the regulatory process works for tobacco products. There is ample evidence that these are effective, often times twice as effective, as medications or NRT. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779 https://ash.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Use-of-e-cigarettes-among-adults-2019.pdf There are a bunch of other publications showing the same thing. Vaping leads to people quitting and dual use eventually tapers off into full abstinence if given enough time. To say there is no studies showing effectiveness in 2019 is a huge loving lie. quote:Research shows that e-cigarettes contain dangerous metals and toxic chemicals including propylene glycol, heavy metals such as nickel, tin and lead, diacetyl (which can cause a dangerous lung disease often referred to as "popcorn lung"), acrolein (which causes irreversible lung disease) and formaldehyde, known to cause cancer. This is insanely wrong and there is ample evidence to back it up. Metals are present at very low levels, but they don't hit thresh hold for occupational exposure that would be considered hazardous. Most of these metals appear when you overheat the coil. Propylene Glycol is not toxic and has been studied for decades. It's used in fog machines, inhalers, and hospital ventilation systems. Diacetyl isn't in commercially available e-liquids because manufacturers removed it years ago. There has never been a single case of popcorn lung among vapors. Cigarettes contain a shitload of Diacetyl, hundreds of times more compared to the few liquids where it was present when tested years ago. Acrolein is found at extremely low levels and when tested in the blood of vapers is found to be at levels similar to that of non-smokers. We're exposed to things like this in our environment regardless of whether we smoke or vape or whatever. It's the dose that makes the poison. It's like saying eating eggplant is smoking because eggplant contains nicotine! Formaldehyde is only found at toxic levels when, once again, you overheat the device. If you send a poo poo load of power into a coil that cannot withstand it you will burn the cotton and liquid and release formaldehyde the same way you get carcinogenic compounds if you burn various types of food. The devices aren't used that way. They never have been. When tested under normal conditions most of the time there isn't any formaldehyde to detect. Again, there are plenty of studies that have been replicated under normal use conditions to back this up just like there are for the other compounds I've mentioned. These are all massive massive lies that have no scientific basis whatsoever. There is a metric gently caress ton of evidence showing the exact opposite of what they are claiming. They are knowingly publishing false information, which is why I don't trust them. So, onto teen use. The big thing going around now is that we need to ban flavored products because that is the main reason kids are picking up vaping. It turns out that the FDA and CDC have been sitting on data since september showing that this isn't true at all. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/ss6812a1.htm 55% said curiosity was the number one reason why. 22% said it was because of flavors, and around 22% said it was because they wanted to do vape tricks. So despite hammering away at the talking point that flavors were what entices or draws kids in, that is once again shown to be false by our own surveys and data. If curiosity is the number one reason why kids try them, it probably isn't a good idea to market them endlessly through ineffective public health campaigns but hey what do I know. Remember that the National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that only 5.6% of those kids who are using are using them 20 or more days a month which signifies regular use. 99% of those kids have a history of regular tobacco use. https://www.qeios.com/read/article/384 All of this data and information is coming from organizations that are supposed to be working for the benefit of public health. They are ignoring scientific evidence and consensus about harm, misrepresenting their own publicly available data, or just flat out lying. None of this is occurring in the UK or other countries that are using ENDS as a means of harm reduction and none of them are seeing any of the problems cropping up in the US. No massive spike in teen use. No outbreak of lung injury or lipid pneumonia. No lying about the data or scientific findings. None of it. Weird how all of these problems are unique to America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
There's a new documentary series on Netflix called Broken and the second episode is about vaping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
It's been a while and vaping has been in the news lately on a few fronts so before US Pol becomes derailed by another vaping discussion I thought I'd re-up this thread so it has a place to go. I'm going to try to do what I did before and keep this as neutral as I can. The court mandated deadline for the review of all PMTA's submitted to the FDA has come and gone. Roughly 5.5 million skus were given a market denial from the FDA and the agency has decided to kick the can regarding Juul/Njoy/etc. This has been generally regarded as bad from everyone on both sides of the debate. Vaping advocates are pissed smaller shops were effectively shut out of the process while Juul was given a pass and members of the tobacco control community have generally been mad all products were not banned outright. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/health/fda-e-cigarettes-vaping.html Teen use spiked with the introduction of nicotine salts and pod based systems which were one of the main reasons the agency was taken to court and ordered by a judge to speed up the review process. Those devices are, for the most part, owned by large tobacco companies and have been given more time for review. One theory is that the FDA is waiting for the most up to date PATH data and NYTS data to determine whether or not vaping among teens was a short lived fad or something more entrenched that needs to be dealt with more aggressively. The latest data we have shows teen use is down considerably (A 50% reduction) and that most who were using the devices with any regularity were smoking already. There has been a number of papers since this thread tapered off but the NYU one is the latest I believe. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/january/youth-vaping.html All of the denials from the FDA have been of smaller companies who make liquid for open systems vs the pod based systems most are familiar with. The main reason that's been given is that there was no data provided in the PMTA that showed a net public health benefit when teen vaping is added into the equation. Regardless of whether you want the devices banned entirely or not this is a rather obnoxious reason for the FDA to give because throughout this process they never told any manufacturers that they required a case to be made based on teen uptake. PMTAs cost a ton of money to submit so millions were burned by companies only to find out their rejection was based on a criteria they were never informed of. Still, that will probably come as a pleasant surprise to anti-vaping advocates so it is what it is. I'm speculating here but I think some of the remaining open system manufacturers submitted much more robust documentation for their products and the FDA is going to need more time to evaluate each of these on a case by case basis. Avail vapor is one of them which if you follow the industry may recognize because they were temporarily acquired by Altria and then bought back. The reason given was guidance on the regulatory side of the business and since that time Avail has split into 3 separate entities one of which is Blackbriar Consulting LLC which is specifically for FDA regulation and compliance help. I don't think the courts will be able to speed up the process any more than if the courts ordered the FDA to speed up approval of the COVID vaccines so we'll see. I'm beginning to wonder if the FDA knocked off the low hanging fruit with the smaller companies so they could point to a result and say they are saying they are "doing something" rather than dragging their feet. 4.5 million skus were struck down because they were for products that weren't even on the market and were kind of submitted in error with totally incomplete documentation. If you can say you denied X% of applications you can say you're making progress. Again this is just speculation. One unintended consequence of the PMTA rejections is that some manufacturers are going to start switching over to using synthetic nicotine for their products because the FDA only has jurisdiction over tobacco derived nicotine. I don't know how long this will last but considering the glacial pace the FDA is currently moving at they probably actually do anything about this anytime soon. A popular disposable brand called Puffbar was called out by the FDA last year or the year before and told to remove their products from the market so they switched over to synthetic. To my knowledge absolutely nothing has been done about that and they're almost as popular as Juuls are for teens. Something interesting that came up around the time of the first rejections is that the FDA is pushing off approval of more graphic labeling on tobacco products. I think this is going to be in line with what they do in the UK where they include pictures of hosed up black lungs or something to that effect on packaging. Not sure what the hangup here is. On the academic side of things 15 past presidents of SNRT came out in support of vaping stating that there is a great benefit to the products and that teen use should not outweigh the benefits to current smokers. It's been put in the usual language-so-dry-it-chafes but this is a pretty loving big deal considering who signed off on it. Here is a link to the report: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306416 A study was conducted by the NIH showing that an tax increase on vaping will most likely lead to more kids smoking which is something to keep in mind given the recent proposal of 96 billion in revenue from tobacco and nicotine products. The way the tax is calculated is based on nicotine per ml so open system liquids are disproportionately effected compared to high nicotine pod based systems as well as cigarettes. Most bottled stuff is 30-60 ml so you could be doubling or tripling the price of those compared to adding a few dollars to a pack of cigarettes. Again teens really aren't using the open systems so I'm not sure this is very well thought out. https://news.gsu.edu/2021/08/30/taxing-tobacco-and-e-cigarettes-at-same-rate-will-harm-young-users-new-study-finds/ San Francisco banned vaping products in 2018 thinking that would nip the problem of teen vaping only whoops it increased smokings rates among teens. A study was done by the national institute of health and Yale so I'm not sure the credentials could be called into question. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...utm_term=052421 So that's kind of where everything stands now. Everyone is just waiting on what the FDA is going to do next and whether or not TFK is going to take them to court to rush the process along. I believe one of the PMTAs that the FDA is supposedly reviewing came in around 2018 and they still haven't finished processing that. If that's any indication of the timeline for the rest of the PMTAs I think everyone will be waiting a long long time to get any closure. I do want to call out something specific that was posted in US Pol. The claim was that the UK was being corrupted by influence from the tobacco industry so I went and did a little digging to find out if there was any merit to that statement at all. Turns out it's complete bullshit according to a watchdog organization that gets money from Bloomberg Philanthropies of all places: https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content/uploads/GlobalTIIIndex2020_Report.pdf They are in the top five countries with the least amount of tobacco interference on the planet. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Sep 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
14 years and still no go-to model for cloud chasing
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 01:02
|
|
