Forgot how Pro-drug the fediverse is as well; vapes should be regulated as heavily as cigarettes and other tobacco products. Just because it’s less harmful doesn’t mean it’s not harmful.
The laws around vapes are nonsense and pseudoscience. That’s what really pisses people off.
Flat prohibitions aren’t saving any lives or ending any health crisis. Meanwhile cigarettes are widely available with a dozen flavors.
The laws around vapes are nonsense and pseudoscience.
Recognising that there are health issues, without fully understanding them yet due to there having not been enough time to form complete and solid conclusions, doesn’t make it pseudoscience. It means we should be cautious and continue to study, and certainly not widely adopt their use in the mean time assuming everything will be fine. Especially as it directly interacts with such a sensitive part of our inner bodies, and especially as the largest group taking up their use are teenagers.
Flat prohibitions aren’t saving any lives or ending any health crisis. Meanwhile cigarettes are widely available with a dozen flavors.
I disagree, to blanket suggest prohibitions don’t save lives is not based in fact. Even the misguided alcohol prohibition over in the USA saved lives, reducing the number of deaths that would have otherwise been caused by intoxication (dangerous driving being an obvious example, domestic abuse, etc).
And take this example from literally only yesterday, where a child almost died due to electronic cigarettes and the complications therein (often when people discuss the danger of X and Y, they assume a completely healthy person to begin with, and ignore that a large percentage of the population has at least one illness or environmental factor that it can complicate).
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67081855
Also, yes cigarettes are available, but their use in public is heavily restricted, and they aren’t attractive to young people any more thanks to decades of hard work in education. Electronic cigarettes however are targeted directly at teenagers in a very predatory way, suggested to be safe and clean, and thus we have these new issues.
In the end, I suspect electronic cigarettes are less dangerous than breathing in smoke from tobacco, which is insanely dangerous, but that will not make them safe, either, and the cumulative effects of electronic cigarette use over decades simply isn’t fully known yet.
We’re working on it, and where our health is concerned, especially that of our impressionable youth, an abundance of caution is always the best course of action.
Thank you for taking the time to develop a well thought response. I learned some things and it got me thinking in a new way!
I was under the impression that prohibition of alcohol did not reduce any harm, because people flocked to speakeasys, and the quality of the homemade alcohol was not good. A good chunk of the alcohol beverages people drank during prohibition would give them poisoning of some kind.
People didn’t stop drinking, they just started drinking homemade alcohol made with industrial alcohol. The US government also made sure that the only kind of alcohol people could aquire to make drinks was not good for human consumption.
Your comment is the first time I’ve ever heard anybody say anything good about prohibition. Maybe it saved a few people, like you said, but overall alcohol related deaths probably stayed around the same, or even went up thanks to all the poisoning. It’s hard to tell, because the US didn’t keep track of these numbers at the time.
I’m more worried about the shit in the air around me than what is in my vape juice. At least I know what’s in that
you’re very wrong. Prohibition ONLY means lower quality, more dangerous products on the streets and it’s another excuse to criminalize poverty/mental illness.
Yawn. Prohibition is not about protecting youths, its about protecting income. Your conclusions regarding the supposed benefits of prohibition are largely opinion, a generally refuted by historians. Flat bans produce unregulated markets, which lead to excess death and injury.
Well they are bad for you so it’s not exactly pseudo science, and the problem is that kids are using them.
Vapes come in candy flavour which is ridiculous, not because it exists, but because is sold to children.
At the very least I think we should say that you have to be at least what 18 to buy them. I don’t think that’s too bad.
How exactly are they bad for you? Where’s the studies? You gotta be 21 to buy them, at least in the US. I quit smoking and use vapes exclusively and I can tell a huge difference in how I feel and breathe
I’ve been vaping for 10 years and you’re kidding me with this right? Of course it’s not good for you.
Yeah I was about to say, I quit smoking like 10 years ago. Then due to stressful situations and poor decisions making skills, I began vaping (I want to quit, fuck past me). I 100% know for a fact my lungs are way worse than before. Not as bad as when I was smoking a pack and a half a day, but I play guitar and sing often. It’s noticable.
Just because it isn’t good for you doesn’t mean it is bad for you
In this case yes, it absolute does. But justify it however you need.
Do you think inhaling anything besides air on a regular basis could possibly be good for your lungs?
There’s multiple completed ten-year studies on vaporizer use available with pretty high N. More frequent sickness and lung injury are shown to raise demonstrably over a five to ten year use period. It’s less pronounced than cigarette smoking, but it is an unhealthy choice.
So you’re breathing slightly less toxic gas and therefore clearly it’s great and good for you.
Absolutely zero logic.
I’m not going to try and find the studies for you because I’m on a phone right now, you can go Google it if you’re actually interested, not that you will, but be assured the studies are out there otherwise they wouldn’t be talking about regulation.
you can go Google it if you’re actually interested
Fuck that, you made a claim and the onus on you is to back it up.
Ah the classic except it isn’t on me because my claim isn’t extraordinary, your claim is your claim is that in taking toxic gases is not bad for you that’s the extraordinary claim the onus is on you to back it.
Quote me where I made that claim, much less any claim at all, go ahead.
The only comment I have in this entire thread is calling you out about your “you google it” bs.
Where did I say vapes are good for you? Still don’t see any links to any studies. They’re better than cigarettes, period.
Vaping should be limited to 18+ consumers just like “standard” nicotine products. But we shouldn’t pretend, like the WHO and other organizations do, that Vaping hasn’t been used by many (myself included) to effectively quit nicotine. Personally I kicked a 2 pack a day habit because of vaping and today I use no nicotine products (including vaping) because of it.
Shouldn’t that be an argument to regulate it less, not “as heavily”?
Many mundane things are less harmful than cigarettes and shouldn’t be regulated as heavily.
Edit: typo
yup zero logic in his comment, still has 30 upvotes right now.
I mean what I said reflects reality, is that so troubling for you?
If it’s less harmful why on earth should it be regulated just as heavily? Of course I agree it shouldn’t be sold to kids, but what the EU did to vaping is a massive shit show.
I quitted smoking overnight thanks to vaping and then also stopped vaping a few years later. That was before the regulations though. I honestly don’t believe I could pull this off today with all the braindead rules and let’s not forget the massive price increase for liquids.
I agree it should be regulated. But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is prohibition.
What’s too heavy about how cigarettes are regulated in your country? I’m in Canada and when I smoked cigarettes I never felt like I was obstructed in making my own choices.
Many mundane things are less harmful than cigarettes and shouldn’t be regulated as heavily
Why not? We regulate the shit out of food and medicine and those are the exact opposite of harmful when everything goes as planned.
vapes should be regulated as heavily as cigarettes
My comment referred to this quote. It’s a comparison between how heavy two things are regulated. Neither needs to be heavily regulated for this comparison to work.
What’s too heavy about how cigarettes are regulated in your country? I’m in Canada and when I smoked cigarettes I never felt like I was obstructed in making my own choices.
I’m fine with how cigarretes are regulated in Germany. Could be still heavier. I’m not fine with regulating vapes as heavy. Especially taxes.
It’s ridiculous when vaping becomes more expensive than smoking. This creates incentive to quit vaping and smoke. Should be reversed.
Many mundane things are less harmful than cigarettes and shouldn’t be regulated as heavily
Why not? We regulate the shit out of food and medicine and those are the exact opposite of harmful when everything goes as planned.
That’s two different kinds of regulation. You’re referring to regulations to make things safer. These are great.
I was talking about regulations to make things less accessible. These are great if the things are dangerous.
It makes sense to make things less accessible which are more dangerous.
I’d ban cigarettes and legalise heroin
fuck vapes and drug abuse in general, but the fedi isn’t pro fucking anything. Just because you see a pattern doesn’t mean it’s there.
I thought vaping was fine because I didn’t know it had nicotine in it.
Super fucking addictive, it should absolutely be regulated because currently in most places it isn’t, as evidenced by all the kids buying vapes.
Super fucking addictive,
Nicotine on its own is ballpark as addictive as caffeine, vapes lack the MAOIs contained in cigarettes which on their own are much more addictive (atypical antidepressants, hardly surprising) but in synergy with nicotine even more.
as evidenced by all the kids buying vapes.
They also bought fidget spinners. Also I’ve never seen a kid with a vape.
If I could just push a button and make all non medical use tobacco become impossible to grow, I would push that button a million times just to be sure. I hope everyone working for Philip Morris gets lung cancer.
That should just be an accepted cost to enter the industry.
deleted by creator
Frankly, we need fewer prohibitions on substances, not more. I drink responsibly and like it. We also know you can’t ban alcohol without a black market, so why even feign that it could be done?
We need better enforcement to prevent people acting like idiots when they drink. I don’t have ideas to offer on how, as I haven’t pondered it at length, but that’s the best path in my mind.
Thank you for having some common sense. If we know anything about history, prohibitions on substances just lead to worse outcomes with black market activity and criminal enterprises.
Tobacco is a weird one, because most people I know that smoke, don’t really enjoy it, they are just literally addicted. Still, I don’t think banning nicotine would be a great move.
I think the taxes are pretty effective. I smoked for a few years in my younger days, and I quit when the prices started to go way up, thanks to taxes.
I don’t smoke but I love nicotine. Hope they don’t go too wild trying to regulate smokeless alternatives out of existence. Nicotine is a fun drug.
I agree with this. I used nicotine lozenges to wean myself off cigarettes and this was successful.
However, I did notice as a side effect that they helped me concentrate on complex tasks.
So, although I don’t use them daily, I leave a pack lying around just to suck on in the same way I might use a cup of coffee to sharpen up in the morning.
I genuinely believe this does me no harm. I think the debates started to get heated when inhalation is involved.
My bourbon French toast says otherwise.
Hence, double standard lol
Removed by mod
It’s entirely possible to enjoy alcohol responsibly and the vast majority of people do. Shall we can cars because some people can’t stop getting in them while inebriated and crashing them?
99.999% of smokers are doing substantial damage to themselves and others.
Fuuuuck Philip Morris. Tax them heavily and use the proceeds to pay their customers’ medical expenses
I interviewed with them once, and they swore up and down that they were cleaning up and divesting of all the harmful stuff, and wanted me to trust they were all about health and a smoke-free future.
Thankfully they were so staggeringly full of bullshit during the interviews that I quickly realized it’d be an absolutely horrifically toxic (groan, yes, sorry) place to work irrespective of my other doubts, and I ended up telling them I didn’t want to continue the process and that I was so unhappy with the assorted bullshit during the process that I didn’t want to ever be approached by them again.
That’s the very long way of saying I’m not the slightest bit surprised it turns out they are in fact still massive asshats, and I’m very happy I caught on early enough.
That’s metal!
That’s iron… In ya blood!
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a message sent by the PMI’s senior vice-president of external affairs last month and seen by the Guardian, staff were told to find “any connection, any lead, whether political or technical” before a meeting of delegates from 182 countries.
The email sent on 22 September by Grégoire Verdeaux, the senior vice-president of external affairs at PMI, said: “The agenda and meeting documents have been made public for the main part.
Unfortunately they reconfirmed every concern we had that this conference may remain as the biggest missed opportunity ever in tobacco control’s history … WHO’s agenda is nothing short of a systematic, methodical, prohibitionist attack on smoke-free products.”
Without “reasonable, constructive outcomes” , Verdeaux wrote, the “WHO will have irreversibly compromised the historic opportunity for public health presented by the recognition that smoke-free products, appropriately regulated, can accelerate the decline of smoking rates faster than tobacco control combined”.
Tobacco companies are not invited to the event and Verdeaux said despite this he would be in Panama “to publicly denounce the absurdity of being excluded from it while PMI today” was “undoubtedly the most helpful private partner WHO could have in the fight against smoking”.
Asked about the leaked email, Verdeaux said in a statement: “What I say publicly and what I say to our employees is exactly the same: I am proud to make the case to governments and media that innovation drives down smoking rates faster and for that reason should be supported and regulated.
The original article contains 880 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Given the damage they have done to society is there a good reason the fines aren’t all your companies money and all of your executives money we seize and destroy and products farms and machinery that can’t be sold for non-tobacco use?
Removed by mod
Now can someone give a probability for the success of that?
It’s an international organism, with scientific input from almost every nation of the world.
Tell me more about this organism.
Wikipedia is your friend for a quick overlook. Next stop would be their own site.
I think he was taking the piss out of your use of “organism” instead of “organization”.
Couldn’t care less.
Cool, thanks for letting me know
Really, it’s fine. Of by small means it contributed towards the persons happiness, great. Doesn’t diminishes me in any way.
Vaping seems to be healthier than cigarette smoking from what I’ve read, and it makes sense. Burnt particulate matter is hell on your lungs.
But it should be used for smokers to break addiction. And recreational use needs to be heavily regulated until we can do long term studies that show it’s relatively safe.
I’ll explain as someone with professional chemistry experience. Vaping vaporizes water to deliver the nicotine – or just to deliver flavored vapor without the nicotine. This process gives me two major concerns:
-
It isn’t pure water vapor, there’s additives and oils even for juices with no nicotine. We don’t know what breathing in the vaporized flavor additives does. And, we don’t know if the process is generating enough heat to cause chemical reactions and degradation of the non water components. It’s completely possible that carcinogenic or toxic compounds could come from this. This warrants a lot more study, and fortunately, it should be quite doable. Spectroscopy could tell us a lot.
-
Remember how Flint had a lot of lead in their water? Heavy metals in water come from surface atoms on the metal leaching into the water. You can treat the water to either discourage this or cause it to precipitate out. Heat increases the frequency of leaching – so vaporizing water with the coils is going to lead to heavy metal particles in the vapor. This is where we really don’t have information. We can likely determine the quantity and type of metal atoms, but we can’t determine what it’s going to do to the lungs. A big safety concern with tiny particles is breathing them in, because nanoparticles and the like will also ravage your lungs when inhaled. Doesn’t even matter what the solid particle is.
The latter concern is where we need long term research. We need to know if the heavy metal particles in the vapor are causing damage in the same way that nanoparticles do. And we need to know what prolonged exposure to those metal particles does. After 40 years of vaping, would enough metal have deposited in airways to cause health issues? It’s very possible.
Is that to say stop right this second? No, but just be aware of the risks and don’t go overboard. Heavy drinking is probably still worse for you than this, and smoking is definitely worse.
Let’s be clear: inhaling anything that isn’t gaseous and/or meant to be in your lungs is inherently going to kill them.
Water? VG and PG.
It’s not just glycols/oils for all of them at least I thought
-
Vapes are even worse than cigarettes, for real.
Care to cite your sources in that claim? I’m know they are far from anything that could be considered “good” but “worse than cigs” is news to me.
I am not the previous poster, but the argument that I’ve heard on that front is that smoking was already trending rapidly downwards in use and would have made itself obsolete within a couple generations.
Vaping on the other hand established itself as a “safer” alternative to smoking and became trendy with more younger people who wouldn’t have smoked in the first place.
Yeah, that’s in no way worse than inhaling smoke and dozens of proven carcinogens…
Vaping is worse than nothing, but the notion that it’s worse than smoking is completely deranged.
Completely anecdotal, but it was able to get me, my wife and my father to all stop smoking by switching to vaping and then eventually quitting vaping.
A wonderful outcome!
Nicotine pouches are same as any gum, patch etc.
Ditto. Both my wife and I were heavy smokers and moved to vapes. As soon as I used a vape I thought “this is the solution!” after trying to quit smoking many times for decades.
They really provide 80 to 90% of the satisfaction of a cigarette and take the edge off those moments when you damn well need a ciggie.
After a couple of years of vaping I find it now much easier to do without them for a few days, although I do like one with a beer.
You have to have been on that 10 or 20 year journey of smoking cigarettes to understand how hard they are to put down, and vaping was the tool that got me away from burning the evil tobacco leaf.
I was a a pack - pack and a half a day smoker for 12 years. Had tried to quit for many years and had all but given up when i tried a salt nicotine vape. A month later i was smoke free, and 2 weeks after that i had kicked the vape (was never a fan of nicotine by itself, so the vape was easy to kick). This was about 2 and a half years ago now. Vapes are an indispensable tool to quit smoking.
This is incorrect and an easy to debunk claim… the tar in cigarettes is extremely harmful and vaping removes that element. However, vaping is still bad for you and it is still just as addictive.
I found it much easier to quit vaping, compared to cigarettes. There are nicotine free liquids, so you can slowly wean off.
This is my experience, having quit my 10 year cigarette addiction via vaping (after dozens of failed attempts to quit), then accidentally re-addicting myself 5 years later (via vaping) — then quitting again after another year.
Vaping is arguably more addictive due to the nicotine salts, taste, and ease of use, but it’s also far easier to quit — plus my health improved dramatically when I switched to vaping.
When I first quit with vaping, I just gradually reduced the nicotine level down to zero, then continued vaping no-nic for months until I stopped completely; the key part is sticking to the no-nic no matter what (at parties or whenever drinking). Decoupling the habit from the addiction means you don’t have to stop both at once. The second time around it only took a single attempt, except I went straight to no-nic.
Yes, I think decoupling is worth a lot!
Also true what you say about more addictive due to reasons.
Overall very informative comment, thanks!
Do you keep your vape device stored somewhere over the years in case of a relapse? Or do you get a new one when needed? I see arguments for both sides.
That’s what I didm smoked cigs for 10 years tried quitting many times I bought a vape with blue raz juice all the way for the top to 0nic and every two weeks I would lower my nicotine levels after a few months I was on 0 and tossed it. Nicotine free for 6 years. Thank you vaping for helping me quit nicotine
Well done! Stay strong 🤜🤛
110% false. Vaping is far safer
It’s different from cigarettes. You don’t get all the tar and stuff, but many people get even more nicotine, which is bad for your heart and addictive. I would say it’s likely better, but it’s different.
(There’s also non-nicotine vape products which often aren’t regulated so can cause all kinds of issues.)
Easily the best answer i’ve gotten on this thread.
deleted by creator
I don’t see where they’re arguing that vaping is worse, that’s a strawman, they’re arguing that both are bad.
deleted by creator
Sure, but they’re clearly wrong in that and in the comment above they conceded the point. You’re just kicking a dead horse at this point.
deleted by creator
