|
Answer the question please.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now. I think the question is whether quitting is realistically possible for the vast majority of nicotine users (I don't know the answer to this). If there exist a subset of people for whom quitting isn't realistic, then it makes sense to have a less harmful alternative for harm reduction purposes. I'm only familiar with the context of opiate addiction, though, which is a bit different. Obviously in the case of opiate addiction quitting is often not feasible. If quitting nicotine is realistically doable in all - or the vast majority of - cases, then it might make more sense to take the "ban both cigarettes and vaping and only allow quitting tools" position. It seems to me like the best option would be something along the lines of "both cigarettes and vaping no longer commercially sold, but vaping easily available by medical prescription." But as long as cigarettes exist, having vaping be commercially available seems like an important harm reduction measure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. You are, of course. Not least, let's take this, perhaps your most brazen and obvious lie and the foundation of basically all of your argument On Terra Firma posted:Who is using them? Why are they using them? is this true? well, i doubt it, but lets take one key area: youth. it's well known that hooking children on nicotine is much more likely to create a lifelong addiction and thus it is a much more significant issue, and therefore youth are where most nicotine additions start.  https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm oops, it turns out that the statistics make it immensely, obviously apparent that most youth are not using vaping to "transition away from combustible tobacco" - not least because these vaping rates are much higher than tobacco use rates were prior to the explosion of vaping
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are, of course. Not least, let's take this, perhaps your most brazen and obvious lie and the foundation of basically all of your argument now he's gonna call you anti-vaping and ask if you'd prefer that children smoke cigarettes instead of vaping lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are, of course. Not least, let's take this, perhaps your most brazen and obvious lie and the foundation of basically all of your argument He said "most people." If you want to focus on kids that's fine, but don't pretend the majority of people vaping are kids unless you have data to back it up. Also, that data doesn't show that vaping is more prevalent than cigarette smoking was before the explosion of vaping. I'm not sure which numbers you're looking at to come to that conclusion, but according to the page you linked, overall tobacco use has dropped from 46% of high schoolers in 2013 to 27% in 2018. Vaping has become more popular than smoking among children using nicotine, but overall rates of nicotine usage for children have continued to decline. What appears to have happened is mostly that kids who previously would have smoked cigarettes are vaping instead. That's still a problem that deserves attention and regulation, and one of the most likely reasons for the popularity of vaping among teens is simply accessibility. That can be dealt with similar to how accessibility of cigarettes was dealt with. This isn't really a new problem, and it doesn't really have any bearing on the efficacy of harm reduction of vaping for adults. I feel like all the energy being expended on panic over vaping could be better used advocating for bans on more harmful combustible forms of tobacco. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
It's possible to work on two issues at once.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:It's possible to work on two issues at once. What is more important, keeping the market open for a safer nicotine smoking system for current adult cigarettes smokers who are going to get cancer fast, or to prevent children from getting interested in a safer nicotine smoking system? edit: And for context, I'm an ex-smoker who quit on my own, thinks vaping is ridiculous and embarrassing, and thinks tobacco should probably be banned for the good of the country. But I am also practical and would much rather have a family member vape than smoke. I've had more than enough people in my family die of cancer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:It's possible to work on two issues at once. The people arguing with the OP don't seem to think so. They clearly appear to think that supporting harm reduction comes at the expense of doing anything about regulating nicotine overall. If they didn't think so then why would they argue so vehemently against harm reduction?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The people arguing with the OP don't seem to think so. They clearly appear to think that supporting harm reduction comes at the expense of doing anything about regulating nicotine overall. If they didn't think so then why would they argue so vehemently against harm reduction? This thread started up in part because of some vapers ranting about how banning flavored vaping fluid was a big tobacco/trump plot instead of a straightforward ban on targeting children. Vaping doesn’t need to be banned but it needs to be heavily regulated and when people whine about regulations with tobacco company logic we should come down hard on that nonsense. This thread is about positioning an highly addictive substance, sold for profit by companies with identical financial incentives to those tobacco companies had, as something benign or beneficial that should be let to run free with only the good will of vape shops restricting it. That’s nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
I'm not against harm reduction, I'm against vaping being more socially acceptable than other methods of smoking. It's still not something I want to see on the streets, less dangerous than cigs or not. I'm also opposed to people selling chemical compounds unapproved by the FDA. Because a lack of disapproval here is not the same as approval.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
ErIog posted:overall tobacco use has dropped from 46% of high schoolers in 2013 to 27% in 2018. Vaping has become more popular than smoking among children using nicotine, but overall rates of nicotine usage for children have continued to decline. What appears to have happened is mostly that kids who previously would have smoked cigarettes are vaping instead that is not what the page says. the all tobacco use last 30d for high schoolers was 22.9%. you are comparing the “ever used tobacco” 2013 number to the “last 30d” number from 2018. vaping has driven the first increase in that number in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This thread started up in part because of some vapers ranting about how banning flavored vaping fluid was a big tobacco/trump plot instead of a straightforward ban on targeting children. Did anyone say they wouldnt support banning flavoured vapes? I'd be fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that is not what the page says. the all tobacco use last 30d for high schoolers was 22.9%. you are comparing the “ever used tobacco” 2013 number to the “last 30d” number from 2018. vaping has driven the first increase in that number in a long time. You're correct I got the numbers confused (because that site loving sucks), but then please tell me what the number was before and what it increased to. The only takeaway I can see from that page is that vaping is up while cigarette smoking is down. I don't see any numbers that show tobacco usage overall is up. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Vaping doesn’t need to be banned but it needs to be heavily regulated and when people whine about regulations with tobacco company logic we should come down hard on that nonsense. This thread is about positioning an highly addictive substance, sold for profit by companies with identical financial incentives to those tobacco companies had, as something benign or beneficial that should be let to run free with only the good will of vape shops restricting it. That’s nonsense. This is strawman. The OP points out in the first post there are bad actors in the sector and it requires more regulation. You're assuming based on a lack of support for the specific ban on flavored vapes that they don't want any regulation. That's just not true. Also, this "using tobacco company talking points" is a silly argument. Of all the possible new regulations and controls on vaping, do you think it's an accident the Trump administration is supporting the one that causes cigarette company stocks to rise? Why do you assume the flavor ban currently on the table is being done in good faith? Can't we question why they're not also proposing other obvious things to restrict accessibility for minors? Can't we question why the admin isn't proposing stricter controls on actual cigarettes? By that same logic, we could just as easily accuse everyone arguing for the vape ban in this thread of being Trump supporters. I mean, you clearly seem to trust him on this issue. That's what I find objectionable about the "why can't we do both?" argument. The thing the current admin is advancing clearly isn't doing both, and so it's important to discuss whether or not, in the absence of other regulations, this current proposed regulation is a good idea. You might just end up increasing cigarette sales. As long as this stuff is as accessible as it is you might also not really see much drop in teen usage. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are, of course. Still no addressing the fact that I'm saying is basically identical to the RCP and PHE. quote:Not least, let's take this, perhaps your most brazen and obvious lie and the foundation of basically all of your argument If it's a brazen lie, it should be easy to disprove. https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2698112/prevalence-distribution-e-cigarette-use-among-u-s-adults-behavioral quote:Of participants with information on e-cigarette use (n = 466 842), 15 240 were current e-cigarette users, representing a prevalence of 4.5%, which corresponds to 10.8 million adult e-cigarette users in the United States. Of the e-cigarette users, 15% were never–cigarette smokers. https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3262.full This last one is from England but since the demographics are similar I figured I'd throw it in. https://ash.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Use-of-e-cigarettes-among-adults-2019.pdf quote:oops, it turns out that the statistics make it immensely, obviously apparent that most youth are not using vaping to "transition away from combustible tobacco" - not least because these vaping rates are much higher than tobacco use rates were prior to the explosion of vaping The first thing I want to point out is that in the very first post I highlighted that this was a problem that needed to be addressed. I also said Juul was mostly to blame because...well.. they are. I don't think that the pod systems should have been allowed through and I think the FDA should have gone after Juul harder. Leaving the pods that are compatible with Juul on the market was just the dumbest loving thing on earth. It's like banning a name brand cereal and letting grocery stores carry their own version of lucky charms. Let's dig a little into the numbers though since that's what you are leaning on. For this I'm going to use the national youth tobacco survey which is where the CDC is pulling their data from. Cancer Research UK just published something that broke everything down further than what the CDC did because they felt what was being put out was misleading. For reference here is their website. Please go and find the conflict of interest with big tobacco and get back to me: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ Here is the recent paper: https://www.qeios.com/read/article/384 They are using the exact same data the CDC is working with. These are our governments numbers. This is what they are using as the basis for their claims. quote:The overall prevalence of past-30-days e-cigarette use among high school students in 2018 was 20.8%, an increase of 78% from the observed figure of 11.7% in 2017 (Table 1). Prevalence was strongly associated with lifetime tobacco use history in both years: among never tobacco users, 2.9% in 2017 and 8.4% in 2018 were past-30-days e-cigarette users, whilst among those who had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, the corresponding figures were 57.2% in 2017 and 71.0% in 2018. So among most kids vaping they have already tried smoking. quote:In both 2017 and 2018, about one quarter of past-30-days e-cigarette users reported having used them on 20 or more days (19.9%, 210/1,051 and 28.4%, 627/2207). This heavier use was strongly associated with lifetime tobacco use history: it was seen in only 0.1% of never tobacco users in 2017 and 1.0% in 2018. The observed frequency of 20+ days use increased with the extent of lifetime tobacco use, and reached 26.8% in 2017 and 37.2% in 2018 among students who had smoked more than 100 cigarettes. Among those that were using the devices regularly that never smoked only 1% of users in 2018 were using them for more than 20 days which would be considered regular use. quote:Among all students who were past-30-day-cigarette users but had never tried tobacco products, responses consistently pointed to minimal dependence with only 3.8% reporting any craving for tobacco products, and 3.1% reporting wanting to use within 30 minutes of waking. Over 60% reporting using a cigarette on 10 or fewer days in their lifetime. Only 3.4% were classified as frequent users of e-cigarettes on 20 or more days in the past month. This contrasted markedly with students who had smoked more than 100 cigarettes (so meeting the US definition for regular cigarette smoking), where 74.5% reported craving, 51.4% wanted to use within 30 minutes of waking, 52.4% used e-cigarettes on 20 or more days in the past month, and 64.0% had used e-cigs on more than 100 days in their lifetime. This group had mostly started their tobacco careers with cigarettes, and their pattern of dependence typifies that attributable to cigarette use. I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not think teens using these devices is a good thing. None of them should. But what the data itself shows is a picture of experimentation (That again, I am not defending) and kids who have previously used cigarettes moving over to vaping. I think banning pod systems and raising the national age to 21 would be a good start. I think everything should be regulated and only sold in shops dedicated to these devices and liquids. There should be age verification the same way there is for alcohol (In VA they scan your ID) and punishment should be severe for people giving people under the age of 21 these products. Looking forward to another round of people telling me I'm a big tobacco plant and ignoring data from our government. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Idgi, how is moderate (non-smoking/non-vaping)nicotine use qualitatively different from moderate caffeine use? is this some weird American moralism/puritanism thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 09:40
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Idgi, how is moderate (non-smoking/non-vaping)nicotine use qualitatively different from moderate caffeine use? is this some weird American moralism/puritanism thing? That, and some sketchy fluid coming out of this extremely unregulated DIY rear end industry hurt a few people and it made the news so now we get to halfassed justify it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Caffeine has like 5 annual deaths Tobacco has 7 million, that's prob why people see the two as dissimilar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Caffeine has like 5 annual deaths You guys keep saying you're not engaging in moral panic, but then you also keep doing this thing where you pretend vaping/nicotine gum/etc is as harmful as cigarettes. And then you lash out when people accuse you of being irrational. This isn't to say there aren't health consequences, but you're telling on yourself by refusing to engage with any kind of nuance. ErIog fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Idgi, how is moderate (non-smoking/non-vaping)nicotine use qualitatively different from moderate caffeine use? is this some weird American moralism/puritanism thing?    Did you just compare nicotine to caffeine? ErIog posted:Also, that data doesn't show that vaping is more prevalent than cigarette smoking was before the explosion of vaping. This is a blatant lie. Stop lying. From the link Evilweasel put in and you quoted: _15.8% of 2011 high school students smoked cigarettes in the last 30 days. _20.8% of 2018 high school students smoked e-cigs in the last 30 days. That's 5% higher. In 2018, 8.1% high school students smoked cigarettes; in 2011, only 0.6% high school students vaped. Since your (laughable) claim is that vaping is used to stop smoking, under that claim it is safe to assume that an individual either smokes or vapes, with minimal overlap if an individual got interviewed right when they were switching. In 2011, 15.8% + 0.6% = 16.4% of high school students were making use of nicotine products. In 2018, 20.8% + 8.1% = 28.9% of high school students were making use of nicotine products. That's 14.5% higher, off a 16.4% baseline. Take your bad faith "the data doesn't show increased usage" and go gently caress yourself with it, thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
Omobono posted:
I'm not lying. It's not bad faith. That website really sucks poo poo because they twisted everything on it instead of just posting the raw table for easy comparison. Evilweasel didn't post the numbers as you did. If I'm wrong on that point I'll accept it. However, what I will not accept, is pretending that a study of children using nicotine says anything about whether or not adults use it to quit smoking. That's moving the goal posts, and it's double stupid because everyone arguing against that point in this thread is on board with more restrictions on accessibility of nicotine for children. The other thing that your side hasn't grappled with at all is how much of that increased usage is because the market, being not regulated properly, is extremely accessible to children. Ban the flavors all you want, but if you don't fix accessibility the kids are still gonna vape. You can say that's what you're fighting for, but it's pretty clear you aren't because the entire reason your side is arguing in this thread is because they were mad someone didn't take Trump's policy position at face value. ErIog fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
This is the loving first section in that link after the preamble:The cdc site posted:Electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) Nothing omitted beyond a side image and the footnote numbers. Truly a Lovecraftian horror made article and not something you can comprehend with middle school English and five minutes of time. I have not read the article beyond that for how much overlap there is between the 20.8% of vapers (is this a word?) and the 8.1% of smokers (2018 high school numbers) but just the shift from 15.8% smokers to 20.8% vapers in 7 years is loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
Omobono posted:
Please educate me
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I'm not lying. It's not bad faith. That website really sucks poo poo because they twisted everything on it instead of just posting the raw table for easy comparison. Evilweasel didn't post the numbers as you did. If I'm wrong on that point I'll accept it. I don't fault you for misreading the page, it presented the information in a...not great...way - it was easy to make the mistake you did because the figure they should have discussed there should have been the same figure being compared to today. I got the correct figure from following the footnotes, but was phoneposting. There may be some talking past each other here so let me summarize my position with respect to vaping: 1) Vaping is, if regulated (because "lets just vaporize unregulated chemicals and hope it works out" is not a great idea) most likely more healthy than cigarettes. It certainly has a place as a smoking cessation device. There is not a need to ban vaping outright nor would that be beneficial, as long as smokable tobacco remains unbanned. This is, however, subject to incredibly important caveats in 4 below. 2) There is not a moral difference between vaping and tobacco companies. They face exactly the same pressures to do bad things: they're selling a highly addictive drug, their profits are dependent on people becoming addicted to nicotine (at a young age), and then extracting profits from those addicts. The only difference between vaping and cigarette companies is that vaping mostly hasn't undergone significant market consolidation to create large companies with significant political heft. As the market matures, however, it is certain that vaping companies would become (to the extent they are not already) just as terrible as Big Tobacco. It's not like big tobacco collected uniquely terrible people: it just collected people who would make much more money if they did bad things, and those incentives made those people do bad things as a result. This is dramatically illustrated by Juul. People pretend that it getting bought out by Phillip Morris is the root of its evil. It's not. Juul started off with the same bright-eyed idealism of "we're just here to make cigarette smoking less dangerous, and make the world better!" as vaping "small businesses." But then they got big, very big, and the profits of its owners and employees depended on pulling out the same bag of tricks as regular tobacco companies found themselves using. Phillip Morris bought part of Juul because it was already a "big tobacco" company: Phillip Morris was diversifying its nicotine offerings, not subverting something pure and bright. If Juul vanished today, some other vaping product would achieve market dominance and that vaping company - even if they are bright-eyed idealists today - would face the exact same pressures and react likely in the exact same way. 3) The idea that vaping should not be regulated or should be lightly regulated because of the level of regulation of cigarettes is nonsense. The level of regulation of cigarettes is a historical accident - tobacco was the cash crop of early American colonies, after all - and basically by the time it became apparent what a health risk they were, it was too big an industry to squash and there were too many addicts, such that effective political action was impossible. The level of regulation other tobacco products have is bad - it should be increased dramatically - and there's no reason besides just the reality of what you can get done in our political systems. As a result, the war against tobacco has needed to be a slow, grinding war, whittling down the number of addicts and gradually increasing regulation. There is no reason at all that we should replicate this bad situation for vaping. It should be carefully regulated, instead of allowing a new highly addictive industry to grow and consolidate in a way that would prevent further regulation. 4) Portraying vaping as "safe" or "safer" is tremendously dangerous, for exactly the same reason that every "safe cigarette" before was just a ploy by tobacco companies to preserve their market. Even when you advertise it as "safer", many people don't hear the R. As a result, allowing this sort of advertising (especially given the lack of proof required for these sort of health claims) shouldn't be allowed. Vaping advertisements should face just as much regulation as other nicotine advertising. This is why stuff like the first post is, basically, just tobacco propaganda: it's all about trying to go "no it's not so bad, here, have a hit." There is a tension between correctly suggesting that if you are addicted to nicotine, then this is a step in the right direction, and avoiding the nonsense that Juul has been using to advertise its poo poo to children, but propaganda like the first post is virtually indistinguishable from Juul advertising (with the exception that at least it's not being given in a presentation directly to high schoolers). There's no social or personal benefit to nicotine addiction. There is, as I mention in 2 above, a huge problem when you have a company that profits by selling an addictive drug: it's profits are dependent on maintaining and increasing the supply of addicts. Every bit of advertising and "education" must be viewed in that light: it's coming from someone with a vested interest in getting you addicted to nicotine. 5) Because of all of the above, vaping has significantly impacted a decades-long effort to end nicotine addiction in the United States, and it is vital that significant regulation be passed to counteract that. There is no social (or for the addicts, personal) benefit to nicotine addiction. Arguments about trying to link the Trump Administration to vaping regulations are just the tobacco company playbook of distracting: if the regulations are bad you can explain why. As a matter of fact, the former head of the FDA - Gottlieb - was (for reasons nobody can really explain) extremely highly regarded and did a very good job (again, nobody can really explain how a good, competent, administrator who did the right thing snuck through the Trump appointment process, but they did). The Trump Administration, unfortunately, is in power right now, while the issue of vaping and the lack of regulation has come to the forefront. Something needs to be done, and until January 2021 that's going to be under the Trump (or, in a magical unicorn land, Pence) administration. Given there is an undeniable need for regulation, the Republican playbook is generally pass the least regulation possible. Regulations proposed by the Trump Admin are likely going to be insufficient and we will need more. The assumption should not be that we will need less than the Trump Admin will propose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Omobono posted:
I just did a long effort post just a few posts above yours with a breakdown of the actual numbers so yeah, quite a bit was omitted and overstated. evilweasel posted:1) Vaping is, if regulated (because "lets just vaporize unregulated chemicals and hope it works out" is not a great idea) most likely more healthy than cigarettes. It certainly has a place as a smoking cessation device. There is not a need to ban vaping outright nor would that be beneficial, as long as smokable tobacco remains unbanned. I completely agree with all of this, except that I think there should be a concerted effort to encourage current smokers to switch if other methods of quitting haven't worked. Years of NRT, cessation aids, and hypnosis didn't work with my parents, but handing them a vape with captain crunch flavored liquid did for some reason. I think there should be move active engagement within the healthcare system in getting people off tobacco and the current hysteria is preventing that from happening. It's why even in this thread people are still making the assumption that the recent deaths are due to vaping nicotine rather than tainted THC carts. That's a problem. Public perception is shifting towards thinking the devices are just as if not more harmful than combustible tobacco. That's not an accident. quote:2) There is not a moral difference between vaping and tobacco companies. They face exactly the same pressures to do bad things: they're selling a highly addictive drug, their profits are dependent on people becoming addicted to nicotine (at a young age), and then extracting profits from those addicts. The only difference between vaping and cigarette companies is that vaping mostly hasn't undergone significant market consolidation to create large companies with significant political heft. As the market matures, however, it is certain that vaping companies would become (to the extent they are not already) just as terrible as Big Tobacco. It's not like big tobacco collected uniquely terrible people: it just collected people who would make much more money if they did bad things, and those incentives made those people do bad things as a result. This is dramatically illustrated by Juul. People pretend that it getting bought out by Phillip Morris is the root of its evil. It's not. Juul started off with the same bright-eyed idealism of "we're just here to make cigarette smoking less dangerous, and make the world better!" as vaping "small businesses." But then they got big, very big, and the profits of its owners and employees depended on pulling out the same bag of tricks as regular tobacco companies found themselves using. Phillip Morris bought part of Juul because it was already a "big tobacco" company: Phillip Morris was diversifying its nicotine offerings, not subverting something pure and bright. If Juul vanished today, some other vaping product would achieve market dominance and that vaping company - even if they are bright-eyed idealists today - would face the exact same pressures and react likely in the exact same way. This is a point I have tried to hammer again and again. Consolidation is already happening and the current proposed regulations are going to expedite that. What I worry about is that if you set up a system where the only space the companies can exist is under the umbrella of large tobacco companies (PMI, Altria, etc) they will have more of a tendency to do things to either A: hook new younger users and B: develop more products like nicotine salts that have a higher addictive potential than freebase nicotine. Regulating the amount of nicotine allowed in the liquid would be a good step in combating the latter, which is what the UK does. It keeps things like 60mg pods from becoming a thing. quote:3) The idea that vaping should not be regulated or should be lightly regulated because of the level of regulation of cigarettes is nonsense. The level of regulation of cigarettes is a historical accident - tobacco was the cash crop of early American colonies, after all - and basically by the time it became apparent what a health risk they were, it was too big an industry to squash and there were too many addicts, such that effective political action was impossible. The level of regulation other tobacco products have is bad - it should be increased dramatically - and there's no reason besides just the reality of what you can get done in our political systems. As a result, the war against tobacco has needed to be a slow, grinding war, whittling down the number of addicts and gradually increasing regulation. There is no reason at all that we should replicate this bad situation for vaping. It should be carefully regulated, instead of allowing a new highly addictive industry to grow and consolidate in a way that would prevent further regulation. Again, I agree. I just think that the regulating of ENDS should be with a lighter touch and on a sliding scale on the basis of harm. There should be even stricter access control on the devices and liquid but somehow putting pressure on the industry to accept Altria cash or die appears dangerous to me. The UK seems to have struck a balance with this and at the moment appears to be giving current smokers an off ramp to smoking, preventing teen use, and keeping big tobacco companies at bay. quote:4) Portraying vaping as "safe" or "safer" is tremendously dangerous, for exactly the same reason that every "safe cigarette" before was just a ploy by tobacco companies to preserve their market. Even when you advertise it as "safer", many people don't hear the R. As a result, allowing this sort of advertising (especially given the lack of proof required for these sort of health claims) shouldn't be allowed. Based on the available evidence over the past ten years to say they aren't significantly safer is just dishonest. BUT, that doesn't mean the companies should be able to preach that far and wide. Public health should meaningfully distinguish between the two and not hide that in fine print. quote:Vaping advertisements should face just as much regulation as other nicotine advertising. This is why stuff like the first post is, basically, just tobacco propaganda: it's all about trying to go "no it's not so bad, here, have a hit." There is a tension between correctly suggesting that if you are addicted to nicotine, then this is a step in the right direction, and avoiding the nonsense that Juul has been using to advertise its poo poo to children, but propaganda like the first post is virtually indistinguishable from Juul advertising (with the exception that at least it's not being given in a presentation directly to high schoolers). This is what pisses me off. You act as if it's propaganda and for the 100th time pretty much all of my information about the health effects comes from the studies I've posted. If you think they are propaganda then show me where you believe they are wrong. So far nobody has been able to do that. The only thing someone has said is that I have some selection bias without taking into consideration that the two biggest studies are evidence reviews of hundreds/thousands of other studies. As to the advertising I think the guidelines should be even stricter. There should be nothing allowed outside of a vape shop. Nothing. No exceptions. quote:5) Because of all of the above, vaping has significantly impacted a decades-long effort to end nicotine addiction in the United States, and it is vital that significant regulation be passed to counteract that. There is no social (or for the addicts, personal) benefit to nicotine addiction. Arguments about trying to link the Trump Administration to vaping regulations are just the tobacco company playbook of distracting: if the regulations are bad you can explain why. As a matter of fact, the former head of the FDA - Gottlieb - was (for reasons nobody can really explain) extremely highly regarded and did a very good job (again, nobody can really explain how a good, competent, administrator who did the right thing snuck through the Trump appointment process, but they did). The Trump Administration, unfortunately, is in power right now, while the issue of vaping and the lack of regulation has come to the forefront. Something needs to be done, and until January 2021 that's going to be under the Trump (or, in a magical unicorn land, Pence) administration. Given there is an undeniable need for regulation, the Republican playbook is generally pass the least regulation possible. Regulations proposed by the Trump Admin are likely going to be insufficient and we will need more. The assumption should not be that we will need less than the Trump Admin will propose. In the very first post I trash the FDA for sitting on its hands and doing nothing while vaping proliferated mostly because of Juul. They completely hosed this up and I think the regulatory whiplash of over-regulating the products is going to do more harm than good to the industry at large. For years now there actually hasn't been much in the way of consolidation like you mentioned earlier. Now that's happening because companies are seeking shelter and financing to get through the PMTAs which are way more expensive than the pre-market approval system in the UK. I feel like there is a lot more of an overlap on our thoughts here than you realize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Please educate me Going to catch flak for this. Some the addictive nicotine potential comes from additives in cigarettes. When you remove that and it exists in a more "pure" form the effects on the body are broadly similar to caffeine. We know this because there is a long track record of study done on NRT (patches, gums, lozenges) and the relative safety of the products. Please refer to pages 52-68 of the RCP report which goes into extreme detail about the chemistry and health risks of nicotine before you jump all over me. This is the same group that linked smoking to cancer among other things so they probably a trustworthy source of information. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0 Here's another good source: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/09/20/john-britton-electronic-cigarettes-and-the-precautionary-principle/ quote:The effects of nicotine on the human body are broadly similar to those of caffeine, indicating that long term use probably represents a health risk similar to that of coffee consumption. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
nicotine is one of the most profoundly addictive substances on the planetquote:Some the addictive nicotine potential comes from additives in cigarettes. When you remove that and it exists in a more "pure" form the effects on the body are broadly similar to caffeine. We know this because there is a long track record of study done on NRT (patches, gums, lozenges) and the relative safety of the products. This is just complete horseshit and is not in the least how ACH and the dopaminergic activity of nicotine work to reinforce behavior. If you mean 'some' as in like 2% maybe
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Just like clockwork, phillip morris is now stealth-advertising their Iqos device as the vape panic continues. They REALLY want to keep selling tobacco. "heat sticks" lol https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/business/iqos-us-launch/index.html Bullfrog fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
nicotine, valium, vicodin, marijuana, ecstasy and alcohol
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:This is just complete horseshit and is not in the least how ACH and the dopaminergic activity of nicotine work to reinforce behavior. Cool. Show me where the RCP and Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Nottingham were wrong then. If you are forcing people to switch their use of nicotine over to something that dilutes the addictive potential of the chemical this is bad how? Bullfrog posted:Just like clockwork, phillip morris is now stealth-advertising their Iqos device as the vape panic continues. They REALLY want to keep selling tobacco. Yep. Just like I've been saying since the start of the thread. This is also what has already been approved by the FDA as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Oxycontin was marketed as less a less addictive alternative, too. Nicotine, like oxycodone, is unbelievably addictive regardless of what packaging you put it in and what marketing materials you produce for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Oxycontin was marketed as less a less addictive alternative, too. Nicotine, like oxycodone, is unbelievably addictive regardless of what packaging you put it in and what marketing materials you produce for it. This does not address you skipping over and ignoring the data and statements I've posted from reputable health officials and organizations. If you cannot be honest then don't jump in. It's not asking a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
None of what you posted makes any credible claim that nicotine is meaningfully less addictive when formulated differently. E: lol neither of the links even suggest what you're claiming, even in a roundabout way and one is a loving blog link dude Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:None of what you posted makes any credible claim that nicotine is meaningfully less addictive when formulated differently. You're lying. "RCP page 61" posted:The addictive potency of cigarettes (and indeed other tobacco products) is influenced not only by their nicotine content but also other aspects of product design, including substances added to the cigarette to enhance nicotine delivery and absorbtion. Monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors in tobacco smoke increase the levels of amines in the brain, such as dopamine and serotonin, and may subsequently potentiate the reinforcing effects of nicotine. Indeed animal studies have demonstrated that MOA inhibitors facilitate nicotine self-administration and enhance it's motivational properties. these findings may also contribute to the strong reinforcing properties of nicotine from cigarettes. This goes on for two more pages but yeah sure there is no evidence to support what I'm saying in what I posted. I don't know how many times you're going to be caught lying before you give this up but you do you. That "blog" post was written by John Britton who is Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Nottingham. Please explain me how they are not a qualified authority on the subject. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
There's like ugs of maois in tobacco smoke, nicotine on it's own is still unbelievably addictive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Here's a question. There is a product called pixotine, which are toothpicks that are coated in 3mg of nicotine per toothpick. Is that a harmful product?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:There's like ug of maois in tobacco smoke, nicotine on it's own is still unbelievably addictive. What you said was a lie. You knew it was a lie or you didn't bother to read the report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
bruh you don't know poo poo about the pharmacology of this stuff clearly, to quote your favorite report,quote:However, the addictiveness of any nicotine-containing Ignoring for a second that this is literally word for word how oxycontin was sold as a less addictive alternative to oxycodone, vaping is exactly equal to smoking for rate of absorbtion. Anything that puts the lungs in contact with a vaporized substance is going to be extremely rapid absorption. Smoke also causes the lungs to constrict more, potentially minimizing surface area wheras glycerin and pg vapor is wildly easier to inhale deeply. Your link just says that if we gave a gently caress about less addictive alternatives to cigs we'd be giving people nicotine patches. E: also further lol quote:Menthol and other flavourings (including cloves and liquorice) increase the Again I'm just seeing that vaping carries most of the same risks and that if we wanted an actually minimally addictive alternative we'd be giving people patches. E2: I don't think this is making the point you think it does: quote:The principal determinants of the addictiveness of a nicotine-containing product This all applies equally to vaping as much as smoking, probably even more so because vaping is an easier way to continually self-titrate and because vapor is vastly more palatable than tobacco smoke. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Ignoring for a second that this is literally word for word how oxycontin was sold as a less addictive alternative to oxycodone, vaping is exactly equal to smoking for rate of absorbtion. Anything that puts the lungs in contact with a vaporized substance is going to be extremely rapid absorption. Smoke also causes the lungs to constrict more, potentially minimizing surface area wheras glycerin and pg vapor is wildly easier to inhale deeply. Your link just says that if we gave a gently caress about less addictive alternatives to cigs we'd be giving people nicotine patches. Once again you are ignoring whole sections of the report that go into detail about why cigarettes themselves by design contribute to the addiction potential of nicotine. You're moving the goal posts. Again. You said my statement about cigarettes increasing addiction potential was bullshit. You said nothing in the report supported that. I showed you that what you were saying was a lie. I have not once said nicotine wasn't addictive. Your straw-manning hard here. Herstory Begins Now posted:Again I'm just seeing that vaping carries most of the same risks and that if we wanted an actually minimally addictive alternative we'd be giving people patches. "Risks" of what? If you're referring to actual physical harm then you are lying again. We've been giving people patches and NRT for years, which is why we no longer have any people smoking obviously.  The whole point of ENDS is to transition people over to a less harmful substitute for their addiction. This is somehow bad and wrong to you. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Dude it's making the opposite point that you are,quote:4.9 Summary Vaping, by similarly providing all the associated behaviors and sensations that reinforce dependence from tobacco smoking relative to say patches or gum are more likely to be satisfying. For most people the ritual process of smoking transfers very readily into vaping anyways, funny to see them confirm that here. Worth noting that as a meta analysis you can see that the overall shortage of studies on vaping (for whatever reason that may or may not be, who can really say!) is represented in this section where the studies are almost entirely about tobacco vs conventional nrt cessation products. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:08
|
|