10 ms·

>Experts worry that the devices could put kids' developing brains at risk, get them hooked on nicotine early in life and be a gateway to smoking and other drugs

>Experts worry that the devices could put kids' developing brains at risk, get them hooked on nicotine early in life and be a gateway to smoking and other drugs. But, the long-term effects aren't clear. The vast majority of smoking’s harmful effects are due to the combustion products not the nicotine. It is really unclear if vaping will really have a long term effect on kids. In addition, given that vaping doesn’t really hurt other people via second hand smoke or altered behavior(see alcohol) this whole panic about vaping seems overblown. How much do you want to bet that the “medical experts” who are harping about the dangers of vaping without a lot of data are “consultants” for pharmaceutical companies looking to get their “anti-addiction” drug approved.

Symmetry 8y ago
Nicotine is still an addictive stimulant so I'd expect you'd get at least the level of bad consequences as letting teenagers make heavy use of caffeine.
Entalpi 8y ago
I like my air nicotine free please.
- devereaux 8y ago
  I'd like my kids drugs free please.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    Those goals seem to require each other as opposed to being mutually exclusive.
    - downer52 8y ago
      But, priorities!
  - x220 8y ago
    When you use most drugs they don't go into the air that others breathe in public spaces.
    - subcosmos 8y ago
      ....like cigarette smoke?
    - banme186 8y ago
      They go into the water instead https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-t...
      - x220 8y ago
        >It's possible that there's a cumulative effect on people from even tiny amounts of these and other pharmaceuticals in drinking water, but this hasn't been proven. And perhaps vulnerable populations (pregnant women, people with disabilities) are affected, although that's also unproven. So as far as we know it does nothing.
ben509 8y ago
There is a strong prohibitionist inclination with anti-toboccao advocates, and I think it's based on a fairly common aversion to substances percieved as unclean. Though I vape so I'm self-interested.
fanzhang 8y ago
What's the current data on the negative effects of vaping? I know it hasn't been out long yet, but I think nicotine has some slight negative effect, and then others complain about the polyethylene glycol. Especially useful would be to see a burn-down chart of say, new smokers and new vapers of the same age range, and seeing cumulative lung disease and mortality, and seeing how the progress of that differs (or is the same).
skwb 8y ago
Vaping certainly does damage air quality by releasing ultafine aerosol particulate matter (also known as pm10 or pm2.5) [0]. It's worth noting that these are associated with respiratory distress and can contribute to stroke and heart attacks as well as asthma. In fact, we now have compelling epidemiological evidence that vaping almost doubles risk of cardiac events [1]. Think about it like this: would I want to run a marathon on a bad air day in China? Probably not. [0]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-017-0005-x?fbclid=IwAR1X7IPVGTwF30C5nEeO3bMsjMI11-Ak01fv0JuA-FmTc4EAH8YM3fEIb2M https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-017-0005-x?fbclid=IwA... [1]. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411476/risk-heart-attacks-double-daily-e-cigarette-users https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411476/risk-heart-attacks-... Edit: Study 1 focused on PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) air quality levels, and not PM2.5. PM 10 tends to be associated with more acute respiratory distress, while PM2.5 is a more chronic threat [2]. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence that monitoring environmental PM10 levels remains an important public health metric.
- notsosmart 8y ago
  >In fact, we now have compelling epidemiological evidence that vaping almost doubles risk of cardiac events [1]. Somewhat misleading since more than half of those studied were smoking and vaping. From the study: Among the 9,352 current and former e-cigarette users, 333 (3.6 percent) had experienced a heart attack at some point, with the highest percentage (6.1 percent) among those who used e-cigarettes daily. In the analysis, a quarter of the 2,259 people who currently used e-cigarettes were former smokers of conventional cigarettes and about 66 percent of current e-cigarette users were also current cigarette smokers.
- Udik 8y ago
  That's interesting, but there's something I don't quite get about it, so I am genuinely asking: are the pm2.5 or pm10 the problem, or is it what they're made of? Because I can understand that a 2.5micron sized soot particle (or droplet of water containing soot) can cause health issues when it ends up in the lungs; but what if the droplet is entirely made of something that doesn't cause irritation and is immediately metabolised to something else?

Symmetry 8y ago

Nicotine is still an addictive stimulant so I'd expect you'd get at least the level of bad consequences as letting teenagers make heavy use of caffeine.

Entalpi 8y ago

I like my air nicotine free please.

devereaux 8y ago
I'd like my kids drugs free please.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  Those goals seem to require each other as opposed to being mutually exclusive.
  - downer52 8y ago
    But, priorities!
- x220 8y ago
  When you use most drugs they don't go into the air that others breathe in public spaces.
  - subcosmos 8y ago
    ....like cigarette smoke?
  - banme186 8y ago
    They go into the water instead https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-t...
    - x220 8y ago
      >It's possible that there's a cumulative effect on people from even tiny amounts of these and other pharmaceuticals in drinking water, but this hasn't been proven. And perhaps vulnerable populations (pregnant women, people with disabilities) are affected, although that's also unproven. So as far as we know it does nothing.

ben509 8y ago

There is a strong prohibitionist inclination with anti-toboccao advocates, and I think it's based on a fairly common aversion to substances percieved as unclean. Though I vape so I'm self-interested.

fanzhang 8y ago

What's the current data on the negative effects of vaping? I know it hasn't been out long yet, but I think nicotine has some slight negative effect, and then others complain about the polyethylene glycol. Especially useful would be to see a burn-down chart of say, new smokers and new vapers of the same age range, and seeing cumulative lung disease and mortality, and seeing how the progress of that differs (or is the same).

skwb 8y ago

Vaping certainly does damage air quality by releasing ultafine aerosol particulate matter (also known as pm10 or pm2.5) [0]. It's worth noting that these are associated with respiratory distress and can contribute to stroke and heart attacks as well as asthma. In fact, we now have compelling epidemiological evidence that vaping almost doubles risk of cardiac events [1]. Think about it like this: would I want to run a marathon on a bad air day in China? Probably not. [0]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-017-0005-x?fbclid=IwAR1X7IPVGTwF30C5nEeO3bMsjMI11-Ak01fv0JuA-FmTc4EAH8YM3fEIb2M https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-017-0005-x?fbclid=IwA... [1]. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411476/risk-heart-attacks-double-daily-e-cigarette-users https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411476/risk-heart-attacks-... Edit: Study 1 focused on PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) air quality levels, and not PM2.5. PM 10 tends to be associated with more acute respiratory distress, while PM2.5 is a more chronic threat [2]. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence that monitoring environmental PM10 levels remains an important public health metric.

notsosmart 8y ago
>In fact, we now have compelling epidemiological evidence that vaping almost doubles risk of cardiac events [1]. Somewhat misleading since more than half of those studied were smoking and vaping. From the study: Among the 9,352 current and former e-cigarette users, 333 (3.6 percent) had experienced a heart attack at some point, with the highest percentage (6.1 percent) among those who used e-cigarettes daily. In the analysis, a quarter of the 2,259 people who currently used e-cigarettes were former smokers of conventional cigarettes and about 66 percent of current e-cigarette users were also current cigarette smokers.
Udik 8y ago
That's interesting, but there's something I don't quite get about it, so I am genuinely asking: are the pm2.5 or pm10 the problem, or is it what they're made of? Because I can understand that a 2.5micron sized soot particle (or droplet of water containing soot) can cause health issues when it ends up in the lungs; but what if the droplet is entirely made of something that doesn't cause irritation and is immediately metabolised to something else?