3 ms·

Am not surprised. As smoking has become more costly (with anti-secondhand-smoke regulations) and socially unacceptable, many smokers have found means to quit, a

Am not surprised. As smoking has become more costly (with anti-secondhand-smoke regulations) and socially unacceptable, many smokers have found means to quit, and surely many used vaping for this. But it seems to me that a large proportion of the people who took up vaping were hardcore smokers who want a more licit habit. And so they're frequently going on about how vaping is totally harmless, it has absolutely no secondhand consumption issue (all very dubious). If vapers were formerly the most hardcore smokers, it's not surprising that vapers would be less likely to quit. Although it is still probably a good thing, from a harm reduction viewpoint. Vaping for smoking cessation needs more than some anecdata. It needs controlled trials where vaping is compared against placebos and other cessation methods, like Chantix. but I'm afraid that the vaping industry is nearly as interested in promoting disinformation as the tobacco industry was.

collyw 11y ago
According to this study normal smoking has virtually no secondhand consumption issue, unless you live with a smoker for 30 years. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci...
- panglott 11y ago
  That is not at all what that article says. From your link: “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. ...So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? “We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,” said Wang. ...“It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers,” said Wakelee. ...Moreover, of the nearly 40,000 nonsmokers in the WHI-OS, only about 4,000 reported no exposure to cigarette smoke. “That means almost everybody had passive-smoking exposure,” said Wakelee, “so it’s very hard to say that that exposure is causing the problem—it’s hard to tease out a difference. “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer,” she said. “We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”

collyw 11y ago

According to this study normal smoking has virtually no secondhand consumption issue, unless you live with a smoker for 30 years. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci...

panglott 11y ago
That is not at all what that article says. From your link: “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. ...So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? “We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,” said Wang. ...“It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers,” said Wakelee. ...Moreover, of the nearly 40,000 nonsmokers in the WHI-OS, only about 4,000 reported no exposure to cigarette smoke. “That means almost everybody had passive-smoking exposure,” said Wakelee, “so it’s very hard to say that that exposure is causing the problem—it’s hard to tease out a difference. “We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer,” she said. “We think the message is, this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”