|
Since arguments keep spiraling out of control in other threads I figured it was about time for create one dedicated to yelling past one another away from primary chat and whether or not we're approaching the great mattering. I'll start with a very brief introduction to what it is and a little about the history/timeline and go from there. I am going to try and keep the first sections as non-controversial as possible based on what I know and understand. What is vaping? So e-cigarettes or ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery system which is much easier to type) were first developed and introduced to the market around 10 years ago. There were people trying to come up with an alternative to combustible tobacco prior to that but none of it materialized on the market in any meaningful way. Credit is usually given to a Chinese pharmacist named Hon Lik who lost his father to lung cancer and was looking for a way to deliver nicotine to addicts without the harms present in cigarettes. The devices originally looked a lot like cigarettes (known as cig-a-likes) that have eventually morphed into what we see now in the form of Juul or open container systems. Juul is what teens sneak into bathrooms and the open tank systems are the giant robot dicks you see people sucking down and blowing out giant plumes of mango vape fumes outside bars and what not. Cig-A-Like:  Juul/Pod based system:  Open Tank/Robodick:  Early on the cig-a-likes never really got that popular. It wasn't until you started seeing the creation of "mods" or devices that resembled the giant robo dick in the last image that the industry started taking off. The delivery system consists of a solution of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and some type of flavoring additive. In the beginning this was done through the use of cartomizers that were a kind of one and done thing and came in tobacco flavoring in hopes that people would prefer to stick with what they knew from smoking. Tank based ego systems emerged down the line and allowed users to refill their device with a liquid of their choosing. People started experimenting with PG and VG ratios along with flavoring recipes and the first juice "companies" sprang onto the market. Most of the first vape shops mixed their own liquids in house by using a PG/VG base and then pumping in some type of flavor "shot" to give the liquid the desired flavor. Larger brands like Suicide Bunny, Lost Fog, etc made a name for themselves because they mass produced unique flavors that smaller shops couldn't replicate. Larger tanks with more complex coils hit the market. This is probably around the time you started running into vapers you wanted to punch. The newest invention to come out of all of this are nicotine salts which are what Juul uses in their pods. Salts are a less harsh version of nicotine (compared to free base) that is more effective at getting nicotine into the blood stream. It closely resembles the same "hit" that you would get off of a cigarette. Traditionally you wouldn't go above something like 18mg because it would burn your throat, but with the salts the nicotine content can be as high as 60mg and still hit smooth which is loving crazy. Teens vape this because it gets them buzzed and smokers find it more effective at mimicking the hit off of a cigarette. Regulation or lack there of For years the devices and liquids existed in a murky grey area of regulation. The FDA didn't decide to step in and get involved until 2016 when they issued rules stating that they had the authority to regulate the products under the 2009 Family Smoking and Prevention act. Essentially it said it would exclude products that were on the market prior to 2007 and that everything else would need to go through an approval process. Here is the full text of that as well as the law that gives them the authority to enact the rules: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-10685.pdf https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1256 The weird thing about this is that while new products would require approval to enter the market, all existing tobacco products were allowed to be sold. So cigarettes wouldn't have to go through the same regulatory process as any new ENDS which has been a big point of confusion among public health officials and vaping advocates alike. Credit to Discendo Vox for bringing the following to my attention, although some of his assertions about who was involved were wrong, he was right about there being a court case involving ENDS manufacturers and the US Government. There was a court case that was decided in 2010 where a federal judge ruled in favor of the manufacturers that said their products were tobacco products and not smoking cessation devices. The FDA had seized a product shipment and claimed the companies were attempting to sell an unregulated cessation device which meant they had jurisdiction to regulate them. The manufacturers argued that they were tobacco products and not cessation devices. The FDA eventually agreed to this classification and decided not to fight the ruling. This ties into the FDA regulating these products as tobacco products rather than cessation products. Despite there being a huge gap in time between when the products came on the market, the FDA asserting jurisdiction over their ability to regulate, and the current epidemic of teen use, very little guidance has been issued on what ENDS manufactures and liquid manufacturers are supposed to do to get their products approved. Most if not all liquids and their ingredients have been registered with the FDA at this point and everyone has been anxiously waiting to hear from the FDA what comes next. It's up to the FDA to make the next move and respond to the registrations. Something to keep in mind about the PMTA process and what could potentially make its way through in the future. The only product that I'm aware of that has been approved under the new guidelines is IQOS, a Phillip Morris product that heats tobacco to a point where it vaporizes but does not actually reach the point of combustion. If the bench mark for getting through the process is simply a matter of money and presenting the case that a new product is to the benefit of public health and this is what has already made it through, proponents of a ban prior to FDA approval and regulation are going to be very disappointed in the final outcome of all of this. https://www.pmi.com/smoke-free-products/iqos-our-tobacco-heating-system Who is using them? Why are they using them? Most people are utilizing ENDS as a way to transition away from combustible tobacco. Many people engage in what's known as "dual use" where they are using both ENDS and smoking which doesn't offer that much of a benefit based on studies that analyze bio-markers of known carcinogens. My dad did this for around 6 months before making the switch entirely. Still, lots of people have made the switch 100% which will most likely be a huge health benefit to them and to the public. That data on this seems to be more detailed in the UK than in the US. Generally speaking there is data to support the notion that switching to ENDS and abstaining from smoking keeps people off cigarettes. I've seen a number of these studies cited but Public Health England so I'm going to try and dig them up when I have time. We're also dealing with a massive influx of new users among teens which is a massive problem that needs to be addressed now. Numbers from the national youth tobacco survey indicate that there has been a large rise in the numbers of teenagers vaping year over year since they started tracking usage. There are some caveats here. The focus seems to be on use over the last 30 days rather than regular past 7 day users which would indicate some kind of addiction. Data from the UK measuring regular use says their rates have either remained steady or dropped in the last year. Additionally the US surgeon general has stated that among those vaping around 15% of that is attributed to vaping THC which is a whole other issue for another thread. I'm not trying to downplay teen use, but it is important to distinguish whether these products are being used regularly, or if it's just a matter of experimentation. The most common device teens are using are Juul pods or other pod based systems. Scott Gottlieb the former head of the FDA indicated that the most recent survey data included a question about what type of device kids are using in order to determine what products need to be more heavily regulated but the data hasn't been published yet. Gottlieb is also a Trump appointee so his credibility is a bit...eh. Juul pulled flavors from stores a while back, but since no enforcement has come down on the pod systems specifically Juul compatible pods/flavors have been sold without interruption, which is probably the dumbest poo poo ever and another reason why the FDA has been utterly useless in their role at regulating these devices. The health benefits/drawbacks of robot dicks At this point the current evidence overwhelmingly points to these devices being significantly less harmful than using tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians estimates the risk to be at best 95% of smoking: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0 Quick note about the RCP. They are the ones that first presented definitive evidence of the harms of smoking tobacco. It took years for North America to catch up. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/smoking-and-health-1962 Public Health England released a report following the RCP saying the same thing: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/ Kings College in London came to the same conclusion. The authors have confirmed multiple times that the 95% figure matches their results: https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2599869/nicotine-carcinogen-toxin-exposure-long-term-e-cigarette-nicotine-replacement Another study done in the US looked at specific biomarkers that are found in tobacco and compared them to dual users, ENDS only, NRT only, and never smokers. Most exposure levels came in around where NRT/Never smokers are: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2718096 Here's a good study from the Progressive Policy Institute that evaluated some of the risks and what kind of impact ENDS actually had on smoking over the last few years: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/i...c-implications/ However we do not fully know the risks of these products in the long term and further study is needed. What we do know is that smoking kills around a half million people per year in the US, so weigh what we do know against what we don't based on the current evidence and draw your own conclusion about the health impact. 480k a year is a lot of bodies and if anyone is wondering why I even bothered to make this thread this is why. One argument I hear is that it took decades for us to find out that smoking was bad for us. Even though that wasn't really the case (People had been writing about it anecdotally for centuries) we've gotten really good at estimating harm and establishing risk/toxicity. This isn't 1950. We're dealing with a different landscape and we are way more equipped to do risk evaluation. We do have a pretty clear idea about the risks of nicotine though due to decades of study as well as study on the effects of NRT. The RCP report goes into a lot of detail about that. UK vs US policy In the US we've done a few things that have left people scratching their heads. First and foremost our regulatory system is a loving mess and nobody seems to know what they're doing from top to bottom. Vendors and manufacturers only recently found out what would be required of them with the PMTA process. There are way too many people mixing liquid in their bathtub and strapping 3 18650 batteries to unregulated devices and hoping they don't blow their face off. It's very difficult to roll that back and it appears that due to public pressure states are left trying to put the genie back in the bottle themselves while the FDA fumbles the ball. The focus on the US has been more about nicotine and less about the smoke. There are a lot of moral (and many times entirely justified) arguments for why the products should be banned. Most of this is due to teen vaping. On the other side of the pond the UK government embraced ENDS and started promoting it within the NCSCT (National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training). Flavors and devices are pretty heavily regulated. The government tests all liquids for accuracy and content. There is a cap on how much nicotine can be in any given liquid or pod (I believe it's 20mg) and there's a limit on the amount a device can hold at any given time (2ml). There are also restrictions placed on advertising that limit it to only point of sale information. Some of this is governed by the TPD and the European Union but nobody really knows what the gently caress will happen post Brexit so the government has been holding hearings to determine whether or not the ad restrictions will be lifted or if they'll start letting people use larger tanks in their devices. Most of the "marketing" done by the UK government focuses on old people vaping talking about the health benefits they've experienced and it's all very clinical and boring compared to the advertising Juul has pushed in the US. The UK is also opening up vape shops in hospitals and rolling back restrictions on where people are allowed to partake so that they are separated from smokers.  UK smoking rates have fallen dramatically in the wake of this official policy push and teen vaping rates are lower than what we have here. Not sure why this isn't the ideal model to follow but here we are. "Just loving ban them nerd" So where does that leave the US? States are starting to take matters into their own hands and banning flavors/everything on their own. There will be a few likely outcomes of this. A lot of people will stop vaping and go back to smoking. Some people will try to purchase things across state lines. Some people might dabble in DIY which if you don't know what you're doing can land you in the hospital should you choose the wrong type of flavoring agents. Some people might stop vaping and smoking altogether which is the best possible outcome that has the lowest chances of happening. Most of the states are including something in the language of the laws that these products will not be allowed back onto the market until the FDA approves them for cessation purposes and can verify some of the safety claims manufacturers make (which they should not be making period). The problem here again are the regulations currently in place and what will be allowed to get through the process when everything is said and done. As I mentioned before IQOS/Heat not Burn tech is already approved for the market and while it's been shown to have lower toxicity and carcinogens than smoking, it doesn't come close to the decrease that you find with ENDS and vaping. That is what is approved by the FDA and will be sold in stores. The reason it got through is that Phillip Morris has the money to get it through the pipe line. It's my understanding that in the UK the approval process is pretty straight forward and fairly affordable which is why most products are still in the market. In the US approval for one product can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most ENDS manufacturers and companies don't have the capital to do that unless you are partially owned by a giant fortune 500 company that can put up the cash to make it happen. "Big tobacco" will find a way to break into the market even if it means they will break the market in order for that to happen. Juul has said they won't challenge the ban in court or lobby against it's implementation so they don't sound worried about their prospects. So we ban the robot dicks that everyone says are a con by big tobacco to addict a new generation of customers and we're probably going to be left with big tobacco selling a product that's already popular in order to addict a new generation of consumers. The really bizarre and fascinating thing about this topic is that everyone on all sides is accusing the other of working for "big tobacco". Some people think all the independent vape shops are somehow an extension of Altria/PMI and that they're all in cahoots to get the kids. Vapers think politicians are bought in sold by big tobacco to come down hard on vaping to clear the market for Juul and similar products. Some people think this has to do with the master settlement agreement and that states are losing funding because people are smoking less (This is popular up in New York). Harm Reduction in practice From what I've read in D&D there is a weird disconnect about harm reduction. If you have someone who is overweight or already to the point of being obese there are conditions that are going to arise from that that will need some type of treatment. This could be diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, etc. I don't think many people would suggest withholding treatment of any of these things even though we know obesity is caused, for the most part, by over eating and a lack of exercise. There are obviously extenuating circumstances involved sometimes. I would assume most people believe telling someone that is obese that they cannot have medication to control their blood pressure/diabetes because of potential adverse side effects would be considered malpractice. We ask people to wear helmets when they ride a bike. We tell people to wear seat belts when they ride in a car or drive. We force car manufacturers to adhere to certain safety standards. I would think abstinence only education wouldn't be a thing in D&D but who knows. We give out condoms and try to educate people about safe sex because god knows people are going to do that whether we tell them to or not. But people are dying!! Over the last few months there has been an outbreak of "vaping related" lung disease across the US with one confirmed case in Canada at the time of writing this. 13 people have died. For weeks state agencies were reporting that individuals who were hospitalized were found to have been vaping THC cartridges cut with a thickening agent. The FDA was first to announce this then a week or so later the CDC wrote in and said the same thing. Here is some more information about that in order to prevent someone conflating that with e-cigarettes/vaping nicotine. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/health/vaping-illness-thc.html quote:"Some patients have said they vaped only nicotine, but the Wisconsin researchers found that some patients who made that claim actually had used THC." So yay we've got a place to argue and debate the merits of robot dicks. I look forward to the name calling and insinuations!
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Harm Reduction in practice in my opinion harm reduction is clinically proven techniques which get people to stop smoking, and i see vaping as the same sort of stealth "safe smoking" nicotine delivery that big tobacco has been trying to push for decades. i absolutely do not trust companies which sell addictive substances to be concerned about the health of their customers beyond the extent necessary to ensure they are not killing or driving away new business https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/juul-big-tobacco-marketing/592174/ quote:Out of a firestorm of controversy over teen nicotine use, Juul Labs emerged in January with a newly sober and adult marketing identity. Forget the fruit-flavored vaping pods, the colorful ads populated with young models, the viral Instagram and Facebook posts. What the Silicon Valley e-cigarette giant is really about, its $10 million television ad campaign declares, is helping cigarette smokers shake their cigarette addictions and get healthy. of course, tobacco companies have been selling this line for decades  juul labs was specifically warned by the FDA to knock this poo poo off https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...-outreach-youth quote:“Regardless of where products like e-cigarettes fall on the continuum of tobacco product risk, the law is clear that, before marketing tobacco products for reduced risk, companies must demonstrate with scientific evidence that their specific product does in fact pose less risk or is less harmful. JUUL has ignored the law, and very concerningly, has made some of these statements in school to our nation’s youth,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, M.D. “In addition, we’re troubled about several issues related to JUUL’s outreach and marketing practices that came to light in a recent Congressional hearing. We will continue to scrutinize tobacco product marketing and take action as appropriate to ensure that the public is not misled into believing a certain product has been proven less risky or less harmful. We remain committed to using all available tools to ensure that e-cigarettes and other tobacco products aren’t being marketed or sold to kids. We’ve also put the industry on notice: If the disturbing rise in youth e-cigarette use continues, especially through the use of flavors that appeal to kids, we’ll take even more aggressive action.” same techniques, different company. your individual desire to defend large companies who sell addictive substances based on how marginally healthy those substances are for you is your choice, but to me it is obvious and blatant marketing to a willing, captive audience full disclosure - i have been a smoker for 12+ years and smoke about a pack of cigs a week Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:same techniques, different company. your individual desire to defend large companies who sell addictive substances based on how marginally healthy those substances are for you is your choice, but to me it is obvious and blatant marketing to a willing, captive audience I never defended Juul. I actually made it a point to say how their high nic levels were ridiculous, that they were partially owned and funded by big tobacco, and that they are probably to blame for the teen epidemic. Out of everything that should be banned I think the pod systems should go first. That includes Juul. No idea how you are misconstruing what I'm saying. You should read the studies that I posted from incredibly reputable organizations that explained what risk the products pose though since that does seem to be a concern of yours. Honestly you should probably try and find a product that works for you so you can switch. That makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:You should read the studies that I posted from incredibly reputable organizations that explained what risk the products pose though since that does seem to be a concern of yours. i read those the first time you posted those in another thread, and i think you have a habit of pointing at a collection of articles and saying "read these!" as if the evidence they contain is a trump to dismiss all arguments, or as if they were the final word on the subject however, the part of my post you quoted is not about whether or not vaping is less harmful than smoking. the articles you invoke do not address this argument of mine. it is about my personal distrust of companies which sell addictive substances by trying to claim that their substance is less harmful than an alternative, which is something that nicotine peddlers have been falsely claiming for nearly a century it simply does not make sense to me that any company would sell an addictive product with the end goal of having nobody using their addictive product anymore. it does make sense to me that a company would claim, without evidence, that their product is safer in an attempt to gain market share
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
I feel like, ideally, harm reduction measures like vaping should be easily available in a medical context, but I'm not sure how willing people would be to seek that option out as opposed to "illicit street vaping" (in a context where it was made illegal to commercially sell). Sort of like suboxone/methadone for opiate addicts, but ideally it should be easier (and cheaper) than it currently is to get on the drug in question. I'm coming from a somewhat biased perspective as an opiate addict on suboxone maintenance, though, and nicotine addiction is a bit of a different situation where there isn't the same risk of overdosing. At the very least, I would assume that everyone can at least agree that vaping shouldn't be made illegal as long as "regular" cigarettes are still legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:At the very least, I would assume that everyone can at least agree that vaping shouldn't be made illegal as long as "regular" cigarettes are still legal. the proposed flavored vape ban would mirror a 2009 act which banned flavored cigarettes in the united states (except menthol). there's no proposal to ban all vaping at the federal level, though some states are doing it (for bad reasons, in my opinion) the reason they're going after flavoring in nicotine is that there is substantial evidence, both from the medical community and from internal market research by tobacco companies, that flavorings help draw in children and young adults who would otherwise be turned off by the harsher flavor of natural tobacco. the alcohol industry has also figured out this trick Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
The Juul ads on the radio promoting it as a healthy alternative to smoking are disgusting and criminal and the people who created them need to loving go to jail. It's some of the most disgusting propaganda I've heard in my loving life. Worse even I see ads around gas stations for E-Cigarette devices at 99 cents. Fragrantly selling the devices at a loss to produce and lowering the barriers to addiction. This should be extremely illegally. These companies need to be nipped in the bud. ThanosWasRight fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
I smoked about a pack a day for 11 years until about 6 months ago. I tried to switch to vaping before quitting cigs cold turkey and from my experience vaping is like wearing a condom, it just makes you want the real thing more. And all the ads claiming its healthy alternative to cigs is loving hilarious. You may not be getting the tar and other hosed up chemicals in cigs, but Nicotine is still really bad for you, especially for your heart and blood vessels/arteries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:however, the part of my post you quoted is not about whether or not vaping is less harmful than smoking. the articles you invoke do not address this argument of mine. it is about my personal distrust of companies which sell addictive substances by trying to claim that their substance is less harmful than an alternative, which is something that nicotine peddlers have been falsely claiming for nearly a century In this case it's health organizations that have been sounding the alarm on tobacco for over half a century making the claim. The reason I keep bringing it up is that you keep dismissing it outright and saying it isn't relevant. luxury handset posted:the reason they're going after flavoring in nicotine is that there is substantial evidence, both from the medical community and from internal market research by tobacco companies, that flavorings help draw in children and young adults who would otherwise be turned off by the harsher flavor of natural tobacco. the alcohol industry has also figured out this trick There is also a lot of evidence to suggest one of the primary reasons adults switch to vaping is because of the flavors. There's a reason tobacco flavoring doesn't really sell all that well. Nobody wants it. Flavors are enticing for adults because it's a way to get nicotine without using something that tastes like poo poo. Talk to anyone who uses these devices and they'll tell you the same thing. If they're properly regulated like (sounding like a broken record here) in the UK this wouldn't really be an issue the way it is in the states. ThanosWasRight posted:The Juul ads on the radio promoting it as a healthy alternative to smoking are disgusting and criminal and the people who created them need to loving go to jail. Promoting it on the radio/TV/internet is hosed up and should be banned much like it is in the UK. No argument there. quote:Worse even I see ads around gas stations for E-Cigarette devices at 99 cents. Fragrantly selling the devices at a loss to produce and lowering the barriers to addiction. This should be extremely illegally. They shouldn't be sold in gas stations. I think there should be dedicated 21+ stores similar to ABC stores in some states that are licensed to sell these products and have to adhere to strict standards in order for them to maintain a license. Like first offense of selling to a minor you owe $5k, second you owe $10k, 3rd you are shut down without deliberation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:In this case it's health organizations that have been sounding the alarm on tobacco for over half a century making the claim. The reason I keep bringing it up is that you keep dismissing it outright and saying it isn't relevant. i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco i am saying that it should be obvious what the motivations are for a company that sells nicotine, about if they want people to use less nicotine, or more nicotine. we should be very skeptical about any claim from a nicotine-selling company regarding the benefits and usage frequency of their addictive product you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this On Terra Firma posted:There is also a lot of evidence to suggest one of the primary reasons adults switch to vaping is because of the flavors. There's a reason tobacco flavoring doesn't really sell all that well. Nobody wants it. Flavors are enticing for adults because it's a way to get nicotine without using something that tastes like poo poo. Talk to anyone who uses these devices and they'll tell you the same thing. If they're properly regulated like (sounding like a broken record here) in the UK this wouldn't really be an issue the way it is in the states. i don't really care about adults who prefer to ingest nicotine with floral flavors. i am far more interested in preventing children from starting to use substances which cause a lifelong addiction. adults can deal with it your assertion that "proper regulation" like in the UK would prevent the problems seen in the USA is flawed and unsupported, since there very likely cultural differences in nicotine consumption and how it is viewed in both nations. i agree that we do need stricter regulation in the USA, but part of the regulation in the UK includes limits on nicotine concentration in vape juice as well as notification of regulatory bodies for every product which can be sold, which seems like it would hurt the mom and pop vape shops used as a shield against burdensome regulaton i also dislike this argument because it smacks too hard of nicotine sellers pointing their finger at big bad government and saying "why didn't they stop me from selling this addictive substance" then crying foul when regulation does come, saying actually we would prefer a different kind of regulation please. like we can constantly play this shell game about how the pending regulation is bad, and this other theoretical regulation is good, where the real objective is just to keep vaping in a legal grey market so people can continue to profit off the deregulated sale of addictive substances to addicts
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco Not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or what because I'm not addressing anything but what you said. You claimed I was defending all these large companies (I'm assuming you're referring to Juul) and I said I was not. I've even spelled out many things they do that I find objectionable. You said I'm defending companies on the basis on how healthy they are. I said I'm defending ENDS as a whole because they are shown to be considerably safe than tobacco and there is mountains of evidence to back that up. I'm saying you don't have to listen to the health claims Juul or whoever makes because the science has been pouring in for about a decade. You can ignore what they say and go straight to the source. I don't think they should be allowed to make claims either way. This is why I told you to review the studies I've posted. I get that there is an incentive for companies to sell highly addictive products and continue to develop ways of keeping people hooked which is why in the OP I specifically pointed out nic salts and how absolutely insane the levels are. quote:your assertion that "proper regulation" like in the UK would prevent the problems seen in the USA is flawed and unsupported, since there very likely cultural differences in nicotine consumption and how it is viewed in both nations. i agree that we do need stricter regulation in the USA, but part of the regulation in the UK includes limits on nicotine concentration in vape juice as well as notification of regulatory bodies for every product which can be sold, which seems like it would hurt the mom and pop vape shops used as a shield against burdensome regulaton There are plenty of small stores in the UK that get by just fine under their regulatory system. If you had any desire to do any type of research on the subject you'd see that this is the case. Our consumption of nicotine isn't really any different. Our perception of harm is vastly different because there has been a concerted effort in the US to confuse people about whether tobacco or vaping is more harmful. These perceptions have played an important role in whether people switch or not. quote:i also dislike this argument because it smacks too hard of nicotine sellers pointing their finger at big bad government and saying "why didn't they stop me from selling this addictive substance" then crying foul when regulation does come, saying actually we would prefer a different kind of regulation please. like we can constantly play this shell game about how the pending regulation is bad, and this other theoretical regulation is good, where the real objective is just to keep vaping in a legal grey market so people can continue to profit off the deregulated sale of addictive substances to addicts Nobody is doing this. Everyone has been filing the required paperwork and waiting for the FDA to give them feedback or direction. None of that feedback or guidance materialized until just in the last few months. People have been waiting years for a response from the FDA about how to move forward. I have yet to meet someone in the world of vaping who has said they do not want any regulation. People want to know what they're buying is safe and legit the same way anyone else would for literally any product on the market. The FDA has the ingredient lists. They have product specs. They have a ton of information on file they are doing absolutely nothing with and it's been that way for a while. Not sure why that frustration is hard to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:there has been a concerted effort in the US to confuse people about whether tobacco or vaping is more harmful to refocus on one single argument - who is doing this confusing, and why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:to refocus on one single argument - who is doing this confusing, and why? Good question. I touched on it in the first post. In the US we tend to demonize nicotine (not without good reason) and in the UK they seem to demonize the smoking above the nicotine. For us it seems to be about eliminating all use of nicotine and everything tends to be framed around the idea that nicotine is a super dangerous chemical in its own right and that it must be stopped. The problem is that compared to the harm inherent in smoking, nicotine is at the bottom of the list of poo poo that can hurt you in a cigarette. There are also a lot of constitutes within a cigarette that dramatically amplify the addictive potential of nicotine, which I guess in some ways makes it more harmful than the chemical on its own. As to who is doing it, I think there are a lot of well intentioned people in tobacco control to adhere to the idea that nicotine is the enemy above all else. You see some of it in the truth imitative, the FDA, and the CDC. They tend to focuses mainly on the nicotine. I'd have to do some digging to find the PSAs and ads since I don't have them bookmarked. Here's something I turned up with a quick google to illustrate my point. https://smokefree.gov/quit-smoking/ecigs-menthol-dip/ecigs The main points here, at least to me, seem to be that ends are bad because they contain nicotine. It's the first headline and all subsequent points are about how nicotine leads to bad things. The UK doesn't really do that. Their approach is to address the issue of smoking tobacco as the primary harm, and push nicotine consumption aside because it's much easier to eliminate smoking than it is to eliminate the use of nicotine and smoking as a whole. Their goal is to reduce death and disease that's due to smoking and if you can do that without demonizing nicotine itself you can get more people on the bandwagon and keep the focus on the reduction on smoking. In the US (and on this forum) the prevailing attitude seems to be "Quit, smoke, or die. That's it." The UK seems to be saying "Alright you can't or won't quit, so why don't you use this thing that's way safer and also doesn't smell like rear end." Their attitude is that at least if they get people off of combustible tobacco they've made progress in reducing overall harm. Which is kind of the point. So I guess my question is if their youth rates hold steady or even drop and you aren't seeing a whole generation of people getting hooked that otherwise would not have been drawn to it, is this a viable strategy for reducing morbidity? I think it is. You and others seem to disagree. I can't wrap my head around that. I hope that answered your question. I can dig up more examples of testimony articles etc that I've read in the US to better illustrate my point about the whole nicotine vs smoking thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I hope that answered your question. it did, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
It makes zero sense for them to be more regulated than cigs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
gently caress big Tobacco. Let Vapes be done everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:It makes zero sense for them to be more regulated than cigs. In a perfect world the FDA would ban cigarettes and tell everyone to start vaping kiwi mango bubblegum or whatever. The fact that there is a product that is freely available in every single state that kills half of all the people that use it and the FDA and most governments around the world just go "Eh well our hands are tied!" makes me irrationally angry and confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:"Alright you can't or won't quit, so why don't you use this thing that's way safer and also doesn't smell like rear end." That is a very subjective assertion at the end there, my personal experience is quite the opposite. Which incidentally is my big beef with smoking/vaping as a vice: it pollutes the poo poo out of my environment and I have to breathe and smell that poo poo users are dumping into our shared air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:That is a very subjective assertion at the end there, my personal experience is quite the opposite. That's true too. I can't stand people vaping in public personally especially when it's in an area where everyone is walking in the same direction like a mall or outside on a city street. Fortunately it's more of a annoyance than a health risk when it comes to vaping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
At some point we must accept annoyance to stop a crime. The crime is killing humans with cigarettes
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Of note, PMI literally has a billion dollar fund for research grants to find favorable research about non-smoke alternatives and their entire institutional pitch rn is to legitimize vaping as the future. http://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-is-funding-the-anti-smoking-lobby-but-leaked-documents-reveal-the-real-reason-why-93087 ThanosWasRight posted:The Juul ads on the radio promoting it as a healthy alternative to smoking are disgusting and criminal and the people who created them need to loving go to jail. All those ads about how vaping are harmless are specifically meant for the one segment of society that has no exposure to 30 years of public information about how much nicotine addiction sucks. ie kids. Most of them take that at face value. WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:At some point we must accept annoyance to stop a crime. The crime is killing humans with cigarettes I mean how many people really die a year from tobacco products? oh yeah 7 million luxury handset posted:to refocus on one single argument - who is doing this confusing, and why? Terra firma's posts are word for word philip morris promotional materials on vaping, I'm not even being facetious Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:All those ads about how vaping are harmless are specifically meant for the one segment of society that has no exposure to 30 years of public information about how much nicotine addiction sucks. ie kids. Most of them take that at face value. This is so demonstrably untrue it's laughable. Herstory Begins Now posted:Terra firma's posts are word for word philip morris promotional materials on vaping, I'm not even being facetious Oh gently caress off with this. Everything I know comes from studies being done by independent bodies like those that are in the first post. Are you insinuating that the UK Government and countless other research groups that came to the same exact same conclusions they did are being infiltrated and influenced by PMI? Is the methodology used in their studies and reviews flawed in some way that you'd like to point out? On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:At some point we must accept annoyance to stop a crime. The crime is killing humans with cigarettes But stopping people from loving up the air by smoking in public is removing annoyance? Telling people to gently caress off and vape inside just means it becomes as socially unacceptable as smoking currently is and then the only people doing it will be the literal addicts, whose numbers will start dwindling as they die off and aren't replaced in equal number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Like I said.On Terra Firma posted:In the US (and on this forum) the prevailing attitude seems to be "Quit, smoke, or die. That's it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
You're being obtuse, you know people aren't saying that. And yeah are you unaware of the legacy of billions of dollars being poured into tobacco/nicotine research both recently and over the last 60 years? They are fine killing 7 million people a year, I'm sure that they are only pushing information that represents their consumers best interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:You're being obtuse, you know people aren't saying that. And yeah are you unaware of the legacy of billions of dollars being poured into tobacco/nicotine research both recently and over the last 60 years? I'm aware of all the money being poured into research. That's why I didn't post a bunch of studies done by people with conflicts of interest of which there are many. I'm not being obtuse. You're deliberately conflating smoking with vaping and pretending they are the same thing. The science and data very clearly say otherwise. This isn't even up for debate. If you have a problem with the science itself then show me where it's wrong. While you're at it please explain by what mechanism PMI is exerting influence over the UK government. Do you not see the benefit of having people switch away from a product that is killing 7 million people? Like that is the entire premise of this thread and the devices themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Again, I've never conflated the two, but that's easier than addressing the question of 'why do my opinions perfectly mirror those of marketing materials of an industry that kills 7million people a year?' Nicotine and tobacco studies are used as the textbook examples of how funding leads to bias in research on about a dozen different levels. PMI of course says that researchers are free to come to any conclusion, but they still pick who gets funded and who doesn't, so of course 'vaping is a superior form of nicotine intake than smoking' studies are going to end up wildly over-represented when there's a billion dollar pool just waiting for scientists to fund another year of life in academia by tapping into. No one is going to argue that vaping isn't almost definitely safer than smoking, we're asking you to look at the entire rest of the role of nicotine in the world. And frankly they're just misusing harm reduction at this point as an excuse to sell more nicotine to people that they purposely got hooked on nicotine in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
I would love for the vape haters in this thread to post evidence that NICOTINE!!!! in the absence of combusted tobacco/carcinogens/etc is anywhere near as harmful as they are trying to make it seem. Unless you are a pregnant woman or have cardiovascular disease the health effects from nicotine are minimal. Transient blood pressure elevations on the level of lifting heavy weights are not going to put you in your grave. Some evidence supporting the nicotine demonization in this thread would be appreciated. To me that is 95% of the beef that vape haters have with the whole thing. Nicotine bad, addictive substance bad they say...as they drink their coffee and sip their alcoholic beverages. It smacks of puritanism in a different guise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:No one is going to argue that vaping isn't almost definitely safer than smoking, we're asking you to look at the entire rest of the role of nicotine in the world. And frankly they're just misusing harm reduction at this point as an excuse to sell more nicotine to people that they purposely got hooked on nicotine in the first place. i'm kind of done with this thread after the op's "How bad is nicotine addiction, really?" post On Terra Firma posted:The main points here, at least to me, seem to be that ends are bad because they contain nicotine. It's the first headline and all subsequent points are about how nicotine leads to bad things. like, this thread probably should be folded into TCC if we're not really supposed to challenge the idea of substance addiction being itself harmful, and we are instead supposed to discuss the safest ways to use addictive substances and cheerlead our preferable sectors of the nicotine industry https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762 Taphreek posted:To me that is 95% of the beef that vape haters have with the whole thing. Nicotine bad, addictive substance bad they say...as they drink their coffee and sip their alcoholic beverages. It smacks of puritanism in a different guise. who is defending alcohol itt there's no reason to post in a thread about addictive substances with people who are addicted to those substances and are unwilling to discuss the possibility that addiction itself is not good Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Is there nicotineless vaping? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i'm kind of done with this thread after the op's "How bad is nicotine addiction, really?" post Fair enough, alcohol is a different entity, but the point is that many of the same people who attack vaping or nicotine are themselves users of socially sanctioned substances, which, when used appropriately, have little objective harm. To play Devil's Advocate- why is that per se a bad thing? If you are "addicted" to a minimally (or non) harmful, non socially disruptive, substance/activity/thing, what is the objective harm beyond saying, "people do that thing a lot. that is bad."? Addiction implies a level of abuse or disruption of normal social behavior and achievement. I fail to see how some segment of society vaping or drinking coffee habitually without any other harm is a social ill. When you strip the argument down to it's core it very much seems to be driven mainly by sentiments of "I personally don't like that thing...it should be regulated/restricted/banned". I'm genuinely interested to hear your reasoning for why you disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
.
Karin73 fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:like, this thread probably should be folded into TCC if we're not really supposed to challenge the idea of substance addiction being itself harmful, and we are instead supposed to discuss the safest ways to use addictive substances and cheerlead our preferable sectors of the nicotine industry I don't know why you are twisting yourself in knots trying to make this thread into something that it isn't. I have not said that addiction isn't harmful, or that addiction is fundamentally okay. What I have said is that if people are addicted to something and can't/won't quit then they should probably switch to a much less harmful alternative. If someone is currently using nicotine then the absolute best case scenario is that they stop using it altogether. This isn't feasible for most people which is why quit rates are abysmally low and relapse is so high. I guess I should apologize for "cheerleading" devices that allow people to consume something they're addicted to without most of the harm inherent in tobacco? How do you feel about needle exchanges and condoms? You seem to be cool with the idea that those that can't quit will just die off and one day maybe the world will ban all forms of nicotine. I can't think of another reason for your attitude aside from your inherent distrust of the technology itself. You lump everything related to nicotine as being part of an "industry" without even knowing or understand what any of this is or who is involved. You've repeatedly lied about it and you've been repeatedly called out on it. To take your @dril tweet and put a different perspective on it: Driving has killed a shitload of people over the years. We started requiring things like air-bags, seatbelts, speed limits, vehicle crash tests, etc in an effort to curb that. Drunk driving was killing a ton of people, so we raised the drinking age to 21. People still drive, and people still die, but the body count as a result of driving has gone down significantly in the last 50 years because of harm reduction. Driving isn't an addiction, but for most people it's a requirement of daily life. If I were to take your logic and apply it to that it would be people either shouldn't drive, or they if they have to drive they should do it without all the safety features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Is there nicotineless vaping? My dad uses it now sometimes. Down from about 1.5-2 packs a day from a few years ago because he was able to taper off his nicotine from 18 to 12, then 6 to 3. A lot of people do it from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i'm kind of done with this thread after the op's "How bad is nicotine addiction, really?" post if you had a choice if your grandpa smoked cigs or a vape, what would you prefer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:What I have said is that if people are addicted to something and can't/won't quit then they should probably switch to a much less harmful alternative. there are actual, medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there with a decently high rate of effectiveness. you would prefer to talk about your chosen method of nicotine ingestion and use corporate messaging to draw false distinctions between the noble, innovative, mom and pop nicotine sellers who are totally not at all in the same business as the hated Big Tobacco this is how addicts think about their chosen substance. it's not really something anyone can argue against since the addict has very real, personal, neurologically driven reasons to rationalize their substance use. i say this as a nicotine addict who would very much like to prevent kids from ever using the stuff to begin with. i simply do not think you can objectively consider arguments against your position itt 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:there are actual, medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there with a decently high rate of effectiveness. you would prefer to talk about your chosen method of nicotine ingestion and use corporate messaging to draw false distinctions between the noble, innovative, mom and pop nicotine sellers who are totally not at all in the same business as the hated Big Tobacco E-cigarettes have shown to have higher quit rates than any of those though and they've been using them to dramatically decrease smoking rates in the UK and arguably the US as well. See the paper by the PPI in the first post that analyzed smoking trends. But hey it's still using nicotine in some form so I guess that doesn't count right? Part of that also depends on the amount of nicotine a smoker is transitioning to in their liquid and what device is used so there are a lot of variables to consider. I'm sure you've done all the reading and know this though.  quote:this is how addicts think about their chosen substance. it's not really something anyone can argue against since the addict has very real, personal, neurologically driven reasons to rationalize their substance use. i say this as a nicotine addict who would very much like to prevent kids from ever using the stuff to begin with. i simply do not think you can objectively have this discussion or ever be convinced that you might be wrong I think you're speaking for yourself here and that sounds like a personal problem. I haven't jumped to any conclusions on the basis of emotion. I haven't turned my nose up at any significant bodies of evidence. I haven't stomped my feet and said everything vaping related is perfect and good. I feel like I've gone out of my way to explain my opinions and how I reached them only to have you snap back and put words in my mouth. Even now I have no idea what your thoughts are with regards to nicotine policy in the UK even though I think I've asked you about it quite a few times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Hi there rabid defender of vaping products who really wants to talk to us about uk nicotine policy who just happens to live in the same town as philip morris and altria's headquarters in virginia
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Like all this stuff about it being better for an addict is great and all, but its brought up in this thread that the people making these things fought in court to let it be known they are a tobacco product and not a method for quitting. They've flat out stated in a public court that they're selling a vice to addicts and not trying to make their lives better. It's not entering our culture as a means to quit smoking, but as a means to return smoking as an acceptable hobby. gently caress. That.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Hi there rabid defender of vaping products who really wants to talk to us about uk nicotine policy who just happens to live in the same town as philip morris and altria's headquarters in virginia That's it you got me. I'm an Altria mole planted on a comedy forum trying to win you over and trick toddlers into Juuling. Can you wait until Friday to rat me out to my boss so I can get paid again? I need to top off my Scrooge McDuck vault of blood money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:21
|
|