6 ms·

It doesn't seem like the effects, good/bad are being ignored. A little over a year ago, the british ministry of health conducted a very large study which conclu

by lbj 8y ago

It doesn't seem like the effects, good/bad are being ignored. A little over a year ago, the british ministry of health conducted a very large study which concluded that vaping is not health, but its approximately 95% less harmful than cigarettes.

skwb 8y ago
Care to share a citation on the study?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
  - open-source-ux 8y ago
    There's an update to the 2015 report from Public Health England (PHE) published in 2018: PHE publishes independent expert e-cigarettes evidence review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent-expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent... This video demonstration from PHE provides a striking comparison between smoking and vaping. Perhaps unintentionally, the video might make people who vape to view it as a relatively safe practice (it's much safer than smoking, but still detrimental to health): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RisBe5sLGPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RisBe5sLGPc
    - DanBC 8y ago
      PHE are doing a pretty good job I think. They're telling smokers that vaping is much better than smoking. They're telling shops not to sell vaping supplies to people who were not previously smokers, and that self-regulation while inconsistant seems to be working okay at the moment.
jessriedel 8y ago
Indeed, if we judge by discussion in the news and proposed legislation, people are falling over themselves to warn about the risk of vaping (often barely mentioning that we have very little data and strong theoretical arguments that the risks should be much less than for cigarettes).
- Barrin92 8y ago
  the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0% vaping teens to 20%), and the nicotine will likely produce some fraction of smokers down the line. And we all know that Juul styles itself as a tech brand that looks cool for a reason, and they're being investigated by the FDA for their teen targeting social media campaigns already. So really there is a false dichotomy in this discussion where vaping risks are compared to smoking. They should be evaluated in the light of not inhaling toxic substances at all.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    > the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0% vaping teens to 20%), and the nicotine will likely produce some fraction of smokers down the line. Are you just pointing out that since some activity that didn't exist before has a non-zero risk, one class of risks are going up? This is not a good argument for saying that total risk is going up, or that that activity should be suppressed. > And we all know that Juul styles itself as a tech brand that looks cool for a reason Starbucks tries to loop hip and trendy, but really they're just selling an addictive drug too: caffeine. And they sell it to children. They even sell hot chocolate, which is a sweet drink that appeals to children who wouldn't normally drink coffee, but is served very similar to coffee and is derived from some of the same ingredient. Once Starbucks gets them in the habit of getting hot chocolates, they graduate to coffee as they get old. > They should be evaluated in the light of not inhaling toxic substances at all. Caffeine and nicotine are both addictive stimulants, and nicotine is stronger, but neither are "toxic" in any reasonable sense.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It's most telling that the two writing this piece are from the US. British medical opinion, and previous Guardian pieces, seem to boil down to it's good as it's not tobacco and that vaping is far more successful at getting people to quit whilst dramatically less harmful. The "common knowledge" around vaping is dramatically different on each side of the Atlantic
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  The British have skin in the game via the NHS. In the USA, adverse health affects due to smoking are masked via higher insurance premiums while states reap sin taxes; in the UK reduced smoking is a public cost savings measure. It makes sense that the views would differ due to different self interests.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Good point, hadn't looked at it quite like that. Does the surgeon general still put out scary warnings? It's fair to say vaping has had huge and surprising impact on smoking in the UK, it's now become really rare to see a smoker. It's now an occasional surprise when you catch a whiff of tobacco in the street. It helped that cigarettes have been progressively taxed to nearly unaffordable (not sure, but I think a pack of 20 is now comfortably over £10). At the same time tobacco has been hidden in ugly packaging and no visibility is allowed in stores.
    - madaxe_again 8y ago
      Yeah, a 20 pack is now well over a tenner. It’s great. I do not smoke at all in the uk now, where I currently predominantly live, as the cost is just nuts. £4000 a year or so if you’re on a pack a day, which is where most active smokers sit. I now vape, spend about £200 a year on it. I will confess that I do still smoke if I find myself in a country where vaping is illegal and the cigarettes are 50p a pack, as I am still a nicotine addict, but I would much rather vape. Cigarettes make my lungs hurt. Vaping doesn’t. So, unless it turns out that vaping is somehow worse than smoking, this is a resounding public health policy success. My behaviour and the scarcity of smoking you note underscores this.

by lbj 8y ago

skwb 8y ago

Care to share a citation on the study?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
- open-source-ux 8y ago
  There's an update to the 2015 report from Public Health England (PHE) published in 2018: PHE publishes independent expert e-cigarettes evidence review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent-expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent... This video demonstration from PHE provides a striking comparison between smoking and vaping. Perhaps unintentionally, the video might make people who vape to view it as a relatively safe practice (it's much safer than smoking, but still detrimental to health): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RisBe5sLGPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RisBe5sLGPc
  - DanBC 8y ago
    PHE are doing a pretty good job I think. They're telling smokers that vaping is much better than smoking. They're telling shops not to sell vaping supplies to people who were not previously smokers, and that self-regulation while inconsistant seems to be working okay at the moment.

jessriedel 8y ago

Indeed, if we judge by discussion in the news and proposed legislation, people are falling over themselves to warn about the risk of vaping (often barely mentioning that we have very little data and strong theoretical arguments that the risks should be much less than for cigarettes).

Barrin92 8y ago
the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0% vaping teens to 20%), and the nicotine will likely produce some fraction of smokers down the line. And we all know that Juul styles itself as a tech brand that looks cool for a reason, and they're being investigated by the FDA for their teen targeting social media campaigns already. So really there is a false dichotomy in this discussion where vaping risks are compared to smoking. They should be evaluated in the light of not inhaling toxic substances at all.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0% vaping teens to 20%), and the nicotine will likely produce some fraction of smokers down the line. Are you just pointing out that since some activity that didn't exist before has a non-zero risk, one class of risks are going up? This is not a good argument for saying that total risk is going up, or that that activity should be suppressed. > And we all know that Juul styles itself as a tech brand that looks cool for a reason Starbucks tries to loop hip and trendy, but really they're just selling an addictive drug too: caffeine. And they sell it to children. They even sell hot chocolate, which is a sweet drink that appeals to children who wouldn't normally drink coffee, but is served very similar to coffee and is derived from some of the same ingredient. Once Starbucks gets them in the habit of getting hot chocolates, they graduate to coffee as they get old. > They should be evaluated in the light of not inhaling toxic substances at all. Caffeine and nicotine are both addictive stimulants, and nicotine is stronger, but neither are "toxic" in any reasonable sense.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It's most telling that the two writing this piece are from the US. British medical opinion, and previous Guardian pieces, seem to boil down to it's good as it's not tobacco and that vaping is far more successful at getting people to quit whilst dramatically less harmful. The "common knowledge" around vaping is dramatically different on each side of the Atlantic

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
The British have skin in the game via the NHS. In the USA, adverse health affects due to smoking are masked via higher insurance premiums while states reap sin taxes; in the UK reduced smoking is a public cost savings measure. It makes sense that the views would differ due to different self interests.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Good point, hadn't looked at it quite like that. Does the surgeon general still put out scary warnings? It's fair to say vaping has had huge and surprising impact on smoking in the UK, it's now become really rare to see a smoker. It's now an occasional surprise when you catch a whiff of tobacco in the street. It helped that cigarettes have been progressively taxed to nearly unaffordable (not sure, but I think a pack of 20 is now comfortably over £10). At the same time tobacco has been hidden in ugly packaging and no visibility is allowed in stores.
  - madaxe_again 8y ago
    Yeah, a 20 pack is now well over a tenner. It’s great. I do not smoke at all in the uk now, where I currently predominantly live, as the cost is just nuts. £4000 a year or so if you’re on a pack a day, which is where most active smokers sit. I now vape, spend about £200 a year on it. I will confess that I do still smoke if I find myself in a country where vaping is illegal and the cigarettes are 50p a pack, as I am still a nicotine addict, but I would much rather vape. Cigarettes make my lungs hurt. Vaping doesn’t. So, unless it turns out that vaping is somehow worse than smoking, this is a resounding public health policy success. My behaviour and the scarcity of smoking you note underscores this.