10 ms·

Yes. That means that in a school of of 360 kids (30 students * 3 classes * 4 grades), ~36 of them are now nicotine users through vaping. You may as well dedicat

by cbhl 9y ago

Yes. That means that in a school of of 360 kids (30 students * 3 classes * 4 grades), ~36 of them are now nicotine users through vaping. You may as well dedicate an entire classroom to holding detention. The US was slowly reducing the number of middle schoolers who smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, cigarette use dropped from 4.3% in 2011 to 2.2% in 2016. [1] This would be a 5x reversal in less than a year. That's huge. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...

lern_too_spel 9y ago
You're both citing the same source, but you're comparing 12th grade usage to middle school usage.
- cbhl 9y ago
  Ah, whelp. I forgot that high school is 9th-12th grade. Re-reading the high school numbers cigarettes are down 15.8% -> 8.0% (2011-2016) but eCigs are up 1.5% -> 11.3% (2011-2016). The gains in eCig usage still appear to cancel out the reduction in cigarette usage ("(20.2%) reported current use of some type of tobacco product"). But definitely a less dramatic effect than I originally claimed.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > The gains in eCig usage still appear to cancel out the reduction in cigarette usage And that's still a significant net victory, given that eCigs don't have the awful health consequences regular cigarettes have.
ghayes 9y ago
Couldn't this be explained by a substitution effect? The numbers from the CDC article discuss only the changes from the period starting in 2011 until 2016; where do you justify "a 5x reversal in less than a year?"
jacobolus 9y ago
Cigarettes cause high rates of lung cancer, killing tons of people. It makes sense to heavily discourage teenagers from using them. As far as I am aware (I am not an expert about or user of any of these products) the risks from vaping are much less severe. Is the concern just that the activity is nominally unlawful? Or that it will be a “gateway drug” (is there any evidence of that)? Or that it is a waste of students’ time? Or ... Or are we worried about stimulants in general? Or is there still some significant cancer risk from vaping? (Are people freaking out about high school students drinking too much coffee?) If students are just replacing cigarettes with vaping, that seems like an unambiguously positive development.
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  It's less severe, but nicotine alone is carcinogenic.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    Okay, but so is standing near combustion-engine vehicles, cooking, soldering, shopping at stores full of air freshener, and many other things. There are many other common activities that have even higher risk of death/injury. When walking around town with my 1.5 year old, I commonly see people smoking cigarettes outside freak out and start apologizing, worried that they might blow one puff of smoke in the general direction of a baby. But at that point we are talking about a ridiculous level of concern for a trivial risk. As they say, the dose makes the poison. We should make public policy based on careful risk analysis, not absolutist reflex.
    - Pulcinella 9y ago
      Auto emissions are heavily regulated and many states also regulate in-door air quality including cooking so I am not sure what you are arguing for.
      - jacobolus 9y ago
        I speculate that standing near existing (heavily regulated) combustion vehicles, going to existing (heavily regulated) restaurants, cooking using existing (regulated) methods and tools, etc. has a decent chance of being a greater health risk than breathing nicotine alone. I am not an expert though, so would love to hear some actual evidence about it. We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well. But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.

by cbhl 9y ago

lern_too_spel 9y ago

You're both citing the same source, but you're comparing 12th grade usage to middle school usage.

cbhl 9y ago
Ah, whelp. I forgot that high school is 9th-12th grade. Re-reading the high school numbers cigarettes are down 15.8% -> 8.0% (2011-2016) but eCigs are up 1.5% -> 11.3% (2011-2016). The gains in eCig usage still appear to cancel out the reduction in cigarette usage ("(20.2%) reported current use of some type of tobacco product"). But definitely a less dramatic effect than I originally claimed.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > The gains in eCig usage still appear to cancel out the reduction in cigarette usage And that's still a significant net victory, given that eCigs don't have the awful health consequences regular cigarettes have.

ghayes 9y ago

Couldn't this be explained by a substitution effect? The numbers from the CDC article discuss only the changes from the period starting in 2011 until 2016; where do you justify "a 5x reversal in less than a year?"

jacobolus 9y ago

Cigarettes cause high rates of lung cancer, killing tons of people. It makes sense to heavily discourage teenagers from using them. As far as I am aware (I am not an expert about or user of any of these products) the risks from vaping are much less severe. Is the concern just that the activity is nominally unlawful? Or that it will be a “gateway drug” (is there any evidence of that)? Or that it is a waste of students’ time? Or ... Or are we worried about stimulants in general? Or is there still some significant cancer risk from vaping? (Are people freaking out about high school students drinking too much coffee?) If students are just replacing cigarettes with vaping, that seems like an unambiguously positive development.

Scaevolus 9y ago
It's less severe, but nicotine alone is carcinogenic.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Okay, but so is standing near combustion-engine vehicles, cooking, soldering, shopping at stores full of air freshener, and many other things. There are many other common activities that have even higher risk of death/injury. When walking around town with my 1.5 year old, I commonly see people smoking cigarettes outside freak out and start apologizing, worried that they might blow one puff of smoke in the general direction of a baby. But at that point we are talking about a ridiculous level of concern for a trivial risk. As they say, the dose makes the poison. We should make public policy based on careful risk analysis, not absolutist reflex.
  - Pulcinella 9y ago
    Auto emissions are heavily regulated and many states also regulate in-door air quality including cooking so I am not sure what you are arguing for.
    - jacobolus 9y ago
      I speculate that standing near existing (heavily regulated) combustion vehicles, going to existing (heavily regulated) restaurants, cooking using existing (regulated) methods and tools, etc. has a decent chance of being a greater health risk than breathing nicotine alone. I am not an expert though, so would love to hear some actual evidence about it. We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well. But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.