4 ms·

The concern is that the e-cig brands have moved well beyond those attempting to quit smoking. Similar to the old Joe Camel ads, the thinking is that the e-cig

by blihp 8y ago

The concern is that the e-cig brands have moved well beyond those attempting to quit smoking. Similar to the old Joe Camel ads, the thinking is that the e-cig companies are targeting kids with fruit and candy flavors. If they were really serious about them strictly being a tool for quitting, they should mandate that the only allowed flavor is wet ashtray. Seriously, what legitimate reason is there for a quitting tool to be more appealing than the thing being quit unless the goal is to hook people on the new thing?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
That's ridiculous. One of the reasons nicotine gum isn't that successful is because of how nasty it tastes. Why shouldn't those quitting smoking be allowed fruit flavours? I can only think you want them to fail and end up keeping on smoking tobacco.
- blihp 8y ago
  Failed attempt at humor on my end apparently. No, I don't want those attempting to quit to fail. The point I was attempting to make is that by making them taste good (as opposed to at most flavorless) is that it both makes them more appealing to non-smokers (esp kids) and likely encourages many smokers to kick cigarettes but pick up a vaping habit rather than a tool to wean them off of nicotine. Now one might say 'who in their right mind would want to start a nicotine habit?' Well centuries of tobacco use to more recent times with people eating detergent pods, huffing glue etc should readily provide the answer. Also, the tobacco industry knows what they're doing and I suspect it's not about getting people off nicotine but rather changing the delivery mechanism. (You do know big tobacco is big into vaping, right?)
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I can see your point, but some kids are always going to try some of what's available - weed, tobacco, alcohol, vaping, glue sniffing etc. I doubt the flavour mattered much when cigs were the only choice, or before they'd learnt to like beer / vodka. It's far more peer pressure than advertising. yes, of course ads play a part too. I would be comfortable with discouraging kids as far as possible, requiring ID and so on. For some of the adult ex smokers I know, including myself, I doubt they'd have quit without vaping with some of the sillier sounding flavours. Some of the quitters will be kids who regret starting smoking 5 years previously. I don't have good answers to balance the conflicting needs or to prevent it becoming a growth sector far beyond smokers wanting out. When I first tried vaping one of the few flavours I got was tobacco - which was awful, and never tried again. It took some months to step down the strengths to zero, and kept on vaping a while at 0 nicotine. That was 7 or 8 years ago, and no vaping or tobacco since. Regulation in the US and UK is very different for vaping, but here big tobacco seems to be badly failing at vaping. Every shop that sells cigarettes now has a selection of the tobacco company's cartridge style "pretend cigarettes" vaping at five or ten times the cost of the simple juice bottles. I've only ever seen one person using one. Most towns have gained a juice stall selling cheap flavours.
  - joesb 8y ago
    But nicotine by itself isn't really that harmful to your body. So why should we care if some kids pickup vaping habits? I mean, it we remove all the bad part of being addicted to nicotine, why is it still bad to be addicted to nicotine? It's like the experiment of a room with monkeys, ladder, banana and water hose. By the way, there's nothing preventing one to use nicotine-free fruity vaping liquid.
  - stronglikedan 8y ago
    The whole "marketing to kids" with fruit flavors seems like a straw man. I have asked everyone who mentions it to show me one ad targeting kids, and no one yet has been up to the challenge. I think it's the whole "think of the children" excuse when advocacy groups want to amp up regulations on things. I personally chose the fruit flavors when I was quitting cigarettes so I could distance myself from the flavor of tobacco, and it worked well for me. I cannot even finish a real cigarette now without feeling nauseated (even though I always seem to try after a few beers). I'm thankful for those fruity flavors every day.
Lazare 8y ago
> Seriously, what legitimate reason is there for a quitting tool to be more appealing than the thing being quit If the quitting tool is less appealing, then it makes people more reluctant to quit. That's just simple logic.
- yzmtf2008 8y ago
  What if your quitting tool is so appealing, that people who don't have addictions are appealed, start using the "quitting tool" (as it is often used today), and start being addicted to nicotine as well? I don't get why this isn't obvious.
  - Lazare 8y ago
    Yep, a really good tool to get people off of cigarettes will inevitably lure some people to try it who weren't smoking cigarettes to start with. > and start being addicted to nicotine as well? Then they'll be addicted to nicotine. And? You're dropping that like it's some sort of trump card, but the reality this is about harm reduction, and trying to find a policy that will lead to optimal outcomes. If you can get X smokers to switch to vaping while Y non-smokers also start vaping, is that good? Depends on the harm of smoking, the harm of vaping, and the size of X relative to Y. Just yelling that Y is non-zero number without all the other information we need is just pointless noise. If "...and then they'll be addicted!" was a compelling argument, we'd be banning Starbucks.
    - yzmtf2008 8y ago
      And? Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted”, that’s just a bogus argument. Considering Y is more likely to be younger people, I find that unlikely.
      - Lazare 8y ago
        > Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted” If group X is larger and/or the harm avoided from their switching to less harmful behaviours is more serious, then a simple utilitarian calculation says yes, it is more valuable. What data I've seen is still tentative, but suggestive that this is the case. Do you have data to show the opposite?

by blihp 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

That's ridiculous. One of the reasons nicotine gum isn't that successful is because of how nasty it tastes. Why shouldn't those quitting smoking be allowed fruit flavours? I can only think you want them to fail and end up keeping on smoking tobacco.

blihp 8y ago
Failed attempt at humor on my end apparently. No, I don't want those attempting to quit to fail. The point I was attempting to make is that by making them taste good (as opposed to at most flavorless) is that it both makes them more appealing to non-smokers (esp kids) and likely encourages many smokers to kick cigarettes but pick up a vaping habit rather than a tool to wean them off of nicotine. Now one might say 'who in their right mind would want to start a nicotine habit?' Well centuries of tobacco use to more recent times with people eating detergent pods, huffing glue etc should readily provide the answer. Also, the tobacco industry knows what they're doing and I suspect it's not about getting people off nicotine but rather changing the delivery mechanism. (You do know big tobacco is big into vaping, right?)
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I can see your point, but some kids are always going to try some of what's available - weed, tobacco, alcohol, vaping, glue sniffing etc. I doubt the flavour mattered much when cigs were the only choice, or before they'd learnt to like beer / vodka. It's far more peer pressure than advertising. yes, of course ads play a part too. I would be comfortable with discouraging kids as far as possible, requiring ID and so on. For some of the adult ex smokers I know, including myself, I doubt they'd have quit without vaping with some of the sillier sounding flavours. Some of the quitters will be kids who regret starting smoking 5 years previously. I don't have good answers to balance the conflicting needs or to prevent it becoming a growth sector far beyond smokers wanting out. When I first tried vaping one of the few flavours I got was tobacco - which was awful, and never tried again. It took some months to step down the strengths to zero, and kept on vaping a while at 0 nicotine. That was 7 or 8 years ago, and no vaping or tobacco since. Regulation in the US and UK is very different for vaping, but here big tobacco seems to be badly failing at vaping. Every shop that sells cigarettes now has a selection of the tobacco company's cartridge style "pretend cigarettes" vaping at five or ten times the cost of the simple juice bottles. I've only ever seen one person using one. Most towns have gained a juice stall selling cheap flavours.
- joesb 8y ago
  But nicotine by itself isn't really that harmful to your body. So why should we care if some kids pickup vaping habits? I mean, it we remove all the bad part of being addicted to nicotine, why is it still bad to be addicted to nicotine? It's like the experiment of a room with monkeys, ladder, banana and water hose. By the way, there's nothing preventing one to use nicotine-free fruity vaping liquid.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  The whole "marketing to kids" with fruit flavors seems like a straw man. I have asked everyone who mentions it to show me one ad targeting kids, and no one yet has been up to the challenge. I think it's the whole "think of the children" excuse when advocacy groups want to amp up regulations on things. I personally chose the fruit flavors when I was quitting cigarettes so I could distance myself from the flavor of tobacco, and it worked well for me. I cannot even finish a real cigarette now without feeling nauseated (even though I always seem to try after a few beers). I'm thankful for those fruity flavors every day.

Lazare 8y ago

> Seriously, what legitimate reason is there for a quitting tool to be more appealing than the thing being quit If the quitting tool is less appealing, then it makes people more reluctant to quit. That's just simple logic.

yzmtf2008 8y ago
What if your quitting tool is so appealing, that people who don't have addictions are appealed, start using the "quitting tool" (as it is often used today), and start being addicted to nicotine as well? I don't get why this isn't obvious.
- Lazare 8y ago
  Yep, a really good tool to get people off of cigarettes will inevitably lure some people to try it who weren't smoking cigarettes to start with. > and start being addicted to nicotine as well? Then they'll be addicted to nicotine. And? You're dropping that like it's some sort of trump card, but the reality this is about harm reduction, and trying to find a policy that will lead to optimal outcomes. If you can get X smokers to switch to vaping while Y non-smokers also start vaping, is that good? Depends on the harm of smoking, the harm of vaping, and the size of X relative to Y. Just yelling that Y is non-zero number without all the other information we need is just pointless noise. If "...and then they'll be addicted!" was a compelling argument, we'd be banning Starbucks.
  - yzmtf2008 8y ago
    And? Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted”, that’s just a bogus argument. Considering Y is more likely to be younger people, I find that unlikely.
    - Lazare 8y ago
      > Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted” If group X is larger and/or the harm avoided from their switching to less harmful behaviours is more serious, then a simple utilitarian calculation says yes, it is more valuable. What data I've seen is still tentative, but suggestive that this is the case. Do you have data to show the opposite?