You'd think there'd have been more studies into the health effects of these things by now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/04/16/high-school-middle-school-kids-now-use-more-e-cigs-than-tobacco-cdc/
Quote
High school, middle school kids now use more e-cigs than tobacco: CDC
By Brady Dennis April 16 at 1:00 PM
The number of middle and high school students using electronic cigarettes tripled between 2013 and 2014, according to government figures released Thursday, a startling increase that public health officials fear could reverse decades of efforts combating the scourge of smoking.
The use of e-cigarettes among teenagers has eclipsed the use of traditional cigarettes and all other tobacco products, a development that Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called "alarming" and "shocking."
"What's most surprising is how incredibly rapid the use of products other than cigarettes has increased," Frieden said in an interview, adding that some e-cigarette smokers would undoubtedly go on to use traditional cigarettes. "It is subjecting another generation of our children to an addictive substance."
The results, based on an annual survey of 22,000 students around the country and published Thursday by the CDC, detail a quickly evolving landscape of tobacco products that appeal to teenagers.
Anti-smoking advocates argue that the rise in the popularity of e-cigarettes stems in part from aggressive, largely unregulated marketing campaigns that Frieden said are "straight out of the playbook" of cigarette ads that targeted young people in earlier generations.
These are the same images, the same themes and the same role models that the cigarette industry used 50 years ago," said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "It's the Marlboro Man reborn. It's the Virginia Slims woman recreated, with the exact same effect. ... This is not an accident."
But advocates of e-cigarettes -- small devices that heat up flavored, nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor that is inhaled -- say the worries expressed by public health officials are premature and not backed up by data.
Cynthia Cabrera, executive director of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, an industry group, said her organization has long supported age restrictions and other measures to keep e-cigarettes out of the hands of minors. But at the same time, she said there's no definitive evidence e-cigarettes are a "gateway" to using traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products. On the contrary, she said, many teens have tried e-cigarettes in the past already were smokers.
"We need to not lose perspective about the potential these products have to eliminate harm from combusted tobacco," she said. "I suspect teens experiment with a lot of things. And I suspect anytime someone is not smoking a cigarette, that's a good thing."
"The CDC should really be jumping for joy at the fact that smoking rates are declining. This is a huge success," added Michael Siegel, a professor and tobacco control specialist at Boston University's School of Public Health. "Instead, they are using this as another opportunity to demonize e-cigarettes."
Siegel said he agrees that minors shouldn't have access to any tobacco product. But he said the CDC numbers suggest that rather than serving as a gateway to cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use might be diverting teens from traditional cigarettes, which still kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. "That's a good thing," he said.
While tobacco giants such as Lorillard and Altria have indeed purchased e-cigarette companies in recent years, Cabrera disputed that those marketing campaigns target underage smokers. And she said the bulk of e-cigarette marketing is still done by hundreds of small companies whose ads on the internet and other platforms target only adults.
"If you're thinking this is Big Tobacco redux, that's the wrong thinking," she said.
This much seems certain: Teens are experimenting as much as ever. Roughly a quarter of high school students and near 8 percent of middle school students still report using a tobacco product at least once during the past 30 days.
But between 2013 and 2014, the findings show, e-cigarette use among high school students had increased from 4.5 percent to 13.4 percent. Usage also more than tripled among middle school students, according to the findings. Only among black students was another tobacco product, cigars, more popular than e-cigarettes, the CDC said.
During that same period, the use of hookahs — water pipes that are used to smoke specially made tobacco — roughly doubled for middle and high school students, also eclipsing the use of regular cigarettes.
Meanwhile, use of conventional cigarettes sank to the lowest levels in years. According to the CDC, 9.2 percent of high school students and 2.5 percent of middle school students reported smoking a cigarette over the past month.
On the surface, that might seems like good news, given the hundreds of thousands of Americans that still die from smoking each year. And it might be. "The drop in cigarette use is historic, with enormous public health significance," Myers said. But, he was quick to add, "the explosion of e-cigarette use among kids means these products are being taken up in record numbers with totally unknown long-term consequences that could potentially undermine all the progress we've made."
Last April, the Food and Drug Administration announced that for the first time it would begin to regulate e-cigarettes, which has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry in the United States. The agency said its plan would force manufacturers to curb sales to minors, place health warning labels on their products and disclose the ingredients in e-cigarettes. The initial proposals stopped short of halting online sales of e-cigarettes, restricting television advertising or banning the use of candy and fruit flavorings that critics say are intended to appeal to young smokers.
Health effects of tobacco? Already been done.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 16, 2015, 10:18:58 PM
Health effects of tobacco? Already been done.
The image says they produce "carcinogens and toxic chemicals. However they might be safer than regular cigarettes because they don't release tar, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and other poisons found in cigarette smoke."
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 16, 2015, 10:18:58 PM
Health effects of tobacco? Already been done.
I don't believe effects of tobacco are the main health issue with cigarettes. But nice try.
It's good to know that addiction isn't a health issue. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 16, 2015, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 16, 2015, 10:18:58 PM
Health effects of tobacco? Already been done.
The image says they produce "carcinogens and toxic chemicals. However they might be safer than regular cigarettes because they don't release tar, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and other poisons found in cigarette smoke."
It seems like a no brainer that e-cigarettes would be less bad for you than normal cigarettes - but then again there is an issue of consumption patterns as it is much easier to "chain-smoke" with e-cigarettes than with normal cigarettes.
Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners (as there are no issues with second hand smoking and social nuisance aspect - so they are no worse than, say, drinking or eating unhealthy foods) and you have a pretty muddled situation and a lot of untrustworthy sources around.
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
Why do we care about what people do with their lives?
This is a parenting issue, and nothing else.
If parent can't control their kids that's their problem.
Bottom line, do not try to legislate this thing more than already is.
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
If parent can't control their kids that's their problem.
It takes a village man. Besides, this is not the 1700s anymore. 21st century parents work outside the home. Kids go to school. We don't have them down on the farm 24/7 until they are adults anymore. Society is our co-parent. Probably was in the 1700s as well really.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
If parent can't control their kids that's their problem.
It takes a village man. Besides, this is not the 1700s anymore. 21st century parents work outside the home. Kids go to school. We don't have them down on the farm 24/7 until they are adults anymore. Society is our co-parent. Probably was in the 1700s as well really.
I hear virtual schools are becoming the rage...
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:14:37 AM
I hear virtual schools are becoming the rage...
And they are regulated as well.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
"Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners "
They have failed to address the the main issue, which is that cigarettes are carcinogen.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
"Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners "
They have failed to address the the main issue, which is that cigarettes are carcinogen.
E-cigarettes, since they do not actually rely on burning stuff as the mechanism for getting the drug into one's lungs, are comparatively much less carcenogenic than real cigarettes.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract
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.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract
Be concerned all you want, JCO. Come back with solid data showing an uptick in youngsters smoking due to e-cigs or GTFO.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Be concerned all you want, JCO. Come back with solid data showing an uptick in youngsters smoking due to e-cigs or GTFO.
Fair.
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).
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?'
This is a harder 'sell' that a highly addictive substance that also does all sorts of bad things to you.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Be concerned all you want, JCO. Come back with solid data showing an uptick in youngsters smoking due to e-cigs or GTFO.
Fair.
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).
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?'
This is a harder 'sell' that a highly addictive substance that also does all sorts of bad things to you.
Understandable. But I think a lot of the concern is that OMG kids are doing something we don't want them to do and that is just horrible, plus these things are scary because they look like cigarettes.
If you're* gonna sit around and worry about something, worry about the growing heroin use that is actually killing people.
*I don't mean you personally, of course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 17, 2015, 01:36:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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?
:D
Well, yeah. Though arguably video games are worse, because they take time people could be using for healthier pursuits.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
"Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners "
They have failed to address the the main issue, which is that cigarettes are carcinogen.
E-cigarettes, since they do not actually rely on burning stuff as the mechanism for getting the drug into one's lungs, are comparatively much less carcenogenic than real cigarettes.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract)
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.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract (http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract)
Like 90% less?
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:53:49 PM
Well, yeah. Though arguably video games are worse, because they take time people could be using for healthier pursuits.
Watching porn and masturbating? I guess it does build up cardiovascular strength.
I was at the airport a few months back and some chick sitting next to me at the gate started smoking one of those. :wacko:
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:12:54 PM
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.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract
The main concern is puritanism.
All the stats so far show the overwhelming majority of people on e-cigarettes are either smokers or ex-smokers. Balancing a real public health issue of people quitting smoking against a nebulous one of 'reducing stigma' should be a no brainer.
See the piece by Derek Yach:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/health/features-health/cover-feature/9442271/e-cigarettes-save-lives/
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 02:09:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
"Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners "
They have failed to address the the main issue, which is that cigarettes are carcinogen.
E-cigarettes, since they do not actually rely on burning stuff as the mechanism for getting the drug into one's lungs, are comparatively much less carcenogenic than real cigarettes.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract)
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.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract (http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract)
Like 90% less?
At least.
From the study:
QuoteResults We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2015, 04:18:47 PM
The main concern is puritanism.
All the stats so far show the overwhelming majority of people on e-cigarettes are either smokers or ex-smokers. Balancing a real public health issue of people quitting smoking against a nebulous one of 'reducing stigma' should be a no brainer.
See the piece by Derek Yach:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/health/features-health/cover-feature/9442271/e-cigarettes-save-lives/
I would tend to agree.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2015, 01:11:05 AM
You're an idiot. The main issue with cigarettes is that they are known carcinogen.
How does that contradict anything I said?
"Add to that the fact that many tobacco giants have a vital interest in curbing e-cigarette industry, and that e-cigarettes artfully side-step 90% of all concerns raised against smoking by anti-tobacco campaigners "
They have failed to address the the main issue, which is that cigarettes are carcinogen.
E-cigarettes, since they do not actually rely on burning stuff as the mechanism for getting the drug into one's lungs, are comparatively much less carcenogenic than real cigarettes.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract
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.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/33/8/952.abstract
Given how much cigarette use fell among young people during that time frame, it doesn't seem to be a valid concern.
I still hate e-cigs.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2015, 03:30:26 AM
I still hate e-cigs.
Is there a particular reason why?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 18, 2015, 04:58:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2015, 03:30:26 AM
I still hate e-cigs.
Is there a particular reason why?
Because whatevs and he can't just. Ohmygod. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:12:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2015, 05:47:31 AM
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.
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. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2015, 05:52:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2015, 05:47:31 AM
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. ;)
Probably just needs a cigarette.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2015, 03:16:51 AM
Probably just needs a cigarette.
I think you mean e-cigarette.
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2015, 05:52:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:53:49 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 17, 2015, 01:36:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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?
:D
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.
They're less annoying than fags, so let people kill themselves
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2015, 05:00:00 PM
They're less annoying than fags, so let people kill themselves
:sleep: