3 ms·

> “The data that we have largely is derived from the US’ experience and it the US the latest stats that I have before me states that there has been a 77.8% grow

by danans 7y ago

> “The data that we have largely is derived from the US’ experience and it the US the latest stats that I have before me states that there has been a 77.8% growth among school students who are at the 10th and 12th level.” > She also pointed to “surprising” growth in e-cigarette use among US middle school students — up 48.5%, per stats she cited. It's interesting that they are citing US data for this decision directly. Not that you can't learn from others, but you'd think the Indian government would be able to gather its own domestic statistics on this. If I had to spin a theory about the reason for this ban, I'd say that this is more about preventing the urbanized middle to upper class youth - who are more likely to mimic trends form the US - from starting the habit. It seems like more of a political signal that "we are in cultural control" to conservative voters (who are mostly middle to upper class in India). Also, note the similar ban on flavored e-cigarettes by the US administration just a few days ago. Perhaps one government is taking political queues from the other? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened lately. It can't be practically related to health, since as others have noted, the extreme urban air pollution is likely the primary broad-based driver of respiratory disease in India, not vaping.

tryitnow 7y ago
Why can't it be related to health? It seems like it's an attempt to prevent Indian youths from developing nicotine addiction, which is probably a pretty smart idea even if it's done for culturally chauvinistic purposes. Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether or not nicotine by itself is harmful, however, I would use the precautionary principle here for the following reasons: 1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? which leads to... 2) risk profile: the risks associated with not vaping are virtually non-existent whereas the risks associated with vaping include consuming chemicals other than nicotine and any risks associated with chronic nicotine consumption (both the risks we know and the risks we don't know about). In other words there's no actual benefit from chronic nicotine consumption. Now, I do believe occasional nicotine consumption can be used to enhance cognitive performance. Of course, the business model for vaping doesn't support occasional use. Vaping is all about getting people addicted so they're forced to buy your product even though your product doesn't benefit them beyond just alleviating withdrawal symptoms - symptoms which wouldn't exist if they hadn't been addicted in the first place! For those who can control their addictive urges I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while (as long as you're in good health).
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while All of those options have abysmal success rates. Here's a paper, 10% success over placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8518571 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8518571 >1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? Because I enjoy smoking, got off of cigs by vaping, and I want to. By your own admission we have no idea what the long term health effects may be. Your argument is backed only by fear, not facts, but is easy to make because it doesn't affect you.
- danans 7y ago
  >Why can't it be related to health? I don't think it's not related in some marginal way to health. I just doubt that it will have much impact on health given the terrible air pollution that people are already subjected to, regardless of whether they smoke. The stronger explanation is the political moral signaling. It would be a different thing if e-cigs were banned in a country that had very low air pollution and, say universal health care like Canada, because in that case the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for whatever the negative health effects of vaping are - and the connection between vaping and the condition would be much clearer.

by danans 7y ago

tryitnow 7y ago

Why can't it be related to health? It seems like it's an attempt to prevent Indian youths from developing nicotine addiction, which is probably a pretty smart idea even if it's done for culturally chauvinistic purposes. Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether or not nicotine by itself is harmful, however, I would use the precautionary principle here for the following reasons: 1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? which leads to... 2) risk profile: the risks associated with not vaping are virtually non-existent whereas the risks associated with vaping include consuming chemicals other than nicotine and any risks associated with chronic nicotine consumption (both the risks we know and the risks we don't know about). In other words there's no actual benefit from chronic nicotine consumption. Now, I do believe occasional nicotine consumption can be used to enhance cognitive performance. Of course, the business model for vaping doesn't support occasional use. Vaping is all about getting people addicted so they're forced to buy your product even though your product doesn't benefit them beyond just alleviating withdrawal symptoms - symptoms which wouldn't exist if they hadn't been addicted in the first place! For those who can control their addictive urges I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while (as long as you're in good health).

EpicEng 7y ago
>I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while All of those options have abysmal success rates. Here's a paper, 10% success over placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8518571 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8518571 >1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? Because I enjoy smoking, got off of cigs by vaping, and I want to. By your own admission we have no idea what the long term health effects may be. Your argument is backed only by fear, not facts, but is easy to make because it doesn't affect you.
danans 7y ago
>Why can't it be related to health? I don't think it's not related in some marginal way to health. I just doubt that it will have much impact on health given the terrible air pollution that people are already subjected to, regardless of whether they smoke. The stronger explanation is the political moral signaling. It would be a different thing if e-cigs were banned in a country that had very low air pollution and, say universal health care like Canada, because in that case the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for whatever the negative health effects of vaping are - and the connection between vaping and the condition would be much clearer.