E-Cigarette use tripled between 2013 and 2014 among teens

[Martinus]

The main concern about e-cigarettes are that they may reduce the stigma associated with smoking (and thus encourage more people to try it) and so result in more taking up real cigarette smoking once they are hooked on nicotine.

Even if you discount the fact that slippery slope arguments are usually shitty logic, this does not seem to be the case, at least anecdotally. Having spoken to people who use them (or heard from such people being interviewed etc.) it seems the relation is actually the opposite - people abandon smoking in favour of e-cigarettes.

[Martinus]

The point I was thinking of though is that the use of e-cigs places both sides in an awkward spot: big tobacco, because it cuts into their market; and anti-smoking activists, because here is a form of smoking that is associated with much lower risk of harms (and much lower annoyance to non-smokers).

And this is exactly the point I was making when Raz called me an idiot. The problem is that there is big money both in big tobacco and anti-smoking activism (in fact, right now, largest donors to anti-smoking activists - at least some of them - are big tobacco companies). So there is going to be a lot of money poured into research trying to prove how e-cigarettes are bad for you.

[Sheilbh]

Even if you discount the fact that slippery slope arguments are usually shitty logic, this does not seem to be the case, at least anecdotally. Having spoken to people who use them (or heard from such people being interviewed etc.) it seems the relation is actually the opposite - people abandon smoking in favour of e-cigarettes.

As I say the stats from British research is that about the same percentage of e-cigarette users are non-smokers as for nicotine replacement therapies. So it inspires non-smokers about as much as nicotine gum or patches.

I think cracking down on e-cigarettes is a very stupid that'll be supported by the more myopic anti-smoking activists, the big tobacco companies that don't (yet) control the e-cig market and governments who are a bit on auto-pilot over this sort of thing.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I know quite well a guy who holds an executive job in one of the big tobacco corporations. I was surprised to learn from him how much cash they pour into anti-smoking NGOs and into trying to show to the public how they are not trying to "recruit new smokers", only to cater to the existing ones (which, obviously, is bullshit). So there really is not that much of a paradox in that big tobacco and anti-smoking activists often want the same thing.

[Martinus]

Even if you discount the fact that slippery slope arguments are usually shitty logic, this does not seem to be the case, at least anecdotally. Having spoken to people who use them (or heard from such people being interviewed etc.) it seems the relation is actually the opposite - people abandon smoking in favour of e-cigarettes.

As I say the stats from British research is that about the same percentage of e-cigarette users are non-smokers as for nicotine replacement therapies. So it inspires non-smokers about as much as nicotine gum or patches.

I think cracking down on e-cigarettes is a very stupid that'll be supported by the more myopic anti-smoking activists, the big tobacco companies that don't (yet) control the e-cig market and governments who are a bit on auto-pilot over this sort of thing.

Yeah, smokers have become the true pariahs and e-cigs really remedy that - so obviously this cannot be allowed.

[garbon]

I still hate e-cigs.

Is there a particular reason why?

Because whatevs and he can't just. Ohmygod. 

You feeling okay, buddy?

[Eddie Teach]

Probably just needs a cigarette.

[jimmy olsen]

Probably just needs a cigarette.

I think you mean e-cigarette.

[Norgy]

E-cigs are probably a better alternative for people who already smoke. But, really, starting off with them? Kids are just so uncool these days. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think cracking down on e-cigarettes is a very stupid that'll be supported by the more myopic anti-smoking activists

You mean the anti-tobacco activists.  There has been for quite a while a core activist group that wants nicotine in all forms to be banned.  Second-hand smoke was a convenient rallying cry that most other people could get behind.  Then e-cigs and Snus came along, and suddenly they had to come up with reasons to demonize those.  Enter the "gateway to cigarettes" argument that has been used to successfully ban all nicotine products from hundreds of US college campuses, and the "confusing to people" argument that has been used to get municipalities  and business owners to tack e-cigs on to their indoor smoking bans.  They are a temperance movement for nicotine.

[Siege]

The real issue this raises is 'is selling a highly addictive substance that won't, necessariily, kill you (or make you crazy or make your teeth fall out, like some other really addictive drugs) bad in and of itself, simply because it is highly addictive?'

Like video games?

Well, yeah. Though arguably video games are worse, because they take time people could be using for healthier pursuits.

Fuck, man. I hadn't thought of it that way.


Fuck strategy computer games. They have stolen my life.

[Josquius]

They're less annoying than fags, so let people kill themselves

[Caliga]

They're less annoying than fags, so let people kill themselves