Slashdot Mirror
Vaping Can Be Addictive and May Lure Teenagers to Smoking, Science Panel Concludes (nytimes.com)
A national panel of public health experts concluded in a report released on Tuesday that vaping with e-cigarettes that contain nicotine can be addictive and that teenagers who use the devices may be put at higher risk of switching to traditional smoking. From a report: Whether teenage use of e-cigarettes may lead to conventional smoking has been intensely debated in the United States and elsewhere. While the industry argues that vaping is not a steppingstone to conventional cigarettes or addiction, some antismoking advocates contend that young people become hooked on nicotine, and are enticed to cancer-causing tobacco-based cigarettes over time. The new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is the most comprehensive analysis of existing research on e-cigarettes. It concluded the devices are safer than traditional smoking products and that they do help smokers quit, citing conclusive proof that switching can reduce smokers' exposure to deadly tar, numerous dangerous chemicals and other carcinogens.
Super-liberal bias and paywall
More gateway drugs we need to ban.
Nicotine is addictive and water is wet. Who would assume that e-cig's are not addictive!?
Scientists discover that teenagers make poorer decision to that of adults. Shocking, I know!
Life is not for the lazy.
We understand how people can get addicted to opiates and when the supply runs our or their money dries up, they switch to heroin as a cheaper and more widely available source of the high but with eCigarettes, that doesn't hold up.
Vaping is CHEAPER than smoking. Vaping supplies are widely available.
It's nonsensical to think that people would seek alternatives to the cheaper method that they're already using.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nicotine is an interesting drug with a lot of psychoactive properties. There's a reason it's popular.
However, try to find data on health impacts from infrequent use, or infrequent smoking, or even to suggest such a thing is possible, is not very easy to do.
Likewise, quantitative data on the beneficial effects of smoking is very difficult to find. There is evidence for increased memory performance, mood stabilizing, and possible anti-psychotic effects.
There's no question smoking is bad for you.. but drugs have benefits and side effects, and personally, I'd like to know both.
..don't panic
it's got to prove the obvious. I mean, no sh!t Sherlock, nicotine products are addictive. And if the addict can't get vape liquid they'll cheerfully smoke the real stuff.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Study concludes water is wet.
Who paid for this report and who stands to gain from this info?
whey to lead it on...
Using nicotine leads to nicotine addiction. Water also wet.
"...public health experts concluded in a report released on Tuesday that vaping with e-cigarettes that contain nicotine can be addictive..."
Wait, you mean nicotine-infused products are still addictive? Gee, can't imagine how that wasn't rather fucking obvious after Big Tobacco agreed to a couple hundred billion in medical settlements 20 years ago.
Starbucks. Big Pharma. Gaming. Social Media. Addiction is nothing more than 21st Century Capitalism. If you're not making a patented/trademarked product that's physically, mentally, or psychologically addictive these days, investors will be quick to point out that you're fucking doing it wrong.
I vape while I browse Tinder in my Corvette.
In other news, a science panel has determined that the sky is, in fact, blue.
I get what they're saying, but it's stupid. If you have two groups, one that doesn't smoke anything, one that vapes, the group that vapes would be more likely to try actual cigs.
However, vaporizers themselves are pretty danged safe, and there is plenty of science showing this. Most of the problems with vaporizers are when people modify them so they being to combust the fluid rather than evaporate it.
But aren't all scientists untrusworthy bastards part of a global conspiracy of evil to suck always more grant money from not-at-all-evil governements ?
If you don't trust scientists when they tell you that global warming is caused by human activity, or that diversity of life on earth is the product of evolution through natural selection, or that the universe is 15 billion years old and not six thousand, or that vaccines don't cause autism, then why would you trust them when they tell you that vaping can be addictive and may lure teenagers to smoking ?
That's all vaping and e-cigarettes are, been calling them that since they first appeared, and that's objectively what they are.
FTA:
any significant linkage between e-cigarettes and long-term smoking has not been established
I don't buy into this "vaping is safer cause less tar" bullshit. There are numerous studies that show marijuana doesn't increase your risk of lung cancer over non-smokers. So it's not the tar/burning particulate matter that leads to cancer as people keep claiming. I mean you get mouth cancer from chewing tobacco, so nicotine is pretty bad in and of itself.
The trouble with smoking is that the effects aren't immediate. It takes decades of use to see the results. That's one of the reasons it was so difficult to show links between tobacco and health risks.
We won't really know if e-cigs are safer for a few decades, but I suspect they'll be just as bad as traditional cigarettes. It's not the smoke that kills, it's the nicotine itself.
Why would they be sold if they didn't offer a chance of addiction? Otherwise the kids who buy them would try them once, realize it is a colossal waste of money, and then go back to smoking regular weed like the rest of us. The market is taking advantage of the fact that there are almost zero regulations pertaining to them right now and flooding every head shop and gas station with all kinds of random crap sold under all kinds of illogical names and claims.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
More people are switching from smoking to vaping all the time.
All the dumb fucks who switch the other way would probably have been smoking anyway.
From personal experience, as a smoker for 15 years, smoking upwards of 2 packs a day, switching to vape HAS made a tremendous impact on my bank account and how I feel. It tastes better than cigarettes (DUH!), my lungs don't hurt, I don't wheeze anymore, my car doesn't smell like ciggarettes, and I don't have ashes everywhere. Switching to vapor has been a solid WIN for me. I have been vaping almost 4 years now and successfully quit smoking. I thought one day I would try and smoke a ciggarette and I couldn't finish it and thought, how the HELL did I start doing this in the FIRST place! So honestly, I don't see how vaping could LEAD a person to smoking...that to me is INSANE. Only a weak minded fool would do that...sadly there are too many of those around.
The title says "Vaping Can Be Addictive and May Lure Teenagers to Smoking, Science Panel Concludes". But what the panel actually said was:
"The panel found evidence among studies it reviewed that vaping may prompt teenagers or young adults to try regular cigarettes, putting them at higher risk for addiction, but that any significant linkage between e-cigarettes and long-term smoking has not been established. It said it was unable to determine whether young people were just trying cigarettes or becoming habitual smokers.".
I would say that they lacked a conclusion but that's just me... Anyways it's still to early to tell what those damn things will do to the people using them and what the risks associated with it is, which is what the panel actually concluded with...
"Don't be a such a coward, Kif. Teenagers all smoke, and they seem pretty on the ball!"
#DeleteChrome
So Marijuana can be a gateway drug to other drugs not even containing the same active ingredient. But Vaping, cannot be a gateway drug to smoking... which is the exact same active ingredient.
Pick 1. Either vapings a gateway drug or rescind on the marijuana is a gateway drug thing
There is an enormous push by the tobacco industry to take over vaping via regulation to hinder competition. If they can press into service "useful idiots", i.e. moral busybodies, all the better.
See also taxi services trying to tie up Uber and Lyft.
I'm ready for my downmod, busybodies^H^H^H^H^H^H Mr. Demille!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No evidence has yet shown a definitive link between MJ smoking and lung cancer. But MJ smoke contains many of the same known carcinogens as tobacco smoke, or smoke from burning ANY kind of dried plant material, for that matter.
The lack of cancer in pot smokers then would seem to come down to a few key differences:
The amount of material being smoked. Even the heaviest pot smoker is going through a LOT less material and inhaling a LOT less smoke than your typical tobacco smoker. A pack of cigarettes is the rough equivalent of an ounce of pot as far as the amount of material being burned and inhaled. A pack or more a day cigarette habit is pretty common, but smoking that much pot per day would be pretty much incapacitating for most users.
Tobacco is typically treated with all kinds of additives, burn rate modifiers, flavorings, "impact boosters", etc. Marijuana is just dried flowers.
The tobacco plant has a natural tendency to sequester radioactive material from the soils it is grown in. Commercial tobacco is usually grown using rock phosphate as a fertilizer, which contain trace amounts of polonium, uranium, radium, and thorium, all of which stay in the leaves and are inhaled when the tobacco is smoked.
In the lungs, nicotine acts like a bronchoconstrictor, tightening up airways and paralyzing the cilia of the lungs, reducing their ability to sweep out and remove deposited particulates from the smoke. THC and other cannabinoids are bronchodilators, which may enhance the ability of the lungs to "self clean" to some degree after smoking.
Many of the cannabinoids also have documented anti-cancer properties in and of themselves.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I guess phillip morris and co aren't really getting the desired product adherence on their "heat-not-burn-definetely-not-vape" product, so they're back to old tactics of subsidizing "may" studies about vaping. I am a vaper, and I will tell you for sure: vaping IS addictive, surely a habit, and to an extent can be a social reason to transition to cigarretes, but the correlation of that transition on the young population is more likely to be out of individuals' environment for vaping already being a biased environment for smoking.
So until we get a study that takes into account this correlation, to me this is just more propaganda from a scientific lobby that is financed by an industry that has been in steep decline, not only due to e-cigarettes but also from societal patterns changing in evolved countries. I hope vaping goes away eventually - I love it, but it is a lesser evil. And by being the lesser evil of tobacco, I hope tobacco goes away much sooner than vaping. Because I know with a high degree of certainty I am more likely to die if I have a political reason to stop vaping and going back to smoking, you know, like the government baning ecigs...
If you really want solid science about ecigs, vaping, HEETS and real tobacco products comparison, you should lookup Doctor Konstantinos' Farsalinos work - he has been a reference in the unbiased nicotine research for the last 10 years now.
no, there would already be statistical significance of lung cancer from vaping showing....but there just isn't.
breathing smoke is bad for you, firemen has the increased risk of lung cancer too.
No, I don't vape or smoke but it's clear why vaping is safer
So no solid evidence, and breathing smoke, whether from burning building or tobacco or tree is worse for you than vaping.
Here's an idea, outlaw cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars...and let vaping be unregulated. Watch the lung cancer rates plummet.
Oxygen - the ultimate gateway drug. Once you start inhaling oxygen in a few years you'll move onto the smell of frying bacon, stopping to smell the roses, and eventually crack.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't know anyone who could knock back a pack a day of blunts. My mom would sometimes go through two packs. She died of lung cancer at 55.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I smoked when I was a teenager, quit in my twenties and went back to it a few years ago. I hung out with a few people that smoked cigars and thought I would never go back to cigarettes. After a few weeks my brain said "HELLO OLD FRIEND" to the nicotine.
I just quit 5 weeks ago and I can tell you it isn't just nicotine that keeps you smoking. I used nicotine lozenges to quit this time, but there was still a lot of willpower needed. I ate those lozenges like they were candy but I still felt a lot of withdrawal symptoms. Something besides nicotine keeps you smoking cigarettes.
I feel vaping, while a stupid fad, might get people to stop smoking. I don't trust the vape product people but if you need some cool new thing to quit maybe it's OK. You might go from vaping to smoking, but you might also keep using the gum or lozenges. I doubt it. I only know one person who used nicotine gum to quit and kept chewing the gum.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Watch nicotine addition sky rocket....
So, someone assumed while smoking tobacco causes addiction to nicotine, 'smoking' pure nicotine with a vapper does not cause addiction?
And to be sure, they even needed a study?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
FTA:
"The vaping industry, as well as traditional tobacco companies, are also gearing up for a lengthy fight with the F.D.A. over the campaign by the agency’s commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, to slash levels of nicotine in traditional cigarettes to nonaddictive or minimally addictive levels."
"The panel found evidence among studies it reviewed that vaping may prompt teenagers or young adults to try regular cigarettes, putting them at higher risk for addiction..."
"More intriguing was the report’s finding of moderate evidence that youths who use e-cigarettes before trying tobacco, are more likely to become more frequent and intense smokers."
As a long time smoker who switch to vaping, I think these are fantastic inventions from a harm reduction standpoint. As far as I've read, it's a far safer nicotine delivery system than inhaling burning plant products and by products, not to mention the hundreds of additives used for flavoring and to insure even burning, and I'm happy as a clam that I switched.
That said.
Who asked these scientists to study whether nicotine (a chemical we already know is addictive) is still addictive when inhaled as a vapor rather than in smoke? Of course it is.
Next issue is all these vape shops selling their wares to everyone in the world, including varieties with 0 nicotine. Sure, there might be a small market of smokers who have successfully weaned themselves down to 0mg of nicotine. But the far bigger market is likely kids who aren't nicotine dependent at all, and are just vaping because it's cool. Just like they used to start smoking. So, get them started on 0mg, and you've got customers. If they graduate to the nicotine versions, then you have even more lock-in.
In my mind, these should be considered medical devices and sold at pharmacies to people who are smokers, not to the millions of adolescents that are just attracted because of the cool clouds of smoke. But, of course, if these were only sold at pharmacies, we wouldn't have the wide variety of flavorings... Probably just a few knockoff tobacco flavors and a few knock off menthol flavors.
TLDR 1: Of course nicotine is addictive.
TLDR 2: Yes. We should have a discussion about responsible marketing of these devices. That'll never happen, though. Or it'll happen so hard and they'll clamp down so much that we'll all be pushed back into the waiting arms of the tobacco companies.
This kind of stuff drives me nuts. The title of this article is misleading. If you read through you'll find this piece:
"The panel found evidence among studies it reviewed that vaping may prompt teenagers or young adults to try regular cigarettes, putting them at higher risk for addiction, but that any significant linkage between e-cigarettes and long-term smoking has not been established"
From what I read it looks like there is no significant linkage. The article also didn't give any specifics. Based on my reading it sounds like someone may have tried a cigarette after vaping. I bet if you compared those numbers to those who have tried a cigarette without vaping you would probably see a corollary. This article seems to try imply that there is a larger linkage. It feels like folks are trying to slant this towards their own agenda.
I hate how people try to villainize vaping. Here are some facts as someone who has quit smoking by switching to vaping:
Now I would like to emphasize that vaping is a habit replacement for me. Habits can be a mother f***er to break. I think it's the habit that is what makes smoking so difficult to quit. Read a great book called, "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg. It was very eye opening. It's habits that are difficult to break. The physical addiction is over fairly quickly, but coming up with a habit replacement is what really made the difference for me quitting smoking and succeeding at it. I smoked for 15 years, tried quitting at least 15 times. I have been smoke free for nearly 3 years thanks to vaping.
Why keep vaping? Well see above. Also, the primary ingredients in most ejuice are vegetable glycerin (VG) and propylene glycol (PG). Both of which have been studied and been found to be safe. PG has been used in fog machines for years with no ill effects found.
Also, most of the studies that find toxins and the such related to vaping are from what's called a dry hit, meaning that you're essentially burning the wicking material because it doesn't have enough liquid, thus causing a different reaction than heating. One generally doesn't like the taste of a dry hit, it's nasty and if it happens you fix the issue by adding more liquid or replacing the atomizer. You still get more carcinogenics and toxic byproducts from a cigarette puff than a dry hit.
Not looking to start an argument, just wanted to put out what I've experienced and why articles like this tend to piss me off. As a rule I don't think anyone should start smoking. I would rather kids not vape too, it's a habit and there are risks of habit formation (even without nicotine, which creates an addiction on top of the habit); however, kids are going to want to rebel and b
If the government don't want people smoking then ban it. I don't have time for all of this "Ooo, it's so bad, people shouldn't do it. But we won't ban it."
And leave vaping alone, it's safe and fun for all.
The fact that it is still called "vaping" by people who should know better (ie, anyone over the age of 16) doesn't help either. The alternate name helps to perpetuate the mythology of it somehow being safe, or safer than smoking. Call a spade a spade, and call electronic smoking smoking. More so, call electronic smoking unsafe.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
*Cigarettes* are actually more addictive than heroin! Thanks to up to 600 ingredients, some of which pure poison, added to them.
Natural tobacco or pure nicotine is no more addictive than weed or coffee.
I know half a dozen people, who used vaping as a gateway to *getting rid of it*! ... all the way to zero ... was easy!
Because, surprise surprise, with vaping, suddenly, slowly reducing the nicotine content
The cigarette industry is one hell of a lying, manipulative, fake-study-creating piece of shit. I see them struggling like motherfuckers, winding like eels, creating bullshit like this every other day, just to get vaping banned, while their piuson sticks stay put. In Europe it's even worse, given how people smoke a lot more here, and the governments are a lot friendlier to these ... let's face it ... for-profit mass-murderers.
that's just fear mongering, nicotine is available now in many forms
besides, proven that nicotine in itself, meaning not smoked, is less addictive than caffeine.
no additional harm made by vaping mainstream product mixes, and many benefits to getting rid of smokeable tobacco products
Flue-cured tobacco used in chewing products, dip, snuff, etc. (pretty much all of it sold in the US) contains tons of fun stuff, e.g. tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which seem to be one of the biggest chemical hazards of it). This also applies to *some* tobacco extract vape flavorings, where they haven't been specifically removed. I'm going to continue to work under the assumption that it's not likely that the nicotine is the primary cause of the cancer (though there's no reason not to assume it wouldn't have synergistic effects with other 'fun stuff'), unless, perhaps, someone can point me to some studies on its carcinogenicity not involving far-above-normal concentrations of it.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
I notice that neither your reporting, nor the NYT piece, gives readers access to the press release or to the report itself.
Well, here's a piece which does.
https://vapenewsmagazine.com/vape-news/nasem-report-vaping-a-viable-harm-reduction-strategy/
Sugar included? Caffeine? Perhaps addictions to making irrational, inflammatory comments on the internet too? I think this site would be left without much of its userbase...
What do you need more ? It may not be like crack, but it has been demonstrated to be addictive. There is no need to gateway drug theory or having vaping cheaper or whatnot.
Uber does it pretty much nicely itself. There is enough article out there showing how bad they are, how bad they treat people, and are skirting laws on subcontracting and employment, putting potentially people at risk by not checking their driver, not imposing minimum pause, they tracked law enforcement and tried to avoid them with their app (that last one tells a LOT on whether a company is legit IMO) and in some country tried to bypass insurance law on driver in a pretense that since they are digital they don't need to do anything. And even with all those shenanigan, they still LOSE money. And I pass many others. I can't speak about lyft, but Uber ? They are bad.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
influencing me, they're turning me into a *present day science* skeptic. My self-described healthy dose of realism is being stroked the wrong way, every day by the current mods at what used to be referred to as the News for Nerds website. Thanks?
If this one isn't modded up to at least 2, you're all wet and proof for my hypothesis.
It is not the nicotine that kills you, it's the combustion of tobacco smoke and tarring up your lungs, in addition to 75 verified cancer inducing compounds, which kills you. Nicotine addiction, in my own experience, isn't much different than caffeine addiction, and is much MUCH easier to quit.
Swedish snus sounds incredibly safe (for a tobacco product) precisely because it avoids any smoke or risk of combustion greatly reducing unwanted chemical reactions. But, as you note, a lot of tobacco has various additives for flavor (which could include nitrosamines) and there's still all the heart attack/stroke risk from the nicotine.
Oh, and I'd imagine the whole thing with MJ is precisely from the above. It's not that there's zero risk because there's zero carcinogens. It's that daily usage of the carcinogenics would tend to be markedly less, even for heavy users relatively to most other tobacco. It's similar to the point that the risk of death from radiation isn't a linear function. The body has an innate ability to heal itself from mutation damage and carcinogens (and radiation) abound in the natural environment. So, as long as you don't tend to overwork your systems from certain levels of exposure, your risk of serious negative mutation is decently low until near the end of life when humans tend to build up enough critical failures to get cancer (specifically in the uterus/ovaries/prostate*, which are home to are part of a system that goes through substantially more generations than most other parts of the body).
* Actually, I'm not sure how much the ovaries (or testes) are actually part of this and it still seems oddly bizarre the prostate is part of this as well, but then I don't know enough biology so my hypothesis is probably bullshit. Of course it also stands to reason that the parts that do produce a lot of generations (blood) have stems cells to try to compensate (and even that's not enough with leukemia being a thing) and possibly abandon the nucleus for a reason while the sex organs are useless after one's sexual prime and evolution wouldn't select against them breaking down and causing an otherwise premature death. Again, lots of hypothesis and supposition, not really a lot of proof. Like the GP. :)
Smoke, or anything burnt, is a health risk (charred food for example is linked to colon cancer, lots of time by fireplaces has increased health risks). I'm sure vaping has problems though (food safe solvents may not be lung safe, I wouldn't be shocked if 400 degree air inhalation has problems too).
At the very least vaping lacks the issues with burning things (similarly it's thought snus is safer than traditional dip).
I'd be shocked if nicotine had no negative health effects, and somewhat surprised if frequent vaping nicotine free juices had none too (similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if both had other positive effects).
It's been proposed for example that nicotine interferes with the body's ability to fight cancer.
It's safe to assume that vaping is safer than smoking though. Better for the blood (no CO), less carcinogens (no burning). Also, it appears to generally have less bad cardiovascular effects short term (likely due to the lack of CO?).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Make drugs free and legal. Let people make their own decisions and pay for them. Stop being a nanny state!
Such a brave new world would be free of drug cartels and government pimps taxing drugs. The brave new world
would have drug uses sign DNRs so they don't get treatment related to drug use. This would include alcohol and tobacco.
There number of stateists who die yearly from drug use will help secure an Anarchy and Voluntaryist future for the clear minded.
Nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, and other such products are widely available in every drug store. Until Obamacare changes, you can even get them for free if you show up to your doctor and say the magic words "I want help to quit smoking"...
Where are all the people addicted to nicotine patches and gum, as opposed to some other form of tobacco that includes other things besides just pharmaceutical-grade nicotine?
Still, cigarette smoking has been plummeting in all age groups, so it's probably a net win. And hey, at least the kids aren't bright enough to buy 2CI on the dark net instead.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
the sun is bright and cows produce milk.
Slashdot, you literally posted an article informing us that nicotine is addictive.
It took a panel of "experts" to determine that inhaling nicotine was addicting?
What the Fuck!
What is wrong with the world?
How are people so fucking stoopid?
Of course vaping is addicting. Of course vaping is not good for you!
-a former user
It took a panel of scientists to figure this this shit out.