|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How credible and valid are the studies done by the UK government, and how relevant are they to the USA? As credible as you can get as far as I can tell. I actually haven't seen anyone in public health challenge the conclusions of the RCP study or the one on biomarkers. The RCP review is probably as legit as you could possibly get since they're the group that broke ground on linking cigarettes to lung cancer among other things. Public Health England is doing another evidence review that should be released next year and so far they've stood firm in their "95% less harmful" figure even through all the weird THC vape cases that happened here. They're relevant because despite some changes in the designs of the devices/coils/liquids it's all essentially the same thing. You're vaporizing a solution of PG, VG, nicotine, and some type of flavoring. So the health risks they measured would be the same as what Americans would be exposed to. They have a lower nicotine cap than we do which is why Juul can sell 60mg pods here and only 20mg pods over there. Nicotine itself is addressed in all of the reports though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Entorwellian posted:I had to go to the hospital for my asthma (viral bronchitis) and the doctors there were telling me about the staggering amount of people that are coming in for vaping-related shortness of breath and pneumonia in the last couple of months, nearly all of them young. They said they've never seen anything like it before in their time of working there. After reading a lot of literature and the results being all over the map, seeing the reports coming in and the lack of long term data over vaping, I believe it now that vaping is not as safe as others are claiming and I've stopped for the time being with my weed vaping. Really tough decision but it feels like its the same old poo poo with tobacco all over again. I just make edibles, capsules and tinctures now but yeah I'd rather save my lungs at this time and point until there is more solid research coming out. This is coming from a 4 year, weed-vaping enthusiast. And vapes are not medical devices, either. Wrong thread. None of this is about THC, which is what was causing all the lung disease outbreaks the last few months. Calibanibal posted:I'm not really interested in nicotine policy in the UK. How are other countries dealing with vaping? France is approaching it the same way. Kind of letting it happen while regulating it as best they can. New Zealand allows and promotes it while Australia recently put heavy restrictions on it. I think that will change soon. India just banned everything but left smoking. They have 100 million smokers so I'm sure that will turn out great.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:credible, but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though This cuts both ways. I've seen papers where researchers took devices that have been off the market for years, turned everything to max power and took measurements of what chemicals were released as if that somehow replicated real world use scenarios. Those papers were used by anti-vaping researchers as a reason for banning the products. That type of research is specifically addressed in the PHE and RCP reports.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are these the same people who unfairly demonize nicotine addiction? They're the same types of people that falsified a report a few months back about people who vape having higher rates of heart attacks than those that don't. Once the actual data was released it was discovered that those who did the study took anyone who had a heart attack ever, including before using e-cigarettes, and attributed it to ENDS usage. Once you accounted for ENDS the rate of heart attacks following switching from smoking to vaping went down significantly. The data said the opposite of what the study said. That didn't stop them from promoting it far and wide. Are you alright with that? The study I was citing was done to the point of the cotton wick being burned up in a way that would be unusable for anyone vaping on the device. When the experiment was repeated under normal conditions the levels of formaldehyde (What the original study turned up) was either not detected or was so low it was comparable to what we breath in an empty room.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Probably the smoke, at least smoke is cool and builds character, unlike vaping, which appears to do the opposite. This is true. If nothing else I would like it be known that I think vaping looks dumb and dorky as hell and that most people who vape are some of the most obnoxious inconsiderate people I know. This includes some members of my family. quote:won't someone think of the poor multi-billion dollar corporations right to profit off of addiction!? Most vaping companies aren't really worth that much unless you're Juul.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are you seriously asking me to defend a paper i haven't read and which you didn't cite based on your addict's paraphrasing of why you don't like what it had to say No I'm asking if you're alright with that type of behavior in the research because the way you posed it to me was that I was somehow dismissing all evidence that I didn't agree with. I can dig up the research and corresponding articles if you want. Herstory Begins Now posted:Wait why would there even be formaldehyde, I thought it was 3 ingredients. At a certain temperature cotton starts to burn. The way the devices work is by heating the liquid on the wick to the point it vaporizes. If you push the power up to the max and continue firing after everything has evaporated you'll start burning the wick. Devices now usually have a setting for temp control so you can keep it from ever coming close to that. Herstory Begins Now posted:As if you aren't fully aware that the entire tobacco industry has completely staked their future on vaping products Most of their industry is focused outside of the US. John Oliver did a good segment on this not too long ago. They are not staking their future on vaping. They also have their own heat not burn devices approved by the FDA which will probably hit the market soon. I'm sure you knew that though. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive So you think my concern for hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide dying needlessly is a front? Totally understand why you come off the way you do if that's the case. Here's an article about the back and forth on that one paper though: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/vaping-heart-attacks-false-claims-sexual-harassment-allegations/1676473001/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i think that you are discounting more effective solutions for the one which allows you to personally continue using a highly addictive substance. this is expected behavior for an addict You keep saying "more effective" as if we don't have data on the effectiveness of ENDS as a mean to quitting. You're not saying this poo poo in a vacuum man. It's not just randomized studies anymore. Smoking rates have dropped off at higher than anticipated rates when and where these products are available and used. If we have a weapon we can add to the arsenal to combat smoking I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing. Me using or not using the product is irrelevant outside of it helping me quit smoking (and my entire family). I've tried to keep that from being part of the discussion though. I'm only looking at the evidence we have to date. You keep trying to make this personal and make it about me. Remove me from the equation if you can muster that. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:I think you yourself have pointed out that the companies responsible for this new way of smoking have flat out won in court the fact that it is recreational and not a means to quit. They sued to prevent the FDA from seizing products since they didn't have the authority if they were tobacco products and not cessation aids. It was also two relatively small companies at the time. The FDA eventually agreed with the ruling then did nothing for years. Context matters. quote:The fact is that vaping is new enough that nobody knows the long term effects yet; because nobody has been vaping long enough to have any data on that. For all we know 50 years of vaping causes your kidneys to start dancing the two step together. We have around 10 years of data and thousands of papers are published every year. It isn't the 1950s. We are much better at establishing the probability of harm of something. We also don't wait for decades of data on a lot of new products especially if we can build a risk profile based on what is in them and what short term usage shows.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:we don't. the science is inconclusive. you have to pick out the studies that support what you would choose to believe while discarding or discrediting the others as being the work of moralizing anti-vapers It's weird how there is plenty of evidence to show that you are wrong, yet you're doing what you're accusing me of doing. quote:it is not a good thing if it is a "weapon" used to gain new markets for multinational firms that sell nicotine By and large this isn't what's happening so quote:people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance Yes everything I've said in here is faulty and I have presented zero evidence to back up any of my positions. I'm just winging it right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The context being that both the FDA and the company agreed it wasn't the thing you keep claiming it is, because if it were a cessation device it wouldn't legally meet standards and could be seized? It doesn't. That's why I refer back to the studies in the op like the one where the RCP says these should be promoted as widely and often as possible as a tool for reducing smoking. I guess they're in on it too? luxury handset posted:i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out I'm not repeating corporate marketing. I'm repeating what the loving science and studies have said. This is why I keep referring your dense rear end to read and review what they say. You keep claiming I'm shilling. I can point you to where I got my information from because I disclosed it in the very first post and none of it came from any corporation anywhere. When you say this you are lying and you know you're lying. 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. It has since been utilized and endorsed by some pretty substantial groups as a tool for quitting. Millions have used it as a tool to quit smoking and succeeded. I legitimately do not understand why I need to keep repeating any of this. I'm not repeating corporate talking points, I'm referring back to reputable sources and studies that were not industry funded. You guys keep saying they aren't a cessation device despite the fact that that is what most people use it for and many have completely succeeded. There is no answer that I can give either of you that will satisfy you. luxury handset posted:also please compare these statements by the RJ Reynolds corporation with any of the arguments made by the OP and tell me where they differ Let's look at the statements they are making first: quote:There has been a significant decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the past 30 years, but the rate of decline has slowed. A substantial body of scientific research has shown that smokeless tobacco products present significantly less harm than cigarettes. All of this is true. The first part only pertains to use in the US because globally tobacco use has been growing, especially in Asia. quote:In addition to smokeless products, we believe that other non-combustible smoke-free products, such as vapor products and other innovations, may reduce harm to smokers who switch to them. Also true. quote:Emerging product categories that offer the potential to reduce tobacco harm allow us to be growth leaders in expanding markets that also offer potential for higher margins. Considering how little involvement they have had with the market as a whole....eh not sure about this one. Question for you: If all tobacco companies ceased production and sales of tobacco products and moved exclusively to vaping would that be a net gain or loss for public health in your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Just because Altria has hedged their bets a little bit with Juul doesn't mean this fight is over. Big tobacco are still pushing their heat-not-burn products even though, as herstory points out, it probably would just be cheaper for them to make vape juice. Just want to point out, again, that heat not burn tech has already been approved by the FDA. If the FDA banned vaping entirely this product would still hit the market and it has been tested and studied much less vigorously than vaping. What studies have shown is that while there is a drop off in carcinogens, it's still not anywhere near as dramatic as with vaping which is comparable to approved NRT. But hey it will be FDA approved! That's what you guys want right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Amusingly they thought that most people actually gave a gently caress about the tobacco and weren't just buying their product because of marketing and nicotine addiction compulsion, which was and is basically the entirety of the tobacco (or now, nicotine) industry. Like there's zero way that they wouldn't have switched to selling vapes at that point in time if they thought it was at all commercially viable because you can extract nicotine from fresh plant which is literally pennies on the dollar compared to the process involved in drying ageing and curing tobacco leaf. They just misread the market. This isn't entirely accurate. Tobacco companies have been trying to break into vaping but their devices were generally regarded as bottom tier garbage and none succeeded commercially. That's why Altria invested in Juul. They couldn't figure out how to do it themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make Altria and Juul have repeatedly said they are not going to fight or lobby against the flavor ban. Every time some type of regulatory enforcement comes up against vaping tobacco stocks rise. Financial analysts have predicted that the bans being enacted are going to cause people to go back to smoking and that it will produce positive investment growth.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:no, you are repeating corporate propaganda. here is what altria has to say, what part of this do you disagree with? I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. I dislike it because, as I've stated multiple times, I am pulling my positions from the evidence available that I've presented to you again and again. If you have a problem with the studies, point to where they are wrong. If you have a problem with the organizations that put them together, show me where the issue is. You're also using it as an excuse to dodge any other type of argument I put forward because you dismiss it all and honestly it's pretty exhausting calling you out on your poo poo again and again. As Erlog pointed out you're just arguing in bad faith at this point. You don't address anything I say and when I do you just go back to calling me a shill. I get it. You hate vaping. You hate all forms of nicotine. Harm reduction does not have a place in tobacco control policy for you. I get it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa It's weird because unless I'm mistaken you think flavor bans are good and yet Juul and Altria are not going to fight the FDA on that and they are okay with all the other regulations coming down the line. They also think that it is good. Not sure why that doesn't give you pause but I guess the standard doesn't apply to you! Also my arguments stem from the research and recommendations of the studies in the first post. Tell me what your issue is with them and the organizations that published them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i'm confused about when you choose to trust the words of big tobacco or not. like i personally don't trust them when they make claims under pressure in a moment of bad press and PR crisis, especially when they have a shadow network of "grassroots" firms to do this lobbying on their behalf. but it seems you don't trust the companies when they make the same statements you make, using the same language and justification, which are different somehow for reasons so far unclear to me I'm not sure repeating what I have already said clearly in multiple ways is going to give you an answer that will satisfy you. quote:if your arguments are derived from rational facts and logical science, is this true for the identical arguments made by big tobacco companies? I've already addressed this multiple times. I'm reading the studies and reviews, not PMI PR packets. quote:if so, why is the FDA dragging their heels about permitting these devices to be sold as smoking cessation tools as claimed by both you and the largest tobacco companies, and multiple public health agencies such as Public Health England, Cancer Research UK,the Royal College of Physicians, and countless others? I've already addressed my thoughts on the FDA. Nobody knows what they are doing. Fixed that last part for you though. I have a question for you. Why do you think Public Health England are promoting this as a safer alternative to smoking? Are they being bankrolled by Altria too?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Not approving the stuff these guys are selling. The fact that it continues to get sold is kind of a red flag. They haven't denied any pending applications. They didn't give out guidance for what they wanted to see until this past year. The process for submitting is insanely expensive and a lot of companies won't be able to afford it. The ones that can are the large tobacco companies. What they have approved is a new tobacco product though. I addressed this in the first post. luxury handset posted:there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect What you posted also reinforces what have I said all along, and also glosses over what big tobaccos market share was prior to late 2018. They weren't moving units until Altria bought into Juul. Prior to that they couldn't get a foot hold. Most users were very averse to trying or using anything they made for obvious reasons. You have repeatedly claimed that vaping is something being driven by big tobacco which is, to use your own words, factually incorrect. When confronted by this you say it doesn't matter and everyone selling nicotine is just the same. This doesn't seem to matter to you, but it should. Why? Because based on the FDA requirements of products entering the market going forward big tobaccos investments in the last 1-2 years are going to give them the ability to completely corner the market. If you don't understand why any of that is relevant to the discussion, or how it undermines your arguments about BT, then it's clear you are not interested in debating any of this in a meaningful honest way. luxury handset posted:i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. Weird how you talk about moving the goal posts but won't address the point that the science says the same thing. That's always conveniently left out in your insinuations. If it was just RJ Reynolds saying this stuff I would worry. When it's the Royal College of Physicians then I'm a lot more confident in my position. It also happens to be a fact that you repeatedly gloss over and pretend doesn't exist for some reason. The question you should be asking is why is RJ Reynolds saying the same thing as the RCP, PHE, and countless other health organizations? Once again, please show the fault in the data and the organizations who put out the reviews and studies. If you cannot do this then shut the gently caress up about who is parroting what talking points. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:are you against safe-injection sites for opiate addicts? Or condoms, or seatbelts, or basically any other intervention that allows people to do risky things with significantly reduced risk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:words So your position is that all of those health organizations went into their reviews with bias and selected hundreds of studies that pointed in one direction to establish a basis for public health policy? Including a study that went out and took direct measurements of carcinogens from users? That's what you're going with? How is your position any different from climate change denial?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I thought. You have no argument. You can't address it. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
luxury handset posted: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 Yeah, same. Just so it's clear what I'm referring to. You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. I said no and directed you to the evidence reviews. I asked you about the studies in the OP. You don't have an response other than making a vague claim about bias in selection. Now you're back to solely addressing what tobacco companies are saying and not the science itself. You're going in circles and trying to explain this to you is like debating with a toddler. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
So the evidence reviews by PHE and the RCP are big tobacco talking points now?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Answer the question please.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
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
|
|