Nicotine is harmful, no matter how it is ingested! I don 't know how that fact can be made any more clear. Smokeless tobacco will kill you even faster than cigarettes. Mouth and throat cancers are virulent. You'll lose your teeth, at the very least. And, nicotine gum will never help you quit. It's really tough to go cold turkey, (I've done it twice) but anyone can do it, if I can. Learn your triggers, drink water, walk, and avoid enablers, as well as booze and coffee. Tell yourself that there are lots of things you CAN'T control, but this isn't one of them. Who's in charge? Hang in there, addicts.
4
Bluenoses should rejoice in having the support of the NY Times editorial board. Who knows what other future "sins" can be criminalized with this mighty organ of opinion on their side?
Seriously, why do you imagine people smoked in the first place? It was to get the nicotine hit. It's not a hugely addictive drug but there are always those who will become addicted to anything (including meddling in other people's freedoms, the worst addiction of all). And of course we have the "protect the kids" mantra to fall back on, the justification for any and all blue laws.
It's really shameful of this newspaper to become yet another voice for removing freedom of choice from people, especially as it wraps itself in the First Amendment whenever anyone threatens its own liberties.
Seriously, why do you imagine people smoked in the first place? It was to get the nicotine hit. It's not a hugely addictive drug but there are always those who will become addicted to anything (including meddling in other people's freedoms, the worst addiction of all). And of course we have the "protect the kids" mantra to fall back on, the justification for any and all blue laws.
It's really shameful of this newspaper to become yet another voice for removing freedom of choice from people, especially as it wraps itself in the First Amendment whenever anyone threatens its own liberties.
13
Who are these "experts" the article refers to, and what is their financial interest in being against e-cigarettes? Why is the NYT against them when there is no scientific proof they are harmful?
9
I smoked as a teenager, but haven't had a cigarette in 20 years. I was lucky: it was easy for me to quit.
The fact is that for many people, nicotine both calms them down and intensifies focus and alertness. E-cigs may cause dependence at some level, but you know what? So what? What do you think of SSRIs? Of ADD drugs? Every substance that is effective has side effects, and many legitimate pharmaceutical products cause dependence and long-term harm too. And yet TV abounds with commercials for all kinds of drugs whose long-term effects are unknown.
The focus on anything nicotine-related is silly. It's become a witch hunt. Yes, e-cig makers have an interest in peddling their drug. That fact does not mean it's a horrible thing that should be banned.
The fact is that for many people, nicotine both calms them down and intensifies focus and alertness. E-cigs may cause dependence at some level, but you know what? So what? What do you think of SSRIs? Of ADD drugs? Every substance that is effective has side effects, and many legitimate pharmaceutical products cause dependence and long-term harm too. And yet TV abounds with commercials for all kinds of drugs whose long-term effects are unknown.
The focus on anything nicotine-related is silly. It's become a witch hunt. Yes, e-cig makers have an interest in peddling their drug. That fact does not mean it's a horrible thing that should be banned.
15
I don't smoke, never do. But I think a lot of these young folks are going to become addicted to nicotine either way. I guess I'd rather have them using the new stuff, rather than being exposed to all the toxins and carcinogens that come along with traditional cigarettes.
It seems to me your approach is like preaching abstinence as an effective birth control method to high school students.
Jim
It seems to me your approach is like preaching abstinence as an effective birth control method to high school students.
Jim
9
So much misinformation on one place. Come on NYT, at least get someone with a cursory knowledge of the topic to write about it. We've moved on from Reefer Madness to e-Cig Madness.
14
It is well known that smoking causes early aging, damage to small blood vessels, and increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Is that because of the nicotine or something else? If it is because of nicotine, then the same should be expected from ecigs. Nicotine increases blood pressure, is a vasoconstrictor and increases heart rate. I understand the argument fhat ecigs are less harmful to the lungs and less likely to cause cancer, but what about all the cardio-vascular effects and early aging?
7
Seriously?
"they play down other harms and risks, which are also potentially dangerous" - yet, the article does not name one.
It continues to group together ecigs with smokeless tobacco, and any health risks named in the article are clearly attributed to smokeless tobacco (snus). Taking the proven health risks associated with one form and lumping it into another, clearly safer and exponentially less dangerous product? Someone should be demoted, at least. The ecig opponent is going to use these poorly written statements as evidence against ecigs. Particularly the final paragraphs that suddenly move into snus and its cancer association. ECIGS ARE NOT SNUS. Please, stop trying to lump all nicotine products together.
"It is also possible that once addicted to nicotine, young people will progress to smoking traditional cigarettes." - THIS is journalism?! The same article states, just sentences earlier, that teenage smoking is DOWN! By what proof is this statement written? Again, ecig use is up, cigarette use is down, but the author concludes that ecigs will lead to cigarette use. I mean, honestly, who is reviewing these articles? Bias is coming out of the wahzoo here... completely unprofessional. You let me down today NYT.
"they play down other harms and risks, which are also potentially dangerous" - yet, the article does not name one.
It continues to group together ecigs with smokeless tobacco, and any health risks named in the article are clearly attributed to smokeless tobacco (snus). Taking the proven health risks associated with one form and lumping it into another, clearly safer and exponentially less dangerous product? Someone should be demoted, at least. The ecig opponent is going to use these poorly written statements as evidence against ecigs. Particularly the final paragraphs that suddenly move into snus and its cancer association. ECIGS ARE NOT SNUS. Please, stop trying to lump all nicotine products together.
"It is also possible that once addicted to nicotine, young people will progress to smoking traditional cigarettes." - THIS is journalism?! The same article states, just sentences earlier, that teenage smoking is DOWN! By what proof is this statement written? Again, ecig use is up, cigarette use is down, but the author concludes that ecigs will lead to cigarette use. I mean, honestly, who is reviewing these articles? Bias is coming out of the wahzoo here... completely unprofessional. You let me down today NYT.
26
Wake up N Y Times! When are you going to start advocating for proof that new products such as these cause no harm BEFORE they are allowed to be sold! Duh!
5
E-cigarettes are not harmless but they are not as harmful as smoking cigarettes. Many people seem to think that difference makes e-cigarettes an innocent vice instead of considering the likely risks of using them, a rather silly way of managing ones choices.
Nicotine is a poison. The nicotine in one pack of cigarettes is more than a lethal dose if taken all at once but many smokers go through two and more packs of cigarettes in a day without ever seeking medical help for nicotine poisoning. Nicotine narrows blood vessels and makes the heart work harder. Nicotine affects the developing brain, so teens using it are more at risk of affecting their cognitive potentials than are adults. The products of burning hydrocarbon compounds include carcinogens and many potentially harmful substances are added to cigarettes to make them easier to inhale, which increases the risk of many illnesses and health problems in addition to those from nicotine. Cigarettes are hazardous to one's health but does that mean that e-cigarettes are not?
There needs to be a body of data big enough to make statistically significant calculations of the risks before any reputable scientist can definitively assert that e-cigarettes produce specific risks. The e-cigarette users and promoters are ignoring what is known about nicotine and instead have chosen a course of behavior that relies upon empirical evidence alone, so they will use until enough people have been harmed to clearly indicate the risks.
Nicotine is a poison. The nicotine in one pack of cigarettes is more than a lethal dose if taken all at once but many smokers go through two and more packs of cigarettes in a day without ever seeking medical help for nicotine poisoning. Nicotine narrows blood vessels and makes the heart work harder. Nicotine affects the developing brain, so teens using it are more at risk of affecting their cognitive potentials than are adults. The products of burning hydrocarbon compounds include carcinogens and many potentially harmful substances are added to cigarettes to make them easier to inhale, which increases the risk of many illnesses and health problems in addition to those from nicotine. Cigarettes are hazardous to one's health but does that mean that e-cigarettes are not?
There needs to be a body of data big enough to make statistically significant calculations of the risks before any reputable scientist can definitively assert that e-cigarettes produce specific risks. The e-cigarette users and promoters are ignoring what is known about nicotine and instead have chosen a course of behavior that relies upon empirical evidence alone, so they will use until enough people have been harmed to clearly indicate the risks.
5
So, the NYT position is that abstinence is the best policy to dissuade youth from potentially dangerous, yet pleasurable behaviour of which those in a position of authority disapprove. Finally, a social policy that liberals and conservatives agree on.
16
While I agree with many of the comments here that this editorial does take an overly aggressive stance on a product that provides many benefits to long term smokers, I think they may be missing the point.
I think everyone can agree that e-cigarettes are preferable to real cigarettes as they allow the user to slowly wean themselves off of nicotine. That being said, due to the fact that much of the science on the product is inconclusive, it should be more heavily regulated. We need to ensure that all of the products being sold in the United States are produced to a certain standard. There have been numerous reports regarding the malfunctions of E-cigarettes imported from China and the health effects those have had. While we cannot draw broad conclusions from a few isolated incidents, I think it is clear that there should be more oversight of these products.
I think everyone can agree that e-cigarettes are preferable to real cigarettes as they allow the user to slowly wean themselves off of nicotine. That being said, due to the fact that much of the science on the product is inconclusive, it should be more heavily regulated. We need to ensure that all of the products being sold in the United States are produced to a certain standard. There have been numerous reports regarding the malfunctions of E-cigarettes imported from China and the health effects those have had. While we cannot draw broad conclusions from a few isolated incidents, I think it is clear that there should be more oversight of these products.
5
There is a fair amount of misdirection being tossed about when it comes to justifying the promotion and use of e-cigs as nicotine delivery devices. Nicotine is not "as addictive as caffeine" in anybody's estimation. Nicotine has more severe withdrawal symptoms and a much higher level of dependence (difficulty to quit) than caffeine. As well, the claim that inhaling vaporized liquid nicotine is safer than smoking cigarettes is a ridiculous and irrelevant claim. It's like saying standing in the middle of a suburban street is safer than standing in the middle of a highway. Well maybe, but both might kill you. Why would we be pushing either one of these behaviors on young people? Addiction is not good whether it's addiction to a substance that kills you quickly or a substance that kills you slowly. Tobacco companies cannot stay in business unless people stay addicted to nicotine.
15
Smokeless tobacco(or snuff) is more dangerous than smoking. It is so because you get more concentrated carcinogens right against the tissues of your mouth and a much higher dose of nicotine in the bloodstream. Don't fool yourself. Just as Tony Gwynn. Oh wait. he died of cancer of the mouth after years of using smokeless tobacco. He did make a statement about his tobacco use before he passed away though.
17
A dear friend of mine quit smoking combustibles and started smoking e-cigs about a year ago because of health concerns. Her consumption went from a few cigarettes per day smoked outdoors to the equivalent of 2 packs a day (the e-cig claim of equivalency) smoked indoors. Her blood pressure problem has worsened, but she is more addicted to nicotine than ever before. I'm not advocating outlawing e-cigs or cigarettes, but honest warning labels and prohibition of marketing to minors might save lives.
43
"It is also possible that using e-igs will lead teenagers to use real cigarettes."
Sure. It's possible.
If that's now the standard, we've just opened one huge door. It's possible that the core of the moon is made of Brie. It's possible we're all figures in somebody else's dream.
For goodness' sake. Get a grip, NY Times.
Sure. It's possible.
If that's now the standard, we've just opened one huge door. It's possible that the core of the moon is made of Brie. It's possible we're all figures in somebody else's dream.
For goodness' sake. Get a grip, NY Times.
24
In our free society where the cart is always before the horse$- pick your poison!
Cell phones-energy drinks( why do we need fake energy?) gadgets and supplements and other addictions--work, sex, god. We are a place uncomfortable in reality. And if we make are our realities, just sit back and wait for the next surprise. And we are the most intelligent beings on the planet?
Cell phones-energy drinks( why do we need fake energy?) gadgets and supplements and other addictions--work, sex, god. We are a place uncomfortable in reality. And if we make are our realities, just sit back and wait for the next surprise. And we are the most intelligent beings on the planet?
3
It would help to call this what it is. The tobacco companies have been in the business of creating drug addicts. People who use these products regularly are drug addicts. We, as a society, should discourage drug addiction.
15
Swedish Match is essentially asking the FDA to endorse its product right on the package. That is absurd.
4
I lived in Sweden for years and can testify to the success of snus, though it is largely confined to men. Very few women use it.
E-cigs are less dangerous, not just to the user but to those around. Let people smoke if they want to. The big problem with smoking has always been its detrimental effects on others. E-cigs solves that. So who cares if some people like their tobacco and are willing to accept the risks? Alcohol kills, sugar kills, etc.etc. Enough with the alarmism and self-righteous prohibition tactics.
E-cigs are less dangerous, not just to the user but to those around. Let people smoke if they want to. The big problem with smoking has always been its detrimental effects on others. E-cigs solves that. So who cares if some people like their tobacco and are willing to accept the risks? Alcohol kills, sugar kills, etc.etc. Enough with the alarmism and self-righteous prohibition tactics.
20
I find it very interesting that the NY Times Editorial Board is Very Concerned with smokeless tobacco products, particularly E-cigs, which aren't actually tobacco at all.
Yet, the same EB hasn't had the same Concern over the spreading use of marijuana, which has greatly increased in power via elevated levels of THC as of late.
Yet, the same EB hasn't had the same Concern over the spreading use of marijuana, which has greatly increased in power via elevated levels of THC as of late.
8
Warning that smokeless nicotine and tobacco products are less of a health risk than burned tobacco products is like saying the risk of death from air travel is significantly less than getting hit by a car. The risks associated with product use need to be carefully tested to determine needed regulation - this is a powerful drug. Haven't we been down this road?
8
I am growing weary of commentators claiming that e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes. While there are theoretical reasons to believe that this may be true, it is far from proven. Weren't similar claims made for low tar cigarettes back in the 60's and 70's?
As vaping devices and the liquids that go into them are largely unregulated, we really don't know what is in those clouds of vapor. Reports of heavy metal particles from some devices are particularly disturbing, as are reports that devices can be modified to deliver marijuana oil and other drugs.
These devices need to be regulated. Let's not start an uncontrolled experiment on our kids that may have us looking back 20 years from now and wondering "what were we thinking?"
As vaping devices and the liquids that go into them are largely unregulated, we really don't know what is in those clouds of vapor. Reports of heavy metal particles from some devices are particularly disturbing, as are reports that devices can be modified to deliver marijuana oil and other drugs.
These devices need to be regulated. Let's not start an uncontrolled experiment on our kids that may have us looking back 20 years from now and wondering "what were we thinking?"
15
'It's to protect the children' has become the new last refuge of a scoundrel.
4
Arguing that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco is like arguing that playing Russian Roulette with a revolver loaded with one bullet is safer than playing with a revolver loaded with six bullets.
8
This scare tactic argument has been going on for a few years now with NO scientific proof. Surely we should have something by now showing, even remotely, ecigs are so dangerous. We don't. Nicotine patches and gum have been on the market for years with no similar accusations. They are no different, both deliver nicotine. Why then are ecigs being vilified and patches and gums are not?
16
I guess "healthier" tobacco is this decade's "clean " coal.
10
"... the (F.D.A.) should ... restrict television marketing on shows watched by young people."
Television advertising propelled the cigarette industry in the 1950s and 1960s, with tobacco companies dominating advertising "share of voice." Ubiquitous TV ads normalized the habit -- with some ads even hinting at the health benefits -- thus making smoking appear safe and aspirational.
I was one of the unlucky teens who aspired to grow up and become more like male film stars such as Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner (who pitched cigarettes and later died of smoking related diseases). The Marlboro Man was one of my personal heroes. So I started trying cigarettes at age 14 and became hooked by age 15. Thankfully, I was able to kick the habit seven years later, and that became easier because television advertising for cigarettes was entirely banned beginning January 2, 1971.
The only restriction on television marketing that has a chance to mitigate teen adoption of e-cigarettes is a complete ban, same as cigarette advertising. Anyone who thinks micro-targeting demographic segments via television without substantial spillover to teen viewers doesn't understand TV advertising. Plus, the most compelling, come-hither branding for nicotine products happens with television ads (and now online videos), making e-cigarettes appear compelling, sexy, and mature.
As Marshall McLuhan instructed in 1964, "The medium is the message."
Television advertising propelled the cigarette industry in the 1950s and 1960s, with tobacco companies dominating advertising "share of voice." Ubiquitous TV ads normalized the habit -- with some ads even hinting at the health benefits -- thus making smoking appear safe and aspirational.
I was one of the unlucky teens who aspired to grow up and become more like male film stars such as Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner (who pitched cigarettes and later died of smoking related diseases). The Marlboro Man was one of my personal heroes. So I started trying cigarettes at age 14 and became hooked by age 15. Thankfully, I was able to kick the habit seven years later, and that became easier because television advertising for cigarettes was entirely banned beginning January 2, 1971.
The only restriction on television marketing that has a chance to mitigate teen adoption of e-cigarettes is a complete ban, same as cigarette advertising. Anyone who thinks micro-targeting demographic segments via television without substantial spillover to teen viewers doesn't understand TV advertising. Plus, the most compelling, come-hither branding for nicotine products happens with television ads (and now online videos), making e-cigarettes appear compelling, sexy, and mature.
As Marshall McLuhan instructed in 1964, "The medium is the message."
9
If the cigarette companies, long before many people were making claims that smoking was injurious to one's health, hadn't managed to get cigarettes excluded from what was defined as drugs and food under federal law, all forms of cigarette products would have been banned long ago.
2
Let's not kid ourselves about the safety of electronic cigarettes. I've witnessed several instances of young adults with e-cig necklaces dangling from their necks trying to bum the old original at clubs or on the street. Yep, still dying for a smoke.
2
The editorial said: "Nicotine can harm the developing adolescent brain and cause lasting cognitive damage." What is the basis for that statement? I know I've seen studies that suggest it can help encourage cognition in people with Alzheimer's disease.
6
A substantial amount of the focus of the article centers around the idea that e-cigarettes and snus are gateway methods of nicotine consumption that will inevitably lead to the use of traditional, carcinogenic tobacco products. However, the Editorial Board cites a study that claims, "the percentage of high school students who smoke traditional cigarettes dropped sharply last year, to 9.2 percent" and that, "they attribute this trend to e-cigarette use." Based off of the only empirical evidence cited in this article it seems that, if anything, e-cigarettes, snus, and other safer tobacco products are being used to quit or incentivizing teens to eschew cigarettes altogether rather than causing teens to "progress on to cigarette smoking."
3
Live and let live I say, or perhaps in this case it's more live and let die. Many people seem to have a death wish and want to consume legal products they know will kill them. My concern is more about whether they will kill others.
Cigarettes are banned in bars and restaurants because of the toxic second hand smoke. I would prefer they be banned from smoking outside of their own personal homes and/or cars. E-Cigs emit vapor. What I want to know, and no one has addressed in anything I've read to far, is if nicotine is present in that vapor. If not, go ahead and light up in public.
Cigarettes are banned in bars and restaurants because of the toxic second hand smoke. I would prefer they be banned from smoking outside of their own personal homes and/or cars. E-Cigs emit vapor. What I want to know, and no one has addressed in anything I've read to far, is if nicotine is present in that vapor. If not, go ahead and light up in public.
2
After close to 40 years of hardcore cigarette smoking (that hook was in DEEP, obviously), a friend suggested I try vaping as a means of quitting. It is now almost a year and a half later, and I have not had a single puff of a cigarette. The change in my life has been nothing short of breathtaking, pun intended. After a year, I started exercising, and for the first time in my adult life, I am RUNNING. As in, MILES. I am not gasping for breath. Yes, I am still addicted to nicotine, but after a few months the amount of vaping I was doing had been halved. I am slowly dropping the nicotine strength, with the goal of being completely nicotine free. I know that the damage of smoking cigarettes for so many years is something I'm going to have to deal with, but the fact that I have gotten off them after all this time is HUGE. Yes, some regulation is absolutely necessary, as is limiting vape products for adult use only. But it bothers me to only read the negative articles about vaping and never see anything written about the positive effect it has had in the lives of people like me.
12
I, for one, would rather allow e-cig use in bars rather than have to fight my way around cigarette smokers blocking the narrow streets of my neighborhood blowing carcinogens in my face and conversing in the higher voices that alcohol use requires and bar owners could get rid of those hypocritical "Be kind to our neighbors.." signs.
5
How many U.S. taxpayer dollars will Congress spend to subsidize tobacco farmers this year?
8
The ironic thing is by pushing against e-cigs, people will go back to smoking regular cigarettes. It is a healthier alternative even though nicotine is addictive. The NYT needs to realize you can use government to control people's behavior (with their smoking habits); just make them aware of the consequences.
2
Amazing. With all the problems in the U.S., for the Times to spend its resources going after e-cigarettes because they look like cigarettes is absurd. People will make their own choices and don't need media lectures about habits.
5
Explain the difference between advertising and media lectures.
This editorial reminds me of those written as recently as 10 or so years ago arguing about the harmful effects of marijuana, including the same false claim of "gateway" status. Hasn't the Times recently woken up about how wrong that was, and if so, why apply it again to a product which has the potential to save lives as a viable alternative to tobacco?
To my second point, that the Editorial Board then went on to conflate vaporized nicotine with smokeless tobacco is outright misleading and deceptive. Snus and other forms of oral tobacco surely have potential harmful effects, including cancer, and Swedish Match all but admits that, only wanting labelling which compares it more favorably to cigarettes. The Times should print a retraction for that alone.
To my second point, that the Editorial Board then went on to conflate vaporized nicotine with smokeless tobacco is outright misleading and deceptive. Snus and other forms of oral tobacco surely have potential harmful effects, including cancer, and Swedish Match all but admits that, only wanting labelling which compares it more favorably to cigarettes. The Times should print a retraction for that alone.
8
The POV expressed here amounts to throwing the baby out with the (public health) bathwater. It's mystifying that the CDC insists on calling e-cigarettes a "gateway" to combustibles when there is absolutely zero evidence of this, and there's actually growing evidence that e-cigs may actually deter tobacco cigarette use, particularly among teenagers. A reasonable person can only conclude that the organization is influenced by massive lobbying from either or both 1) pharmaceutical companies whose smoking cessation products have largely failed many smokers, and whose sales have declined since e-cigarettes have grown popular; 2) tobacco companies, who are required to fund anti-smoking public service campaigns per the terms of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. These campaigns, too, have largely failed to eradicate smoking.
Electronic cigarettes represent fresh hope for many smokers who have struggled to quite combustibles. Naturally, they come with risks. But there is simply no comparison between nicotine and vapor and the toxins released by burning tobacco. It is short-sighted in the extreme and likely deleterious to public health, to overregulate electronic cigarettes and vapor products.
Electronic cigarettes represent fresh hope for many smokers who have struggled to quite combustibles. Naturally, they come with risks. But there is simply no comparison between nicotine and vapor and the toxins released by burning tobacco. It is short-sighted in the extreme and likely deleterious to public health, to overregulate electronic cigarettes and vapor products.
10
I think the biggest problem for us is how to define and then enforce a universal quality of life.
Some people like to smoke. It's part of their sense of well-being. I don't smoke but I did. At that time, it meant something to me.
We can't keep trying to define what's in somebody else's best interests, because as long as we are mortal - and so far, we all are - "best interests" vary enormously. E-cigarettes are smoked and evidently suit some people, regardless of the health risks. So, instead of using the Carrie Nation approach, I prefer a little tolerance, and a recognition that we are - for the most part - happy with our "vices." Just keep them away from minors, and as far as I'm concerned, they are on par with alcohol, coffee and the too many calories that often comfort us.
Some people like to smoke. It's part of their sense of well-being. I don't smoke but I did. At that time, it meant something to me.
We can't keep trying to define what's in somebody else's best interests, because as long as we are mortal - and so far, we all are - "best interests" vary enormously. E-cigarettes are smoked and evidently suit some people, regardless of the health risks. So, instead of using the Carrie Nation approach, I prefer a little tolerance, and a recognition that we are - for the most part - happy with our "vices." Just keep them away from minors, and as far as I'm concerned, they are on par with alcohol, coffee and the too many calories that often comfort us.
8
People who think that e-cigarettes are harmless suffer from a very serious problem, ignorance.
Tobacco has been an important product in the economy going right back to the 1600's. Tobacco leaves decorate the stair well posts next to the old U.S. Senate chambers in the nation's Capitol. The U.S. Government promoted tobacco sales abroad long after the Surgeon General had announced that smoking was hazardous to people's health. Tobacco stocks have been good performers in the portfolios of investors, always.
Most people do not smoke and consider cigarette smoke to be hazardous without any redeeming value to justify exposing themselves to it. Anyone exposed to cigarette smoke regularly is at twice the risk of developing ghastly illnesses than they would if not exposed. Nicotine is a powerful poison, the nicotine in one pack of cigarettes is more than enough to kill anyone.
The addictive properties of nicotine are not appreciated by most non-smokers, it is not like that due to other substances from alcohol to methamphetamines which produce strong cravings and agonizing withdrawal symptoms. It's effects are mild, it's cravings are mild, and the withdrawal affects are mild. it's spectacularly mediocre as an additive substance but people still have a hard time giving it up. Mark Twain once said that quitting smoking was easy, he'd done it a thousand times. But once one has mastered not smoking again, the addiction is done and the cravings diminish to nothing.
Tobacco has been an important product in the economy going right back to the 1600's. Tobacco leaves decorate the stair well posts next to the old U.S. Senate chambers in the nation's Capitol. The U.S. Government promoted tobacco sales abroad long after the Surgeon General had announced that smoking was hazardous to people's health. Tobacco stocks have been good performers in the portfolios of investors, always.
Most people do not smoke and consider cigarette smoke to be hazardous without any redeeming value to justify exposing themselves to it. Anyone exposed to cigarette smoke regularly is at twice the risk of developing ghastly illnesses than they would if not exposed. Nicotine is a powerful poison, the nicotine in one pack of cigarettes is more than enough to kill anyone.
The addictive properties of nicotine are not appreciated by most non-smokers, it is not like that due to other substances from alcohol to methamphetamines which produce strong cravings and agonizing withdrawal symptoms. It's effects are mild, it's cravings are mild, and the withdrawal affects are mild. it's spectacularly mediocre as an additive substance but people still have a hard time giving it up. Mark Twain once said that quitting smoking was easy, he'd done it a thousand times. But once one has mastered not smoking again, the addiction is done and the cravings diminish to nothing.
4
I don't think these should be used without F.D.A. approval and perhaps a doctor's prescription. I don't think tobacco should be used either.
2
Just because you don't think people should do something does not mean there should be a law against it.
I don't think people should eat so much they become obese, but I don't think doughnuts and cheeseburgers should be illegal.
I don't think people should eat so much they become obese, but I don't think doughnuts and cheeseburgers should be illegal.
2
There is one massive problem with this proposal- how will anyone enforce these regulations? The editorial board and Mayor de Blasio don't want to punish people for illegal cigarette sales or illegal marijuana sale and use, so how do they think we can do anything about e-cigarettes?
Personally, I don't like e-cigarettes, but I would support them if they bring about a decrease in marijuana use. Consider the following statement:
"The [advocates for marijuana] products like to claim that their products are safer than cigarettes because users don’t inhale the tars and toxic chemicals from burning tobacco. Of course, they play down other harms and risks, which are also potentially dangerous. "
Personally, I don't like e-cigarettes, but I would support them if they bring about a decrease in marijuana use. Consider the following statement:
"The [advocates for marijuana] products like to claim that their products are safer than cigarettes because users don’t inhale the tars and toxic chemicals from burning tobacco. Of course, they play down other harms and risks, which are also potentially dangerous. "
1
Nicotine in its purest forms is not much more addictive or harmful than caffeine. It is the delivery system (mainly chemical laden cigarettes) that is harmful. Yet no one is going after Starbucks for selling massive quantities of sweet and tasty coffee products to children. And as a high school teacher I can assure you that someone needs to ban energy drinks like monster and red bull - I have students literally addicted to these products and it greatly affects their performance, as they become jittery and unable to focus, but no one is clamoring about the harm from these products either. There is no question that cigarette smoking is bad for your health, but if we are going to vilify a bad habit, we need to go after all of them and stop picking and choosing based on personal preferences.
85
I would refer you to numerous reports by the CDC on Nicotine, it addictive properties and its toxicity. You are dangerously deluded.
4
'...There is no question that cigarette smoking is bad for your health, but if we are going to vilify a bad habit, we need to go after all of them...
We have. It is called the 'War On Drugs' and has accomplished nothing, except destroying millions of lives and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.
We have. It is called the 'War On Drugs' and has accomplished nothing, except destroying millions of lives and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.
3
These are the same lying, toxic criminals who profitted for so many years off of my addiction to their poison. They should all be rotting in jail for their lies.
2
Even in the 1950s, cigarettes were called 'coffin nails' and 'cancer sticks' and the like.
The dangers of tobacco addiction have been long known, but some people still freely chose to smoke them anyway.
Is there any personal choice that any American takes responsibility for?
The dangers of tobacco addiction have been long known, but some people still freely chose to smoke them anyway.
Is there any personal choice that any American takes responsibility for?
The Times (and Liberals) never saw something they didn't want to regulate - or tax. At what point do you ever understand people are free to do what they want, no matter how destructive it might be personally. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, it's really not any of your business, is it?
3
Of course Nicotine addiction is harmful because Nicotine is harmful to the cardiovascular system. But why not just legalize ALL drugs? Why is Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol allowed all the profits?
4
Does anyone else find it interesting that the nanny staters are at it again trying to restrict a pretty innocuous activity like smoking e-cigarettes but they seem to be all for marajuana use? It's pretty clear to me that if I had to choose one of those two activities for my child to partake in, having them use e-cigarette's would be the no-brainer choice.
2
Let's talk about addictive substances. Do you ingest any of the listed items?
Sugar, Caffeine, Nicotine, Alcohol, Amphetamines, THC, Opiates, Processed foods, or Beef.
These are all addictive substances and damaging to your health. The glass house scenario exists here. If you are totally pure, then you are in the 1%. I added beef because I know from my own experience that I do "crave" a good steak, a good burger, but after a while without one I detox and no longer crave these which fits the criteria for addiction. I do not crave a good salad in the same way unless I delude myself. Maybe the F.D.A., writers, and AMA are deluding themselves.
Man's need to get "high", whether it be from food, drink, or other form of substance is age old. I see no correlation to that fact in this article. There will ALWAYS be addiction and like my Granny always said "all things in moderation." Which is boring, un-newsworthy, and builds no clinics. Maybe the real addiction here is money.
Sugar, Caffeine, Nicotine, Alcohol, Amphetamines, THC, Opiates, Processed foods, or Beef.
These are all addictive substances and damaging to your health. The glass house scenario exists here. If you are totally pure, then you are in the 1%. I added beef because I know from my own experience that I do "crave" a good steak, a good burger, but after a while without one I detox and no longer crave these which fits the criteria for addiction. I do not crave a good salad in the same way unless I delude myself. Maybe the F.D.A., writers, and AMA are deluding themselves.
Man's need to get "high", whether it be from food, drink, or other form of substance is age old. I see no correlation to that fact in this article. There will ALWAYS be addiction and like my Granny always said "all things in moderation." Which is boring, un-newsworthy, and builds no clinics. Maybe the real addiction here is money.
15
Nicotine is a drug. It is not a food or a nutritional supplement. As such, it should be regulated. The only reason it is not is the political sway the tobacco industry has over Congress.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances there is. Kids that start using e cigarettes are facing a lifelong habit. Most will never be able to quit.
No drug is harmless. Aspirin will burn a hole in your stomach if too much is used.
Allowing kids to develop a lifelong addiction is tantamount to child endangerment. Sales to kids should be prohibited.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances there is. Kids that start using e cigarettes are facing a lifelong habit. Most will never be able to quit.
No drug is harmless. Aspirin will burn a hole in your stomach if too much is used.
Allowing kids to develop a lifelong addiction is tantamount to child endangerment. Sales to kids should be prohibited.
6
You've only made a point that nicotine other than its addicting nature could potentially have some harm to minor developing children. There is no scientific evidence to support that. Everything else you've said is in reaction to how you would treat a harmful product. Where is the science to support your claim ?
12
Nicotine is a potent parasympathomimetic alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae) and a stimulant drug. Nicotine is a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonist,[2][3] except at nAChRα9 and nAChRα10 where it acts as an antagonist.[2] It is made in the roots of and accumulates in the leaves of the nightshade family of plants. It constitutes approximately 0.6–3.0% of the dry weight of tobacco[4] and is present in the range of 2–7 µg/kg of various edible plants.[5] It functions as an antiherbivore chemical; consequently, nicotine was widely used as an insecticide in the past[6][7] and nicotine analogs such as imidacloprid are currently widely used.
The key thing about relative risks is recognizing that nothing in life is risk free but that different behaviors can have markedly different risks. With snus vs. cigarettes there is simply no reasonable doubt but that cigarette smoking is substantially, indeed horrendously, more hazardous. There is detailed health data that shows massively greater health risks among cigarette smokers than snus users. Swedish men (and it is primarily men who use snus) have the lowest rates of lung, oral (and, despite the scare-mongering, pancreatic cancer) in the European Union. The epidemiology shows mortality rates very close to those who use no nicotine at all.
Roughly 45 million Americans are obtaining nicotine by repeatedly sucking smoke into their lungs, and for the first time in years cigarette sales in the US are now actually increasing rather than falling. Nicotine use is not disappearing. Surveys show a lack of awareness that it is massively more hazardous getting nicotine via inhalation of the products of combustion. In such a situation any refusal to tell smokers the truth about the relative hazards of cigarettes vs non-combustibles invariably results in additional deaths.
Imagine if, early in the efforts to reduce auto fatalities, there had been a campaign to prohibit anyone from informing Americans that the Corvairs they were driving were substantially more dangerous than Sweden’s Volvos.
Roughly 45 million Americans are obtaining nicotine by repeatedly sucking smoke into their lungs, and for the first time in years cigarette sales in the US are now actually increasing rather than falling. Nicotine use is not disappearing. Surveys show a lack of awareness that it is massively more hazardous getting nicotine via inhalation of the products of combustion. In such a situation any refusal to tell smokers the truth about the relative hazards of cigarettes vs non-combustibles invariably results in additional deaths.
Imagine if, early in the efforts to reduce auto fatalities, there had been a campaign to prohibit anyone from informing Americans that the Corvairs they were driving were substantially more dangerous than Sweden’s Volvos.
10
Things are rarely perfect. While it would be best that humans not addict themselves to any substance, it's the addictive characteristic of nicotine that in the past has largely brought about the smoking of tobacco, which most authorities regard as the activity that causes lung cancer and emphysema.
Yet with the increase in use of smokeless tobacco products has come a dramatic reduction in youth smoking which, if the trend matures and intensifies, eventually should result in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of lung cancer and emphysema -- while nicotine is classified as a carcinogen, there's no evidence that it causes cancer when not combined with other factors, such as ingesting it by smoking.
The other advantage is that by refinement of the delivery method, we might at some point substitute some material other than nicotine that won't act to degrade the vascular system as nicotine does, even if that other substance also is addictive.
The resistance by some to smokeless products strikes me as unreasonable, given the incremental benefits we see developing over smoking. It's reminiscent of the resistance of the environmental community to use of natural gas, not because its use doesn't represent an immense environmental improvement over the burning of coal and oil, but simply because it's a carbon product that some are unalterably opposed to supporting for any reason.
Yet with the increase in use of smokeless tobacco products has come a dramatic reduction in youth smoking which, if the trend matures and intensifies, eventually should result in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of lung cancer and emphysema -- while nicotine is classified as a carcinogen, there's no evidence that it causes cancer when not combined with other factors, such as ingesting it by smoking.
The other advantage is that by refinement of the delivery method, we might at some point substitute some material other than nicotine that won't act to degrade the vascular system as nicotine does, even if that other substance also is addictive.
The resistance by some to smokeless products strikes me as unreasonable, given the incremental benefits we see developing over smoking. It's reminiscent of the resistance of the environmental community to use of natural gas, not because its use doesn't represent an immense environmental improvement over the burning of coal and oil, but simply because it's a carbon product that some are unalterably opposed to supporting for any reason.
15
Pure & utter balderdash. This editorial is merely baseless claims, innuendo & guilt by very tenuous association. To declaim about "possible" issues with e-cigs is about as well supported as the Music Man's connection of pool & trouble, since their first letters rhyme. E-cigs are quite different in effect, from cigarettes, no matter how similar they appear to the hysterical.
21
Great, the same old argument: "XXX is a gateway drug". Anyway you cut it, smoking is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaping. Millions of lives and billions of dollars would be saved eradicating smoking. Regulate it, don't sell it to minors. While you're at it, sipping your coffee or tea this morning, start regulating caffeine. Lots of young people are using it and there are plenty of studies that show it's highly addictive and dangerous to your health.
19
I used to work in the mining industry where smokeless tobacco or "Chew" was common. It is highly addictive and from accounts of users who tried to quit, more difficult to do than cigarettes. If you think smoke is offensive then wait until you see legions of chewers carrying around bottles of spit, and or spitting on sidewalks. Lastly, long term users face the risk of oral cancer, I know of several people who lost half their jaw to cancer.
In the end, it doesn't matter how its packaged. . . .
Tobacco = Cancer
Is there any part of that you don't understand?
In the end, it doesn't matter how its packaged. . . .
Tobacco = Cancer
Is there any part of that you don't understand?
33
Yes, how is nicotine = tobacco. Is milk = beef? Are potatoes then tobacco since they contain nicotine?
The problem with this argument is that it presumes that these new methods of nicotine use have tobacco in them. E-cigarettes, in fact do not, and although they could very well be just as bad for you as traditional cigarettes there is no evidence to support that position. Furthermore, other products such as nicotine gum, nicotine skin patches, and nicotine lozenges are used by people looking to quit smoking or smokeless tobacco, and while they contain nicotine, they do not contain tobacco and are thought to be relatively safe alternatives. I am not claiming e-cigarettes are good for you, but the evidence is not there that they are anywhere near as awful as cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
Electronic cigarette liquid does not equal Tobacco.
No way 1.8% nicotine in 30% glycerin water (w/v) equals tobacco leaves
No way 1.8% nicotine in 30% glycerin water (w/v) equals tobacco leaves
It is nonsense to say that that snus is not substantially safer than cigarettes. What the panel found is that it is not completely safe. Snus has in fact given Sweden the lowest rate of smoking-related diseases in Europe, iwthout an upswing in nicotine addiction.
Your claim that the sudden drop in teen smoking is not a consequence of the fact that teenagers are switching to or starting with e cigarettes instead of tobacco cigarettes is not supported by evidence, statistics, common sense, or your own reporting. Kids are using them to stop, or the same kids who would otherwise have taken up smoking are taking up vaping instead.
Laws to prevent teens from obtaining e cigarettes will do little; they can after all already obtain tobacco cigarettes. Laws to ban flavors will merely restrict the rights of adults.
Only on the question of television marketing do your proposals make sense, and then the don't go far enough; Madison Avenue can and will make e cigarettes seem desirable and attractive to children before we have a full understanding of the long-term health consequences.
What we actually have here is a huge victory against smoking, the best news in years -- smoking rates plummeting as teens, not yet addicted to the nicotine levels delivered by cigarettes, make a wiser choice. In your desire to achieve the unrealistic goal of complete abstention, you would unwittingly consign millions to death. Particularly ironic, given your support of legalized marijuana.
Your claim that the sudden drop in teen smoking is not a consequence of the fact that teenagers are switching to or starting with e cigarettes instead of tobacco cigarettes is not supported by evidence, statistics, common sense, or your own reporting. Kids are using them to stop, or the same kids who would otherwise have taken up smoking are taking up vaping instead.
Laws to prevent teens from obtaining e cigarettes will do little; they can after all already obtain tobacco cigarettes. Laws to ban flavors will merely restrict the rights of adults.
Only on the question of television marketing do your proposals make sense, and then the don't go far enough; Madison Avenue can and will make e cigarettes seem desirable and attractive to children before we have a full understanding of the long-term health consequences.
What we actually have here is a huge victory against smoking, the best news in years -- smoking rates plummeting as teens, not yet addicted to the nicotine levels delivered by cigarettes, make a wiser choice. In your desire to achieve the unrealistic goal of complete abstention, you would unwittingly consign millions to death. Particularly ironic, given your support of legalized marijuana.
13
The authors state that "nicotine is highly addictive, no matter how it is taken in." This is incorrect. The route and speed of drug delivery determines the addictive nature of a drug to a significant degree. This explains why tobacco smoking (with an extremely rapid nicotine delivery) is highly addictive, while the nicotine patch and gum are not. The FDA must appropriately distinguish which tobacco products are most likely to cause harm and regulate them accordingly, as opposed to taking a one-size-fits-all approach that treats them all the same. There is certainly enough data (the Swedish experience in particular) that tells us that snus, while not harmless, is less harmful compared to smoked tobacco.
22
$5,000.00 a year habit on gum and patches? Are they being flown in and delivered by exotic dancers from around the world? A gum habit of $30.00 a month should be quite adequate.
Your own argument condemns e-cigs to the highly addictive category. The whole idea is to deliver nicotine quickly.
But both vaping and smoking delivers nicotine via the lungs. Same delivery system. The fact is that no one knows what adverse effect the vapor has on the lungs. As an MD said recently, the only thing that should be inhaled is air.
Wake up everyone-The problem IS the Nicotine. It may not be the cause of death but is the reason why people get addicted to smoking, e-cigs, and smoking cessation products, etc. . Why isn't the argument around controlling an ADDITIVE chemical? Why isn't nicotine prescribed? Businesses will continue to sell any product that addicts because there is a never ending flow of money from addiction. My annual budget for smoking cession products is roughly $5000 a year for the last 12 years to keep my loved one from smoking themselves to death. The industry has simply replaced the revenue stream from tobacco and guaranteed themselves a more lucrative way because now the addicts are not dying as soon and don't have to be "replaced" with new ones. How long will this go on before everyone wakes up to the root of the problem. When will we address the socio-economic problem of the 21st century version of economic slavery by addiction to "legal" drugs. The answer is Never as long as the billions keep flowing to company coffers!
9
So what? Caffeine is addictive and nicotine, like caffeine, is cheap. The only reason you spent $5000 on nicotine replacements is because they are heavily-regulated as medications and the price is ridiculously inflated as a result. The nicotine liquid used in e cigarettes costs very little. And nicotine is a very pleasurable drug, without the negative impact on cognition, behavior, and life of other recreational drugs.
Health consequences are of greater concern, but in therapeutic doses in smoking replacement products, it doesn't seem to do harm.
Health consequences are of greater concern, but in therapeutic doses in smoking replacement products, it doesn't seem to do harm.
6
Caffeine is only mildly addictive, and pales in comparison to nicotine in terms of addiction.
Hold on. I have to go get my monthly caffeine prescription refill.
Thank you NY Times Editorial Board. We, the people, need you to keep up the good work on our Safety and Happiness. The Declaration of Independence rightly declared we have a right to seek governance to achieve our Safety and Happiness.
Liquid Nicotine in a quantity large enough to vaporize and inhale would probably kill you.
The liquid used in e-cigarettes is either Propylene Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin, usually a mix of the 2. Nicotine can, optionally, be added; or not. E-liquids are typically sold with 0 to 18+ mg per ml of nicotine. A mg per ml is a 1/10th of 1% concentration.
Nicotine is not a valid argument against E-Cigarettes. You can ban nicotine, or control it, on its own.
Along with nicotine you can also regulate vaporizer temperature and chemical pollutants ("flavors"). The FDA already regulates Vegetable Glycerin and Propylene Glycol. Both are used as food additives.
I speak as an ex-smoker with no financial connection to the industry other than the money I save, on health care as well as cigarettes, by being an "ex".
The liquid used in e-cigarettes is either Propylene Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin, usually a mix of the 2. Nicotine can, optionally, be added; or not. E-liquids are typically sold with 0 to 18+ mg per ml of nicotine. A mg per ml is a 1/10th of 1% concentration.
Nicotine is not a valid argument against E-Cigarettes. You can ban nicotine, or control it, on its own.
Along with nicotine you can also regulate vaporizer temperature and chemical pollutants ("flavors"). The FDA already regulates Vegetable Glycerin and Propylene Glycol. Both are used as food additives.
I speak as an ex-smoker with no financial connection to the industry other than the money I save, on health care as well as cigarettes, by being an "ex".
6
Really, has the NY Times obsession with e-cigarettes gone so far in rejecting the available evidence that you must now insert warnings from a completely different product (snus) to skew the discussion? And could you please, for once, run a realistic photo of someone vaping instead of the hysterically exaggerated plumes of volcanic vapor you seem to be fond of? This editorial crusade against e-cigs is the worst error in judgement I've seen in over 50 years of reading your paper and that's saying a lot.
31
The core problem is that corporations are allowed to make huge profits on highly addictive substances. Since when is that ethical?
5
Corporations can't make profits on cocaine and Heroin, hasn't solved the problem. And look at what happened when they were barred by law from making alcohol.
1
Yes, let's stamp out the caffeine dealers who are on every street corner. Starbucks, I'm looking at you.
1
let's apply this logic to birth control, then teens will stop having sex and poverty and inequality will be eliminated in 20 years.
4
I agree with the editorial board; I do not support e-cigarettes.
2
While I agree with some of your sentiment about tobacco companies trying to hook younger smokers on their smokeless products, please actually do some research. Take 10 minutes on YouTube to exam "vape culture". This includes "cloud chasing" and "vape tricks" which has drawn teen users. While these products from the vape industry, and those newer inferior products from big tobacco, are for adults and always have been, what is stopping parents from purchasing these safer alternatives for their teens? Further more, if you do actually research non big tobacco vape culture, which is the only vape culture seeing as how any vaper knows how inferior big tobacco's attempt at flooding the market with their crappy alternative to traditional cigarettes are, is primarily using 0 to 6 milligram strength liquids. None of these so called conclusive studies from the CDC mention what percentage of teens have started using e-cigarettes with nicotine free juice, again which is only offered through non-big tobacco companies, because they don't consider this important factor or even know about it. Big tobacco and state governments are trying their hardest to discredit and destroy the vape industry because it is having a huge impact on reducing smoking rates and it is hurting their profits. Yes, that includes tax revenue and yes, the states are already on the hook with big tobacco because a shady deal made many years ago. Here are some real facts: http://notblowingsmoke.org/#front-page-6
10
Smoking and/or tobacco use in any way is just plain stupid and has no positive benefit whatsoever except to the tobacco companies and people distributing and retailing tobacco products who are profiting from weakness of those users who will not quit. I know people can quit; I was a heavy smoker a long time ago (1965) when I stopped. I simply came to the conclusion that tobacco use had absolutely no positive benefits and was just a waste of my money. I woke up one morning and never lit up that first smoke of the day - that was it.
6
Actually, smoking makes people feel great. The fact that you were able to stop easily suggests that you lack nicotine receptors. People who lack nicotine receptors don't get addicted to nicotine and also don't feel its pleasurable effects. As another former smoker, I can tell you I'd go back to it in a second if not for the health concerns -- and that for me, nicotine withdrawal was hell.
2
Perhaps we should start trying smokeless tobacco manufacturers' corporate executives for felonies like manslaughter, even murder. Convict some on some, even all of the charges. Imprison them for twenty, even thirty years. And, who knows? Perhaps our smokeless tobacco health problem will simply disappear; vanish in a puff of smoke, if you will.
1
Perhaps we should start trying doughnut company corporate executives for felonies like manslaughter, even murder, as obesity is a major cause of illness and death.
Your own columnist Joe Nocera champions them. There has been work done by Dr. Denise Kandel and her husband, Nobel laureate Eric Kandel that clearly shows nicotine to be the pathway drug to all sorts of addictions starting with cocaine. Nicotine primes the brain. These studies are not secret. This editorial and Mr. Nocera should do better research.
E cigarettes are dangerous because they are a nicotine delivery service, period.
E cigarettes are dangerous because they are a nicotine delivery service, period.
7
Yeah, it's a gateway drug, but so is Coca-Cola.
What you seem to be missing is that people will use nicotine and other substances, no matter how much we jump up and down. All human societies use pleasurable drugs of some kind or other. Even the tea-totaler is using a drug -- an addictive one, to boot.
Would you rather see your kid vaping e cigarettes, or smoking cigarettes, which are known to kill? Or maybe marijuana, which when used by teenagers causes a permanent reduction in IQ? Or alcohol, which with heayv use leaves a teenage brain shrunken like an old person's?
We need a bit of realism here.
What you seem to be missing is that people will use nicotine and other substances, no matter how much we jump up and down. All human societies use pleasurable drugs of some kind or other. Even the tea-totaler is using a drug -- an addictive one, to boot.
Would you rather see your kid vaping e cigarettes, or smoking cigarettes, which are known to kill? Or maybe marijuana, which when used by teenagers causes a permanent reduction in IQ? Or alcohol, which with heayv use leaves a teenage brain shrunken like an old person's?
We need a bit of realism here.
2
Why is it anyone else's business what others put in their bodies again?
Tobacco companies are shameless shills who are allowed, encouraged by shareholders, to sell a deadly product, one that kills more people in one year than all illicit drugs combined. Peddlers of non-addicting (albeit habit forming for some) marijuana can spend decades in prison, but CEOs of tobacco companies earn accolade, fortunes and political power. If addiction is okay, as long as it's a 'less harmful' addiction, then WHY are drugs illegal? We all know tobacco is one of the most deadly and one of the most addictive drugs on the planet. Why is it treated differently? I love Romeo Salta's comment on e-cigarettes. He's been smoking them for years, he says, and has never felt better. This is addict-speak. There is no 'good' addiction.
We'll find out a few years hence all the chemical byproducts that are in these e-cigarettes, and then those who have been hailing it as a safe will assail the FDA for allowing them to stay on the market. Just as methadone keeps heroin addicts addicted to opiates, e-cigarettes keep nicotine addicts addicted to nicotine. They are a boon to Philip Morris et. al. and a bane to public health.
We'll find out a few years hence all the chemical byproducts that are in these e-cigarettes, and then those who have been hailing it as a safe will assail the FDA for allowing them to stay on the market. Just as methadone keeps heroin addicts addicted to opiates, e-cigarettes keep nicotine addicts addicted to nicotine. They are a boon to Philip Morris et. al. and a bane to public health.
7
Huh? Cigarettes are *known* to be deadly. E cigarette vapor lacks most of the deadly components of tobacco smoke. It is almost certainly safer. By your own reasoning, what sense does it make to rail against e cigarettes when they are a safe alternative to cigarettes? No one is suggesting that people start on this product in the absence of evidence that it's safe in long-term use. But when the alternative is smoking?
2
'...then WHY are drugs illegal?...'
Because adults love to moralize about other people's behavior.
'...There is no 'good' addiction...'
Which always means 'except my own'.
The food addiction related health care costs of 200 million overweight and obese Americans is many times more than that of all the illegal drug addiction costs combined.
Because adults love to moralize about other people's behavior.
'...There is no 'good' addiction...'
Which always means 'except my own'.
The food addiction related health care costs of 200 million overweight and obese Americans is many times more than that of all the illegal drug addiction costs combined.
1
Shame on the NYT editorial board! Many smokers have used e-cigarettes to help themselves escape a horribly, tenacious, deadly addiction. To place limits on, or to discourage e-cigarette use as a smoking cessation aid, is akin to not throwing a drowning person a life preserver because the plastic it's made of might cause cancer. Of course, ingesting nicotine in any form may be harmful but it is so much LESS harmful than inhaling nicotine along with the gazillion other nasty compounds found in cigarette smoke. E-cigarettes should be given a parade, not criticized. Of course they shouldn't be sold to kids, pets, etc. and they should have a warning label which states that inhaling nicotine may cause health problems.
12
Thank you. Yours is the analogy I was looking for. It recalls the words of Dr. Michael Siegel, a highly respected public health advocate who has injected both common sense and scientific fact into the debate and the hysterical claims made by those who would ban e-cigarettes.
1
The F.D.A. still permits the sale of cigarettes which have been proved to cause cancer and a host of other diseases. Why should I trust that the F.D.A. will protect our citizens from the hazards of e-cigarettes even if they are established? Furthermore the Agency has been unable to regulate overuse of antibiotics in our factory food system, or supplements etc. The Food and Drug Administration process is broken and needs to be restored.
4
Prohibition doesn't work very well. The FDA can't ban a product that's used by a quarter of the adult population.
Otherwise, agree that regulation is inadequate, but that doesn't mean it isn't a lot better than no regulation at all. The main problem with e cigarettes at this point is that *nobody* knows how hazardous they are in long-term use. Nothing the FDA can do about that, since we need basic research.
Otherwise, agree that regulation is inadequate, but that doesn't mean it isn't a lot better than no regulation at all. The main problem with e cigarettes at this point is that *nobody* knows how hazardous they are in long-term use. Nothing the FDA can do about that, since we need basic research.
The tobacco lobby managed to get tobacco products exempted from FDA review by law a long time ago. I don't know what, if anything, the FDA will do about vaping . Unlike cigarettes, the constituents of vapor vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. And, new "favors" are being developed every day.
Bathsheba, tobacco is now regulated by the FDA pursuant to a new law. Changes included banning flavors that were supposed to appeal to children.
Regulations on e cigarettes are in the works.
Regulations on e cigarettes are in the works.
This editorial hits the nail on the head. I am fortunate in that I tried smoking as a teenager (fortunately not many cigarettes and not much pipe tobacco) and decided that I didn't like it and stopped before I was hooked.
E-cigarettes are enticing because they do not burn and thus seem less harsh. Yet they contain nicotine, a highly addictive poison (used as a pesticide).
They also seem to give license to anyone to "vape" where smoking is prohibited, creating a toxic problem for the majority or neither smoke nor "vape". They should not be permitted anywhere where smoking is not allowed, as is thankfully being done in many areas.
E-cigarettes are enticing because they do not burn and thus seem less harsh. Yet they contain nicotine, a highly addictive poison (used as a pesticide).
They also seem to give license to anyone to "vape" where smoking is prohibited, creating a toxic problem for the majority or neither smoke nor "vape". They should not be permitted anywhere where smoking is not allowed, as is thankfully being done in many areas.
5
Caffeine is also a highly addictive poison and another natural pesticide. And there is no evidence that vaping creates a "toxic problem" for anyone. Remember, most second-hand smoke is sidestream smoke. Vaping does not create sidestream vapor. The limited scientific evidence so far suggests that it poses no health hazard to others.
4
Most states have treated vaping the same as smoking tobacco and it is not permitted inside any establishment.
"But the decrease in student smoking began before the rapid rise in e-cigarette use and was caused mostly by factors like higher taxes and public service campaigns that highlighted the ghastly effects of smoking, according to Dr. Thomas Frieden, the C.D.C. director."
That's just not true! Lasts week's NYT article, "Use of E-Cigarettes Rises Sharply Among Teenagers" has a graph illustrating radical & unparalleled declines in cigar, cigarette and pipe smoking among high school teens only in 2014, when ecigs soared.
That's just not true! Lasts week's NYT article, "Use of E-Cigarettes Rises Sharply Among Teenagers" has a graph illustrating radical & unparalleled declines in cigar, cigarette and pipe smoking among high school teens only in 2014, when ecigs soared.
20
Thank you. The editorialist seems to have accepted some pretty far-fetched claims. A simple linear regression would tell you that this is almost certainly not happenstance -- not to mention that the article reported that some kids had switched. It's just that right now, the type of kid who would have started smoking is starting to vape. A good thing, although there are clear risks.
4
Yes, it's amazing when government agencies and respected news organizations jump to such unfounded conclusions. We would all be better off if we could stick to the science here. Why is that so hard? I'm beginning to suspect that what another commenter said is closer to the truth - the real addiction here is to cash. To get the real story, follow the (lobbying and PR) money.
1
It's been a while since the Times has gone on its anti-vaping crusade, so I guess it's that time of the month again... Sure ban the product in teenagers (save the children!!) but how about a more balanced view about the GOOD that vaping does? A quick scan of the 6 comments already posted - half are from ex-smokers who have been able to quit with a snap of their fingers, thanks to e-cigarettes.
I personally know 3 people whose lives vaping has changed, and dramatically for the better, as they were able to stop smoking completely and start enjoying the pretty near wondrous turn around in their health as a consequence.
I personally know 3 people whose lives vaping has changed, and dramatically for the better, as they were able to stop smoking completely and start enjoying the pretty near wondrous turn around in their health as a consequence.
34
Urging only packaging and TV advertisement restrictions to prevent adolescent use feels like a proposition written 20 years ago. Certainly, e-cigarette companies are smart enough to know that their young clientele are online; and will be targeting them through those channels.
1
We've heard this song before. It's from an old familiar score.
Remember when cigarettes were said to be healthy because they helped you lose weight? Remember when the tobacco companies stalled mightily for years claiming there was no scientific evidence to link smoking to health risks (let alone cancer and death)?
Now their song is that e-cigarettes are great because they help smokers stop smoking those dreadful death-inducing fags the industry used to defend. (How's that for a hypocritical pivot?) Haven't you heard? E-cigarettes are like medical devices that reduce cancer rates from smoking Whole Tobacco. Mirabile dictu. It isn't smoking. It's vaping! How liberating.
Now get real. E-cigarettes are drug delivery systems that encourage folks to get high on nicotine. Of course it appeals to kids with the forbidden fruit aspect and the flavors and the mechanical appeal of messing around with lighting up.
The tobacco industry is playing the same song again, feigning innocence and claiming beneficence. Plug your ears and snuff those devices! They are not our savior, they want you hooked.
Remember when cigarettes were said to be healthy because they helped you lose weight? Remember when the tobacco companies stalled mightily for years claiming there was no scientific evidence to link smoking to health risks (let alone cancer and death)?
Now their song is that e-cigarettes are great because they help smokers stop smoking those dreadful death-inducing fags the industry used to defend. (How's that for a hypocritical pivot?) Haven't you heard? E-cigarettes are like medical devices that reduce cancer rates from smoking Whole Tobacco. Mirabile dictu. It isn't smoking. It's vaping! How liberating.
Now get real. E-cigarettes are drug delivery systems that encourage folks to get high on nicotine. Of course it appeals to kids with the forbidden fruit aspect and the flavors and the mechanical appeal of messing around with lighting up.
The tobacco industry is playing the same song again, feigning innocence and claiming beneficence. Plug your ears and snuff those devices! They are not our savior, they want you hooked.
4
Vaping is fun and I wish you'd get off your high horse about something relatively harmless. Since I'm raising a son with a severe disability, vaping reduces my stress and is one of the few things I get to do for me. Heck of a lot better than belting back a glass of gin after my son's finally fallen asleep.
I'm aware of the minor risks and that the nicotine is addictive; so is the caffeine in my morning coffee. Both make me happy with few side effects. Go bug somebody about something important.
I'm aware of the minor risks and that the nicotine is addictive; so is the caffeine in my morning coffee. Both make me happy with few side effects. Go bug somebody about something important.
73
Live long and prosper, then; while you poison yourself.
There is no question that electronic cigarettes should be regulated and their sale to young people be limited. What about the adults? Regulation might help them as well. By any measure, electronic cigarettes are less toxic that cigarettes. While the efficacy of electronic cigarettes in smoking cessation is still being investigated, it must be recognized that a smoker switching to e-cigarettes is lowering their risk of harm from tobacco smoke.
Harm reduction is an approach to addressing problems that encompasses elements of pragmatism and compassion in settings where high risk behaviors will inevitably occur. For intravenous drug use there appears to be population that will continue to use needles, so why not use clean ones? For opiate abusers, we can offer medically monitored opiate addiction treatment; for marijuana users, we can decriminalize the possession of small amounts. So we can’t we do something for the 42 million smokers in the United States?
Harm reduction is an approach to addressing problems that encompasses elements of pragmatism and compassion in settings where high risk behaviors will inevitably occur. For intravenous drug use there appears to be population that will continue to use needles, so why not use clean ones? For opiate abusers, we can offer medically monitored opiate addiction treatment; for marijuana users, we can decriminalize the possession of small amounts. So we can’t we do something for the 42 million smokers in the United States?
37
the efficacy as a smoking cessation tool still being researched? I have been a non-smoker for almost a decade thanks wholly to vaping. Talk to the other hundreds of thousand ex-smokers. The reality is conclusive.
4
This is a " be careful what you ask" for moment. We keep trying to take away all so called harmful things from the under 21 set and instead of nicotine we have a Heroin epidemic. Teenagers are going to find something to rebel with it is best they do so with nicotine and not the many more severe drugs they are dieting from today. Which would you rather have your teenager do, die today from an overdose or in their later years from smoking? And the answer isn't neither. We are taking smoking and drinking off the table and watching them be replaced by opiates right under our eyes. What we have now is much worst so again "be careful what you ask for".
20
If you peddle a product that serves as a drug delivery system for nicotine then you do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's not clear that young people who begin on e-cigarettes will move on to smoking the traditional kind, but there is no doubt the possibility is terrifying, and demoralizing for so many who have fought so long to severely weaken Big Tobacco's hold on the US.
It's very eager to try to regain some of its lost profits, using marketing techniques, as others have noted, straight from their pre-1960s playbooks. Its lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been well documented, albeit often far too late for people it hooked on smoked tobacco. The FDA has to do more to ensure we don't have more generations whose lives were shortened and/or ruined by what Big Tobacco sold them. Snus and e-cigarettes warrant very close scrutiny and considerable skepticism.
It's very eager to try to regain some of its lost profits, using marketing techniques, as others have noted, straight from their pre-1960s playbooks. Its lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been well documented, albeit often far too late for people it hooked on smoked tobacco. The FDA has to do more to ensure we don't have more generations whose lives were shortened and/or ruined by what Big Tobacco sold them. Snus and e-cigarettes warrant very close scrutiny and considerable skepticism.
12
Matt, Snus has been used for years in Sweden. It did not lead to higher levels of tobacco use and it led to Sweden having the *lowest* rate of tobacco-related diseases in Europe.
E cigarettes were around for ten years now while the public health authorities did nothing to examine their safety and are almost certainly safer than cigarettes. Yes, there are potential risks, but remember that the alternative is a product, cigarettes, that is known to be lethal, and e cigarettes remove most of the substances that are known to make cigarettes lethal -- the tar, the carbon monoxide, etc.
Of course the tobacco industry wants to hook a new generation of kids but the right way to deal with that is to deal with marketing, not to block access to safer forms of tobacco when 51 years after the Surgeon General report and 75 years after the link between smoking and lung cancer was observed we have managed only to cut smoking rates in half.
It's sad and paradoxical that the greatest public health victory in years occurred not because of public health officials, but because of a Chinese man who decided to develop a safer form of nicotine delivery than burning a carcinogenic bush. Proposals for such systems were made as early as the 1970's, but ignored by health authorities with an unrealistic zeal for perfection.
E cigarettes were around for ten years now while the public health authorities did nothing to examine their safety and are almost certainly safer than cigarettes. Yes, there are potential risks, but remember that the alternative is a product, cigarettes, that is known to be lethal, and e cigarettes remove most of the substances that are known to make cigarettes lethal -- the tar, the carbon monoxide, etc.
Of course the tobacco industry wants to hook a new generation of kids but the right way to deal with that is to deal with marketing, not to block access to safer forms of tobacco when 51 years after the Surgeon General report and 75 years after the link between smoking and lung cancer was observed we have managed only to cut smoking rates in half.
It's sad and paradoxical that the greatest public health victory in years occurred not because of public health officials, but because of a Chinese man who decided to develop a safer form of nicotine delivery than burning a carcinogenic bush. Proposals for such systems were made as early as the 1970's, but ignored by health authorities with an unrealistic zeal for perfection.
4
I have not had a traditional burning cigarette in years - since I started using e-cigarettes, and I feel much, much better. Anecdotally, I know many former smokers who swear by e-cigarettes as a very useful product to eliminate the thousands of toxic compounds that burning cigarettes emit - and they are right. There is no comparison between the two. That said, I am all for limiting the product to adults and controlling advertising, but it would be ludicrous to impede the development of a product that has improved the lives of millions.
46
The idea that teens would go from e cigarettes to smoking traditional cigarettes is not very realistic. Besides the fact that traditional cigarettes cost about ten times what e cigarettes cost the two products are not at all the same.
Traditional cigarettes produce harsh smoke, which besides not tasting good also causes those who are not used to it to cough. Vapor on the other hand is smooth on the lungs as there are no forign particles that are being sucked into the lungs.
E cigarettes are also come in a great variety of flavors and a big part of using them is to try different flavors all of which taste good. Cigarette smoke on the other hand taste like smoke which is not much of a flavor. So why would anyone trade a product that comes in a great variety of flavors for tobacco smoke that all taste the same.
In addition even if e cigarettes do lead to the occasional use of tobacco smoke the danger of tobacco smoke is smoking a pack a day, day after day for years. A few cigarettes every now and then is not harmful.
Of course sooner or later sales of e cigarettes to minors will be banned, just like cigarettes are today. However the fact is that the ban on sales of cigarettes to minors has never been successful, as kids have always managed to get their hands of cigarettes, and so there is no reason to thing that e cigarettes will be any different.
Traditional cigarettes produce harsh smoke, which besides not tasting good also causes those who are not used to it to cough. Vapor on the other hand is smooth on the lungs as there are no forign particles that are being sucked into the lungs.
E cigarettes are also come in a great variety of flavors and a big part of using them is to try different flavors all of which taste good. Cigarette smoke on the other hand taste like smoke which is not much of a flavor. So why would anyone trade a product that comes in a great variety of flavors for tobacco smoke that all taste the same.
In addition even if e cigarettes do lead to the occasional use of tobacco smoke the danger of tobacco smoke is smoking a pack a day, day after day for years. A few cigarettes every now and then is not harmful.
Of course sooner or later sales of e cigarettes to minors will be banned, just like cigarettes are today. However the fact is that the ban on sales of cigarettes to minors has never been successful, as kids have always managed to get their hands of cigarettes, and so there is no reason to thing that e cigarettes will be any different.
23
Addictions stay far beyond a childish interest in new flavors.
1
This editorial does understand that science has thus found found no proof that vaping does harm. Unfortunately it is also asking for an impossibility -- proof that vaping does no harm.
If that standard were applied to all foods and drugs, no product would be acceptable. The rationale for this heightened, anti-scientific standard on e-cigarettes is the same as that which dictated the demonization of drugs such as crack, and the passage of 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws -- an irrational fear that claims its proof is forthcoming.
If that standard were applied to all foods and drugs, no product would be acceptable. The rationale for this heightened, anti-scientific standard on e-cigarettes is the same as that which dictated the demonization of drugs such as crack, and the passage of 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws -- an irrational fear that claims its proof is forthcoming.
53
You either didn't read the editorial or you have a personal interest in promoting ecigs.
Advertising of any tobacco related products should not be allowed on TV. If it were up to me, the tobacco industry would not be permitted to advertise their poison period. I realize this can not be due to our constitution.
5
RCR advertising is not de facto protected by our Constitution. Advertising's aim by its very nature is to persuade us into buying products. It is not 'speech' that needs to be protected. It is regulated, as well it should be. Advertisements are forbidden to contain lies. Selling drugs on the airwaves in forbidden. Aiming adult products toward children, for example, showing adolescents drinking beer, is illegal. Advertisers are limited by law and legal precedent on what they can say. They have power greater than the individual, and therefore their 'speech' is curbed. Please strive to understand the Constitution better.
Agree and I don't think it's unconstitutional at all. Cigarette advertising, after all, is already banned on TV. The only kind of advertising permitted for any of these products should be a factual, text-only "tombstone" ad. And that should be true of alcoholic beverages as well.
The rise of ecigarette use should not set off alarm bells, but celebratory fireworks. Having been a smoker for 30 years and having tried to quit for 20, it was only the use of ecigarettes which allowed me to kick the toxic habit a year and a half ago and I am far from alone. Ecigarette liquids provide consumers with an alternative to smoking where nicotine levels can be tightly controlled and reduced at will, an option not available to tobacco consumers.
While the technology is too new to know of the long-term health implications for vapers, the short-term benefits have been obvious to me, my non-smoking wife and my children. Given my informal research the benefits will ultimately extend into the long-term compared to traditional tobacco product use and I fully expect to see significantly reduced national medical expenditures shortly.
One has to wonder if public health is truly the motivation for the Times virulent anti-vaping campaign given the positive outcomes represented by increased public ecigarette use or if there is a hidden agenda related to either rabid anti-smokers or advertiser dollars.
The one thing I would agree with is that this should be an adult alternative product as it already is in most if not all jurisdictions.
While the technology is too new to know of the long-term health implications for vapers, the short-term benefits have been obvious to me, my non-smoking wife and my children. Given my informal research the benefits will ultimately extend into the long-term compared to traditional tobacco product use and I fully expect to see significantly reduced national medical expenditures shortly.
One has to wonder if public health is truly the motivation for the Times virulent anti-vaping campaign given the positive outcomes represented by increased public ecigarette use or if there is a hidden agenda related to either rabid anti-smokers or advertiser dollars.
The one thing I would agree with is that this should be an adult alternative product as it already is in most if not all jurisdictions.
57
Tobacco's effects are not spent,
New cancerous modes are its bent,
Through cunning deception
And eager reception
New products make their devil's dent.
New cancerous modes are its bent,
Through cunning deception
And eager reception
New products make their devil's dent.
24
Jill has a sensible answer:
Vaping does not give you cancer.
It's water, you see,
Though not nicotine free,
And so is less likely to harm her.
Vaping does not give you cancer.
It's water, you see,
Though not nicotine free,
And so is less likely to harm her.
1
I have an idea, I'll decide for me. You want to be free? Start acting like it.