Every six months or so Nocera writes essentially the same column, promoting electronic cigarettes. Each time he focuses on current smokers. As others have noted the real issue is that these products are luring a new generation of adolescents into nicotine addiction:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2428954
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2428954
2
I am an Internal Medicine physician and counsel patients on this a lot. Unfortunately, there is NO evidence to suggest e-cigarettes are safer than smoking. In fact, they may be LESS safe. We will need studies and time to tell.
In the meantime, consider this: when using an e-cig you are inhaling vaporized oils. Does inhaling vaporized oil sound healthy? Furthermore, do you know what chemicals are combined to create your favorite "juice"? No, then do you have faith that the manufacturer has your health in mind and has researched all ingredients to assure they are safe?
I would love to see a safe/enjoyable alternative to smoking, but it is 'wishful thinking' to assume 'no smoke' automatically equals 'healthier'.
In the meantime, consider this: when using an e-cig you are inhaling vaporized oils. Does inhaling vaporized oil sound healthy? Furthermore, do you know what chemicals are combined to create your favorite "juice"? No, then do you have faith that the manufacturer has your health in mind and has researched all ingredients to assure they are safe?
I would love to see a safe/enjoyable alternative to smoking, but it is 'wishful thinking' to assume 'no smoke' automatically equals 'healthier'.
2
I've been vaping (I know, but that's what it's called) since very near the beginning, for 6 years. I was a very, very hard-core smoker for many decades. At 65, I feel wonderful and my health is excellent. I do appreciate this article, and kudos to NYT for easing up on the misinformation campaign, but I'd like to correct something.
You'll often hear that Ecigs aren't really effective for quitting cigarettes and don't provide much satisfaction. If you've read the tens of thousands personal reports on venerable forums like E-Cigarette-forum.com, over years, or actually switched yourself, you know better. The number of ex-smokers who've quickly and pretty easily changed over is hugely understated. There's a high stakes anti-campaign out there and many misrepresentations deliberately disseminated. I'd tried about everything - patches, gum, pills, with no success and quite literally quit smoking with my first ecig. No cravings, no withdrawal, and I never looked back. That's not at all uncommon.
But you need a good product and you need to know how to use it - that's the whole trick. NJOY, btw, is NOT a highly regarded brand among e-cig veterans. They're just pretending to have some special handle on making a successful ecig. Check out the forum mentioned above for advice. There is some learning curve here if you want to succeed, but it's not rocket science. Don't bother with cigalikes. A simple bat, a really good tank, and juice that you can have customized is all you need.
You'll often hear that Ecigs aren't really effective for quitting cigarettes and don't provide much satisfaction. If you've read the tens of thousands personal reports on venerable forums like E-Cigarette-forum.com, over years, or actually switched yourself, you know better. The number of ex-smokers who've quickly and pretty easily changed over is hugely understated. There's a high stakes anti-campaign out there and many misrepresentations deliberately disseminated. I'd tried about everything - patches, gum, pills, with no success and quite literally quit smoking with my first ecig. No cravings, no withdrawal, and I never looked back. That's not at all uncommon.
But you need a good product and you need to know how to use it - that's the whole trick. NJOY, btw, is NOT a highly regarded brand among e-cig veterans. They're just pretending to have some special handle on making a successful ecig. Check out the forum mentioned above for advice. There is some learning curve here if you want to succeed, but it's not rocket science. Don't bother with cigalikes. A simple bat, a really good tank, and juice that you can have customized is all you need.
5
After reading several articles from today's opinion pages and the comments that follow them I have to reach a sad conclusion.
We, Americans, are scared.
Scared of illegal aliens.
Scared of women.
Scared of vaping.
Scared of dying.
I started smoking 50 years ago and have been quitting for the last 48.
I have got things more or less under control at present; a couple of cigarettes a week, supplemented with some vaping.
I don't use ecigs, instead I have a couple of battery units and use juice from the vape shop. Juice is available in many flavors a a few different dosage strengths and I found a couple that actually are reminiscent of the taste of pipe and cigarette tobacco. I found one flavored like kush which was pretty neat.
My wife certainly prefers the vaping, and in truth so do I. But........those couple cigs a week are pretty nice.
We, Americans, are scared.
Scared of illegal aliens.
Scared of women.
Scared of vaping.
Scared of dying.
I started smoking 50 years ago and have been quitting for the last 48.
I have got things more or less under control at present; a couple of cigarettes a week, supplemented with some vaping.
I don't use ecigs, instead I have a couple of battery units and use juice from the vape shop. Juice is available in many flavors a a few different dosage strengths and I found a couple that actually are reminiscent of the taste of pipe and cigarette tobacco. I found one flavored like kush which was pretty neat.
My wife certainly prefers the vaping, and in truth so do I. But........those couple cigs a week are pretty nice.
1
It's the ex-smoker in me that cares what little I do, and It seems to me: e-cigarettes are to tobacco what methadone is to heroin - thanks for adding to the dependency industry.
1
British Public Health has already determined that vaping is 95% safer than smoking - why doesn't the media report that in the USA?
2
I’m active in nicotine dependence research. I give the following advice to a person who considers using an electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS). (1) Try several ENDSs. Become skillful with one. A clunky-looking ENDS might satisfy best. (2) If you’re pregnant or nursing: No, because our research suggests ways that nicotine may affect the developing brain. (3) If you’re a teenager: maybe, but vaping might change the molecules and cells in your brain. (4) Never smoke another tobacco cigarette. (5) Beware the possible harmful components in unregulated ENDSs. Because nobody now regulates ENDSs, the policy implications of (5) agree with Joe Nocera.
2
Nicotine is the addictive part, yes. Nicotine is also unhealthy. It is a vasoconstrictor. Pretty toxic overall. I most certainly don't think it should illegal, but to promote it is not a good idea.
2
Say it ain't so, Joe . . . Do you really want to pitch a product that delivers an insecticide as a vapor? I write a garden column as, "Samuel Janovici," and I recommend nicotine sprays to kill bugs on non-edible (decorative) plants. It's less harmful than the manmade nerve toxins that most sprays contain, but let's not beat around the shrub: nicotine is a nerve toxin found in nature. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it does not kill. Ask the aphids I killed last week . . . I write is for cannabis growers, so vaping technology has been well known to my readers for many years. It is smokeless, but vaping delivers both THC and CBD's quite well and we're always asking our growers to produce a pure all natural product. Unlike the tobacco industry my people won't lie to our consumer base. We admit that Vaping is a smokeless drug delivery system. What you put into it will come out in a mist and enter your lungs - is that cool with you? So, we list what's in our products, which is either pure cannabis oil or a resin. Now, ask what big tobacco puts in theirs and wait for that awful moment of shame to hit you - "your advice threatens your readership." Can E-Cigarettes save lives? That answer relies on what goes into the vaporizer. Do you know exactly what's inside those E-Cigarettes that you support? If not - then you might be killing people . . .
1
Apparently e cigarettes started a fire in a Delta luggage compartment last week before it took off . What if it had been in the air? My nephew was aboard, travelling from Jamaica to Atlanta.
"Instead of demonizing them, the tobacco control community needs to find common ground, and come up with a set of standards — for marketing, manufacturing, and keeping e-cigarettes away from kids — that both sides can agree to."
Good luck with that idea. The main thrust of the e-cig industry has been to hook kids who have never smoked. Do adults really want to vape on bubble-gum flavored e-cigs? It's the industry that won't agree to such standards, thanks to the huge profits to be gained in the non-adult market..
Good luck with that idea. The main thrust of the e-cig industry has been to hook kids who have never smoked. Do adults really want to vape on bubble-gum flavored e-cigs? It's the industry that won't agree to such standards, thanks to the huge profits to be gained in the non-adult market..
1
As a public health official, I'm appalled to see nicotine referred to as the "safe" part of cigarettes. Just what the tobacco companies need to see and what we need to share with our kids. This is irresponsible writing and, as the author likes to throw out, fiction.
2
I've encouraged friends and relatives to try *vaping as a lower risk alternative to smoking. That said I can't stand the damned things, don't want them or the people who smoke or vape anywhere near me.
I quit smoking ping 50 years ago. Anyone can do it if I could. My friends who did not are mostly dead.
Vaping is simply a crutch. I don't want to see advertising or widespread campaigns touting a product with no redeeming value. They should not be used in public places. Period.
I can't see any rationale that would justify big marketing campaigns. These things should be limited to use as a last resort. Taxes on tobacco products are still not high enough.
The tobacco industry is largely a criminal enterprise selling weapons of mass destruction. The involvement of these companies in marketing high nicotine high everything to addict untold millions who can afford them or the death and misery that follows.
We need a clean break with the past. Including vaping.
I quit smoking ping 50 years ago. Anyone can do it if I could. My friends who did not are mostly dead.
Vaping is simply a crutch. I don't want to see advertising or widespread campaigns touting a product with no redeeming value. They should not be used in public places. Period.
I can't see any rationale that would justify big marketing campaigns. These things should be limited to use as a last resort. Taxes on tobacco products are still not high enough.
The tobacco industry is largely a criminal enterprise selling weapons of mass destruction. The involvement of these companies in marketing high nicotine high everything to addict untold millions who can afford them or the death and misery that follows.
We need a clean break with the past. Including vaping.
1
After the big tobacco settlements a lot of money of that got funneled to anti-smoking initiatives. As smoking rates go down, those organizations are extending their life (and money stream) by attacking e-cigarettes even though they're not tobacco or as dangerous as tobacco.
As usual, it's all about the money.
As usual, it's all about the money.
1
Surprised there isn't more -- both in the piece and in the comments -- about the positive effect e-cigarettes, as compared to regular cigarettes, have on the rest of us. I can't tell you how increasingly relieved I am, when walking on a Manhattan sidewalk with my three kids, heading toward one of those unavoidable clouds of exhaled smoke, to find it to be the plume of an e-cig as opposed to the foul, momentarily lung-clogging stench/cloud, of a "real" cigarette. That in combination with no more piles of butts everywhere; no risk of my little dog burning her nose or paws on a carelessly cast-off, still-glowing butt; no more being burned by the carelessly swung embers of smokers passing by; a lessening in the numbers of stomach-churning globs of hockers -- also carelessly cast-off upon the sidewalks we all must tread and carry into our homes upon our shoes -- of smokers...
1
Tobacco is a proven killer...but conveniently allowed to continue to spread harm as long as it pays taxes, taxes supposed to be used for preventing smoking to begin with...but used for other purposes (to my knowledge). And as tobacco products see a reduction of consumers in the U.S., it exports this 'killing machine' to the world. Hypocritical? You bet. Greedy? Right again. Unscrupulous you say, even criminal? Indeed. The F.D,A, seems useless, toothless, with a stunted will to change the status quo. And our politicians, as long as money flows their way, remain happy to comply, happy to sell themselves to the highest bidder. A disgrace, an injustice for all to see.
Most anti-tobacco advocates view replicating the feel and satisfaction of a cigarette as an effort to “renormalize smoking.”
I wouldn't mind a re-normalization of smoking, if it was healthy. Cigarettes were a far better social crutch than cell phones.
I wouldn't mind a re-normalization of smoking, if it was healthy. Cigarettes were a far better social crutch than cell phones.
2
There is no way in the world that e-cigarettes can SAVE lives. At the very most, they may PREVENT deaths by tobacco consumption.
1
This perspective is so America-centric while the tobacco industry gleefully pushes cigarette smoking on the rest of the world, especially among the southern countries where up to a billion will die in this century from tobacco-induced disease.
My father died from the effects of years of cigarette smoking. Are you saying that e-cigarettes might have saved his life, because nicotine was not the culprit? Too bad the armed forces gave him the cigarettes in WWII and got him hooked. Too bad there were no e-cigarettes around to deliver that drug that he so badly craved! On the other hand, the US government would have seemed a pretty obvious drug dealer.....
Ive been smoking for roughly 17 years. There are so many uninformed comments in this thread. There is a major discrepancy which is not being discussed. The difference between e-cigs (which emulate traditional cigs in shape look and feel) and vaping devices. The e-cigs are most certainly being marketed as substitute cigarettes while vaping devices are a separate entity. Vaping is done through devices of all sorts of shapes, sizes, power and e- juice capacity. These devices are not disposable like e-cigs and the type of vapor that is being 'smoked' can be chosen by the user. I dont know whats inside e-cigs but the taste and effect are not in any sense as clean as the individual e-juices one can "vape". The vaporizers are non disposable and refillable with e-juices that come in a seemingly infinite variety (cornbread pudding!, smoked yogurt!!?!) of flavors. Theres a bit of wild-west style competitive market for e-juice companies. NONE of the e-juice I have ever seen in the vape shops is made in China. One of my fav brands, True North, is made by a local chemist here in LA. ALL are available in incremental nicotine content from 24mg down to 0. I started at 18mg and now down to 3mg. Im able to ween myself off of nicotine and simultaneously rid my lungs of tar, and thousands of other cancer chemicals for good! Your body tells you everything you need to know. Mine tells me vaping is a FAR healthier smoking option than anything else out there...besides abstinence of course. :)
5
Most people I have spoken to think e-cigs are a smart move for people who already smoke cigarettes and want a substitute. They also think that anyone who doesn't already smoke is an idiot to think vaping is cool.
It's like deciding not to do heroin, just going straight to a methadone maintenance program that will last the rest of your life.
It's like deciding not to do heroin, just going straight to a methadone maintenance program that will last the rest of your life.
4
Many corporations have proved themselves to be without any moral compass whatsoever. Corporations should never be allowed to market a highly addictive substance, nicotine, without excruciatingly close oversight. These companies want to sell as much of their highly addictive product as they possibly can. Addicting as many people as possible will always be their primary goal. Addicting children to their products is particularly attractive.
And, I don't want people to be exhaling highly addictive nicotine around me, or the people I care about. No 'vaping' on sidewalks, restaurants, bars, apartments, etc.
I found it quite difficult to stop smoking. I sympathize with those who are trying to quit. But I distrust everything said by vaping companies and their shills.
And, I don't want people to be exhaling highly addictive nicotine around me, or the people I care about. No 'vaping' on sidewalks, restaurants, bars, apartments, etc.
I found it quite difficult to stop smoking. I sympathize with those who are trying to quit. But I distrust everything said by vaping companies and their shills.
2
Vaping surely could addict a new generation of youngsters. Even if they have the same limited marketing and access to E-cigarettes that they now have to tobacco products is there any evidence to suggest that MORE kids will get hooked because of e-cigarettes? Oh- If they are cool or 'safe' would it increase overall nicotine addiction?
And there may be an alternative. Say buying e-cigarettes requires the person to be 21 or even 26. Then access to e-cigarettes at a younger age must be by prescription, confirmation by a physician that the individual has a tobacco dependence problem for which the e-cigarette is a treatment. This can't protect all nicotine naïve youngsters but it might make it hard enough.
And there may be an alternative. Say buying e-cigarettes requires the person to be 21 or even 26. Then access to e-cigarettes at a younger age must be by prescription, confirmation by a physician that the individual has a tobacco dependence problem for which the e-cigarette is a treatment. This can't protect all nicotine naïve youngsters but it might make it hard enough.
1
I quit smoking two years ago using V2 brand e cigs. I currently vape a zero nicotine tobacco flavored mix. I hope to quit completely soon, and now that I am nicotine free, I already notice less desire to vape.
I am not sure if vaping is dangerous. It hasn't been around long, and no studies exist one way or another. Only time will tell. I do think however, good clean air is the best bet for our lungs.
I am not sure if vaping is dangerous. It hasn't been around long, and no studies exist one way or another. Only time will tell. I do think however, good clean air is the best bet for our lungs.
2
Health claims about E-Cigs shouldn't be taken on faith, because at this point none of them have been vetted. The E-Cigs contain chemicals as well and the truth is it will take years to find out if these are actually "safer" or whether they pose a different set of health risks.
At this point there is only one truly safe alternative, and that is just to quit and break the cycle of nicotine addiction altogether. Even better, don't mess with nicotine in the first place. It's highly addictive and breaking the cycle of addiction isn't easy, regardless of the method that people choose.
At this point there is only one truly safe alternative, and that is just to quit and break the cycle of nicotine addiction altogether. Even better, don't mess with nicotine in the first place. It's highly addictive and breaking the cycle of addiction isn't easy, regardless of the method that people choose.
2
If e-Cigs are being promoted now as "saving lives" then should they not be regulated as a medical device, and subject to FDA oversight?
There no reason to allow addictive drugs sold by corporate dealers to a vulnerable population to become another large industry.
There's no reason to allow these products to be subject to any less intensive marketing restrictions then regular tobacco products.
There is no legitimate purpose in associating 'lifestyle' aspirations, with addictive products. It shouldn't be allowed.
Prohibition apparently doesn't work. But restricting marketing and sales methods, is probably the only way of achieving a public interest in cases like e-cigs, marijuana, and truth be told, alcohol.
There no reason to allow addictive drugs sold by corporate dealers to a vulnerable population to become another large industry.
There's no reason to allow these products to be subject to any less intensive marketing restrictions then regular tobacco products.
There is no legitimate purpose in associating 'lifestyle' aspirations, with addictive products. It shouldn't be allowed.
Prohibition apparently doesn't work. But restricting marketing and sales methods, is probably the only way of achieving a public interest in cases like e-cigs, marijuana, and truth be told, alcohol.
2
It's great when somebody like JayPMac in MN (top Readers' Pick comment) can make the switch to e-cigarettes from the smoke variety. But, it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges argument. The two experiences are not physically equivalent, and some (many?) smoke-variety nicotine users will not like inhaling water vapor rather than physical smoke. I bought a pack of e-cigarettes for my neighbor, a long-time smoker, but he didn't like them.
I see e-cigarettes as part of wave of personal consumer-tech products, that like so many products out of Silicon Valley, come to us with big promises of improving many everyday experiences, such as teaching children how to learn, hailing a cab, or having a counseling session over one's iPhone. Yet, when the data is looked at honestly, many of these tech devices are no better than the old ways, they are merely different, and introduce problems of their own.
In the case of e-cigarettes, getting more people addicted to nicotine is probably not a good idea for anybody except those Chinese companies that sell the flavored, nicotine-liquids that go into e-cigarettes by the barrel-full. The few smoke-variety smokers who can switch are better off, but the introduction of these products as a whole are not a social benefit. More addicted citizens is not in our interest.
3
It is regrettable that some influential doctors insist that the only way to treat tobacco addiction is with the complete cessation of nicotine consumption. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin or cocaine yet members of my profession ( I am an MD) insist that complete quitting is the only acceptable path off tobacco products. My wife, who smoked 1.5 packs per day switched to e-cigs four years ago and is healthier. We no longer fight about her smoking in the house, when we take long drives she can have her nicotine without me being exposed to passive smoke. Our nights out in restaurants (as long as we are not in New York City) are pleasant while she vapes. In most other aspects of treating chronic conditions like addictions, we aim for harm reduction not necessarily complete cure, e-cigs meet that standard. I applaud Joe Nocera for continuing to have a practical approach to a smoking cessation option. Keep up the effort!
6
Whether it legal or illegal, nicotine is a strongly addictive substance. Maybe the worst. When I came of age in the 60's, well over 50% of the adult population smoked. Many died due to effects of tobacco, which provided the real drug, nicotine. I'd go slow endorsing nicotine in any form. Those who are medically "certified" as tobacco addicts may be an exception. If vaping works for the addicts that's great. But keep nicotine away from the non-addicts.
1
While not a scientific study, I can share my own experience. I have used e-cigarettes for almost 2 years, after a lifetime of on and off smoking.
On a couple of occasions I misplaced or broke my e-cigarette, and live in a rural place where they are not readily available. At first I though it was no big deal, I would just buy some cigarettes and smoke them until I was able to replace my e-cigarette. However, I have found that this does not work. Smoking real cigarettes is so unpleasant that I cannot do it, I cant even finish one cigarette. So I personally believe based on my experience that the concern that e-cigarette use will be a "gateway" to smoking regular cigarettes is unfounded, in fact I believe that e-cigarette use will lead people away from cigarettes. I believe that they should not be marketed or sold to minors, but the minors who then use them anyway are exactly the ones who would be smoking regular cigarettes, and many of their lives will be saved.
On a couple of occasions I misplaced or broke my e-cigarette, and live in a rural place where they are not readily available. At first I though it was no big deal, I would just buy some cigarettes and smoke them until I was able to replace my e-cigarette. However, I have found that this does not work. Smoking real cigarettes is so unpleasant that I cannot do it, I cant even finish one cigarette. So I personally believe based on my experience that the concern that e-cigarette use will be a "gateway" to smoking regular cigarettes is unfounded, in fact I believe that e-cigarette use will lead people away from cigarettes. I believe that they should not be marketed or sold to minors, but the minors who then use them anyway are exactly the ones who would be smoking regular cigarettes, and many of their lives will be saved.
15
I would love to hear the debates behind closed doors where big-city leaders decided that vapes were Trouble Right Here In River City.
Suppose a line of cars were produced that when used correctly and following all the rules, killed over 480,000 people per year (CDC - Tobacco Mortality, 2014) , would such a product be allowed to exist? Say in response to public pressure, the manufacture introduces a new product that will only kill 100,000 people per year and touts it as a 'safer alternative,' would that product be allowed to exist?
Why are we still talking about this?
Why are we still talking about this?
4
And why are you inventing a mortality figure that has no demonstrable significance?
Joe, I hate to break it to you, but smoking is coming back. Vamping reintroduced a generation to nicotine, which, to be fair, is a pleasant and relaxing substance. But the consensus among younger folk who aren't on the Mormon end of the substance spectrum is that e-cigs are tacky.
I am not a regular smoker. I never was, and I never will be. But, no matter what the FDA promotes or tax policy dictates, there is a coolness in taking a puff between drinks at the bar or hanging out with your friends.
It is good for e-cigs to fill in the niche of smokers who want to live longer, but it is naive to expect non-smokers to start safe and stay there.
I am not a regular smoker. I never was, and I never will be. But, no matter what the FDA promotes or tax policy dictates, there is a coolness in taking a puff between drinks at the bar or hanging out with your friends.
It is good for e-cigs to fill in the niche of smokers who want to live longer, but it is naive to expect non-smokers to start safe and stay there.
2
The tobacco industry doesn't want to sell vaping products to get people to cut down on smoking, much less to get people to cut down on nicotine. It wants to sell as much tobacco product as possible, and this means hooking new users, who are mostly young people. Trying to outsmart the industry and its lobbyists (and some captive legislators) with directed partial regulation may be futile. It may be necessary to make regulations strict enough to cripple the entire industry.
4
What they want to do is corner the market by selling an FDA approved, totally ineffective version (they are the ONLY ones who will be able to afford the draconian regulatory hoops that current FDA proposals would lay upon small manufacturers of very effective products), thus ensuring that ecigs get a reputation for ineffectiveness and cigarettes win the day. The tobacco industry is VERY aware that ecigs are safer, less addictive and a real boon for those who want to quit smoking. Nothing in it for them unless they can grab and ruin that market.
1
Dear Mr. Nocera -
The answer is a qualified yes, sort of. What vaping can do is to extend lives. The possible harm of vaping itself remains to be worked out.
Packaged "e-cigarettes" as sold are found to be unsatisfactory by many who try them because, as said, they are limited in delivery. They are not cheap, and in my own experience, are defective about 10 percent of the time.
What has worked are the user-filled coil-fired devices sold in vaping stores where the buyer can specify what strength nicotine liquid is used. The "hit" is as direct and satisfying as actual tobacco.
This approach has at the very least extended my own life. Two years ago, I went through a course of pulmonary rehabilitation intended to help ease the limitations of COPD that came with 56 years of tobacco use. Such rehab is of course all cardio-pulmonary, and began with rapid extended walking, moving on to actual running. I now run ten kilometers each day and every day; I no longer experience the crippling breathlessness that had hampered my life previously; I actually feel 'healthy'.
I credit the exercise, which would not have happened without the vaping device; that alone permitted a truce with the indefatigable nicotine addiction. I spend about $25 per week for nicotine liquid and replaceable coils. It has become an invaluable part of life, and as pathetic as that no doubt sounds, it is preferable to the reek and poison of tobacco.
The answer is a qualified yes, sort of. What vaping can do is to extend lives. The possible harm of vaping itself remains to be worked out.
Packaged "e-cigarettes" as sold are found to be unsatisfactory by many who try them because, as said, they are limited in delivery. They are not cheap, and in my own experience, are defective about 10 percent of the time.
What has worked are the user-filled coil-fired devices sold in vaping stores where the buyer can specify what strength nicotine liquid is used. The "hit" is as direct and satisfying as actual tobacco.
This approach has at the very least extended my own life. Two years ago, I went through a course of pulmonary rehabilitation intended to help ease the limitations of COPD that came with 56 years of tobacco use. Such rehab is of course all cardio-pulmonary, and began with rapid extended walking, moving on to actual running. I now run ten kilometers each day and every day; I no longer experience the crippling breathlessness that had hampered my life previously; I actually feel 'healthy'.
I credit the exercise, which would not have happened without the vaping device; that alone permitted a truce with the indefatigable nicotine addiction. I spend about $25 per week for nicotine liquid and replaceable coils. It has become an invaluable part of life, and as pathetic as that no doubt sounds, it is preferable to the reek and poison of tobacco.
15
Yes yes yes. The NYT is sort of trying, but the level of unsophistication and real knowledge about e-cigarettes remains appalling. They don't seem able, somehow, to sort out their information intelligently. To cite flat statements that ecigs don't really work very well is like quoting someone who complains that the plastic rolling pin that she bought at the dollar store just doesn't work very well.
1
E-cigarettes reduce the cancer and lung disease risks of smoking. The situation with vascular disease is less clear. Studies suggest that the doses of nicotine associated with the use of nicotine gum and patches for the purpose of smoking cessation are safe in the statistical sense especially since the negative vascular and lipid metabolism effects tend to resolve with CESSATION of nicotine use. What will happen with long term and possibly escalating (due to its addictive effects) use of inhaled nicotine is not so clear. Increase in the number of patients with thrombo angiitis obliterans -- Buergher's disease. However, as others have pointed out as long as tobacco products are legally available and widely used there is no point in trying to excessively regulate e-cigarettes.
The focus in the article and comments appear to be on addicted individuals and not on the non-addicted general public.
Let's not forget that nearly 50,000 people die each year from second hand tobacco smoke. That's more than the annual death toll from car accidents.
I agree the evidence to date shows there are heath issues with combustive tobacco and vaping.
But a least vaping would have a positive reductive impact on those 50,000 innocents each year that die from second hand tobacco combustion.
If anything, lets have common sense policy as soon as possible that helps victims, those who choose not to start or sustain addiction.
Let's not forget that nearly 50,000 people die each year from second hand tobacco smoke. That's more than the annual death toll from car accidents.
I agree the evidence to date shows there are heath issues with combustive tobacco and vaping.
But a least vaping would have a positive reductive impact on those 50,000 innocents each year that die from second hand tobacco combustion.
If anything, lets have common sense policy as soon as possible that helps victims, those who choose not to start or sustain addiction.
5
When an ecig is inhaled the nicotine is absorbed by the mucous membranes - it's not burned and it's not smoke. The exhaled mist is water vapor and a very small amount of glycol, the same thing that's been used in asthma inhalors, and in MUCH heavier amounts, at rock shows and in circuses for a misty atmosphere. Might be a little food flavoring in there.
I'm a healthcare provider, caring primarily for young casino workers. Anything that could protect them from secondhand smoke would be a huge benefit!
I am not puzzled nor mystified at the anti-tobacco lobby's vitriolic and evidence-free opposition to the much-safer e-cigarettes.
Their opposition only exposes the fact that many belonging to that lobby were never motivated by saving lives in the first place.
The anti-tobacco campaign has always been a campaign of misleading statistics justifying the ostracization of smokers partly because of what the image of a smoker represents in the public subconscious.
What's the first thing a single person does when they're done having sex? Why do singles at the bar so often have a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other? Smoking can be a symbol of sexual availability and sexual freedom. No wonder so many are terrified that e-cigarettes may end up in the hands of minors.
E-cigarettes are a great advance for the public health and should be treated as such. Any less just leads to more tobacco deaths.
Their opposition only exposes the fact that many belonging to that lobby were never motivated by saving lives in the first place.
The anti-tobacco campaign has always been a campaign of misleading statistics justifying the ostracization of smokers partly because of what the image of a smoker represents in the public subconscious.
What's the first thing a single person does when they're done having sex? Why do singles at the bar so often have a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other? Smoking can be a symbol of sexual availability and sexual freedom. No wonder so many are terrified that e-cigarettes may end up in the hands of minors.
E-cigarettes are a great advance for the public health and should be treated as such. Any less just leads to more tobacco deaths.
8
Long ago, the wonder drug morphine was created, and sold to many people. Many became addicted.
So we created heroin. Claims at the time were that it was better than heroin, and less addictive! Those claims proved false.
Then a parade of drugs, including OxyContin. It was "obvious" that these would be safer. Witness today's OxyContin crisis.
The point: "obvious" things aren't always correct.
Counter examples: Ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen. These drugs do work well for pain control and have less side effects.
====
It is one thing to market E-cigs to smokers in the sincerely believed HOPE that the will lower their smoking/nicotine intake. It is another to state as fact that they work.
But don't confuse using E-cigs as smoking cessation drugs with marketing them as "safer" recreational substances
And certainly don't state as fact that the vapor is "only water". it isn't.
===
I know this is an Op-Ed piece, but one should not offer opinions as established medical science.
The following statements are all claims. There is no credible medical research that supports OR disproves these claims.
"Though nicotine is addictive, it is the tobacco that kills."
"An e-cigarette that could truly replicate the experience of smoking would dramatically reduce — not eliminate, but reduce — the dangers of smoking."
"most refuse even to acknowledge the health benefits of “vaping” over smoking."
"Americans view vaping as no safer than smoking, which is absurd."
So we created heroin. Claims at the time were that it was better than heroin, and less addictive! Those claims proved false.
Then a parade of drugs, including OxyContin. It was "obvious" that these would be safer. Witness today's OxyContin crisis.
The point: "obvious" things aren't always correct.
Counter examples: Ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen. These drugs do work well for pain control and have less side effects.
====
It is one thing to market E-cigs to smokers in the sincerely believed HOPE that the will lower their smoking/nicotine intake. It is another to state as fact that they work.
But don't confuse using E-cigs as smoking cessation drugs with marketing them as "safer" recreational substances
And certainly don't state as fact that the vapor is "only water". it isn't.
===
I know this is an Op-Ed piece, but one should not offer opinions as established medical science.
The following statements are all claims. There is no credible medical research that supports OR disproves these claims.
"Though nicotine is addictive, it is the tobacco that kills."
"An e-cigarette that could truly replicate the experience of smoking would dramatically reduce — not eliminate, but reduce — the dangers of smoking."
"most refuse even to acknowledge the health benefits of “vaping” over smoking."
"Americans view vaping as no safer than smoking, which is absurd."
8
I had no idea that e-cigarettes contained elements from all of the four essential food groups and are a terrific nutritional supplement.
There's nothing quite as wonderful as the power of American marketing to prove that Down Is Up.
There's nothing quite as wonderful as the power of American marketing to prove that Down Is Up.
41
Unfortunately Nocera's discussion is one dimensional. I agree with its conclusion that e-cigarettes are preferable to tobacco and that they might have a place as a treatment for getting tobacco users to quit. So maybe regulate them to be sold and marketed as an OTC medical device.... OK. But leaving them unregulated where companies are free to market them to naive youngsters and hook a new generation on nicotine is just nuts. But that's where the $$ is for the companies, selling an addicting product to a new generation. Is that really what Nocera is arguing for??
28
I can understand why selling them to minors ought to be prohibited, but limiting marketing to use as a medical device sounds too nannyish.
Recent research shows that e-cigarettes are a gateway to cigarettes. E-cigarettes are the lifeblood of future cigarette sales. How long will it take for us to stop believing the lies of the tobacco industry in all its forms?
Shame on Joe Nocera, and shame on the NYT. No amount of exposes in 3 or 5 years will excuse their guilt for this article.
Shame on Joe Nocera, and shame on the NYT. No amount of exposes in 3 or 5 years will excuse their guilt for this article.
15
If e-cigs are a gateway to tobacco use, explain why almost all vapers ex-smokers but practically no smoker is an ex-vaper. If vapor devices are a gateway, they're one away from smoking, not to it.
I know because vaping is the only method that allowed me to remain smoke-free for almost 2 years. Gum, pharmaceuticals, other Pharma-promoted methods, and cold turkey did not afford me an exit from combustible tobacco.
If I were you, I'd tune out the pharma-peddled pack of lies and research the truth about vapor products. The real reason the powers that be want them overregulated is that vapor devices cut into the already bloated profits of the both the tobacco and anti-tobacco establishment.
I know because vaping is the only method that allowed me to remain smoke-free for almost 2 years. Gum, pharmaceuticals, other Pharma-promoted methods, and cold turkey did not afford me an exit from combustible tobacco.
If I were you, I'd tune out the pharma-peddled pack of lies and research the truth about vapor products. The real reason the powers that be want them overregulated is that vapor devices cut into the already bloated profits of the both the tobacco and anti-tobacco establishment.
8
And into the profits that Pharma is still trying to squeeze from its woefully ineffective replacement products - patches and gum and all. It fascinates me that the world did not totally freak out when Pharma introduced a product that delivers nicotine through the skin. OH no! What if the children find out! What if the dog eats one! They're trying to hook teens on nicotine! It's all just absolutely nuts. Everyone is falling for Big Tobacco's scam. Including the FDA, which is of course in bed with Pharma.
1
Could you please cite the "recent research" to which you're referring? Thanks.
Mr. Nocera,
Please disclose if you are a consumer of tobacco, e-cigarettes, or other vaping products. This article reads like an advertisement a specific product.
Please disclose if you are a consumer of tobacco, e-cigarettes, or other vaping products. This article reads like an advertisement a specific product.
10
Yeah. I am a very strong ecig advocate, but even when the Times is getting it sort of right they can't seem to sort the players out here.
I'm prepared to agree with Joe Nocera's conclusions about the health value of e-cigarettes, but his piece is woefully short on many fronts. Are there reliable studies about the effects of their use with regard to addictiveness, regularity and frequency of use, appeal to young users, and the degree to which they promote moving to conventional cigarettes in search of a greater "hit?" And what do these studies show? How and where are they distributed? To whom are they marketed - former smokers, current smokers, new smokers? And finally, how much do they cost, compared to conventional cigarettes? How about a follow-up column on these crucial factors.
4
As a primary care doctor, I've seen some patients helped in quitting by e-cigarettes. But balancing this, 14 yr-olds are more than 4 times more likely to use combustible tobacco after first trying vapes http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2428954
Which influence will prevail, additional long-term smokers quitting, or cultivating new generations of vapers, many who will transition to actual cigarettes? The tobacco industry is buying up vaping companies left and right, and appears to be betting on the latter, under the smokescreen of 'saving lives'.
Which influence will prevail, additional long-term smokers quitting, or cultivating new generations of vapers, many who will transition to actual cigarettes? The tobacco industry is buying up vaping companies left and right, and appears to be betting on the latter, under the smokescreen of 'saving lives'.
17
You nailed it!
I'm an ex-smoker since 1982. I found that I smoked not only because I was addicted, but I enjoyed the different taste in my mouth that I could get from cigarettes. I smoked menthol cigarettes. I would gladly chose an e-cigarette if it contained a mint, or other flavor but had no Nicotine, and was proven it did not harm my lungs. It would be like an inhaler for respiratory problems without the drugs. I think that would be a hit?
2
That's readily available, actually. But no, for ecigs to successfully replace cigarettes, some amount of nicotine is preferred. About as much as in whatever level nicotine patch would be suitable for you.
There is a large minority that think anything that is associated with tobacco is inherently evil. Knowing people who switch from a heavy smoking regime to E cigarettes, I can say the smoker's overall health improved and everyone around him was much happier. I agree with the writer, the FDA needs to research the health issues of inhaling a diet of extremely fine mists. We also need better quality control on the ingredients used in these products and amount of trace heavy metals in the vapor.
5
I have had the misfortune of sitting next to an e-smoker, at a bar in New Jersey. The vapor emitted had a distinct, unpleasant, non-tobacco odor, and was visible. Those who claim these products have are transparent to others do not know what they are talking about. I won't get into the ethics of encouraging the use of any product that leads to lifetime nicotine addiction.
11
“Public Health England (PHE) concludes that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than tobacco. There is no evidence so far that e-cigarettes are acting as a route into smoking for children or non-smokers.”
“Professor Peter Hajek suggests that e-cigarettes may be contributing to falling smoking rates among adults and young people.”
“However, the review raises concerns that increasing numbers of people think e-cigarettes are equally or more harmful than smoking. Despite this trend, all current evidence finds that e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of smoking.”
Source: 19 August 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-t...
I smoked a pack a day for 37 years and tried to quit without success. Then, over a year ago a friend helped me pick out a good vaping device (yes there are good ones) and I haven’t had a cigarette since. I am now at the lowest level 3mg. Soon it will be zero. It was easier that I thought possible and my health gets better and better.
The two main ingredients of e-cig juice are vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol. Both have been used and are widely used in medical and commercial products for decades. Both have been widely tested.
I find it shameful that fear of e-cigs is going up. I've read many post (and articles) that sound authoritative but they don’t seem to know much about what they are talking about. There is no need to fear heavy metals or the boogey-man from vaping.
10
I think the E-cigarettes are still not addressing the smoking problem as it is simulating the action of smoking.
What is required is something that helps quit smoking or makes smoking abhorrent or distasteful to take.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
What is required is something that helps quit smoking or makes smoking abhorrent or distasteful to take.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
1
If you cut the ‘bull’ about the science, effects, addiction etc. one thing is patently obvious…using e-cigarettes is safer, healthier and is much less sociably infringing than smoking real cigarettes, so what’s the issue?
Was there this much fuss over alcohol-free beer?
Was there this much fuss over alcohol-free beer?
4
I, for one, would like to see smokers back in the bars instead of blocking the sidewalks and e-cigs would be more tolerated and less harmful to others in confined spaces. I haven't smoked for 20 years after having smoked 2-packs a day of unfiltered Camels for almost 50 years. The e-cig makers have provided the simulated fire and smoke and a dose of nicotine but have not provided the little bite of tars that I fondly remember.
I continue to pay the price for my half-century of smoking: the lung cancer that has been dormant for five years has returned and the heart disease keeps me from being as active as I liked to be. People of my generation loved to smoke without many restrictions and if e-cigs are a safer alternative, they should not be discouraged.
I continue to pay the price for my half-century of smoking: the lung cancer that has been dormant for five years has returned and the heart disease keeps me from being as active as I liked to be. People of my generation loved to smoke without many restrictions and if e-cigs are a safer alternative, they should not be discouraged.
22
Really, Mr. Nocera, you're now an apologist for a nicotine delivery system? The only other use for nicotine, a poisonous alkaloid, is to kill insects. How can you possibly think that vapor delivery of this product into the lungs of humans could be anything but bad?
3
Nicotine is what makes green peppers taste like green peppers.
2
Vaping has 2 other purposes: helping people quit smoking, and as a stimulant: I vape at my desk and it helps me tremendously.
You can buy a gallon of liquid nicotine, enough to kill an army. And yet cannabis remains illegal. If vaping can get people to quit then I'm all for it. More than likely you'll just get addicted to another form of death.
2
Why should I care how many people die of smoking? Tell them of the health problems it will likely causes, and tax the heck out of them. If these people are still going to pay $15 a pack for their poison, they're beyond help anyway...
1
With flavors like gummy bear, starburst, and lollipop, it is slightly difficult to believe the altruistic nature of the e-cigarette conglomerate is not to reintroduce kids / young adults to one of the most addictive substances known to man. Research suggesting the popularity of such flavors to children, from 2008 along with an NPR editorial.
Klein, Sarah M., et al. "Use of flavored cigarettes among older adolescent and adult smokers: United States, 2004–2005." Nicotine & Tobacco Research 10.7 (2008): 1209-1214.
APA
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/02/17/276558592/candy-flav...
Klein, Sarah M., et al. "Use of flavored cigarettes among older adolescent and adult smokers: United States, 2004–2005." Nicotine & Tobacco Research 10.7 (2008): 1209-1214.
APA
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/02/17/276558592/candy-flav...
6
There is certainly a case for persuading smokers to switch to e-cigarettes. But it should be possible to make this point without writing a column that reads like an advertisement for NJOY.
3
I really struggle with all this great concern for people dying. Each and everyone of us is going to die. No action, by anyone, anywhere, can do other than change the proximate cause of death.
Someone should talk about the ethics and morality of prolonging life on a planet with too many people. We are our own worst enemy.
Someone should talk about the ethics and morality of prolonging life on a planet with too many people. We are our own worst enemy.
2
I'm so sick of this stupid, misinformation laden, special-interests-serving, irrational-hysteria-generating anti-ecig battle that I might give up on trying to set things straight and take your approach.
Joe, please leave this issue to your science reporters and don't base your beliefs on information from e-cigarette companies, which are trying to hook new customers, smokers or non-smokers. This type of biased reporting should not be allowed in the NYT.
Cigarette smokers should join stop smoking programs. The professionals in these programs do not recommend e-cigarettes, which are not demonstrated to stop smoking or to be free of harm.
Cigarette smokers should join stop smoking programs. The professionals in these programs do not recommend e-cigarettes, which are not demonstrated to stop smoking or to be free of harm.
In my opinion, and from experience at my office, vaping stinks! You need nicotine that bad? Use a nicotine patch!
I smoked over 30 years and quit. Breathing easy felt good but now I'm cursed with a vaper in my airspace!
Don't condone a practice as safe, Mr. Nocera, that encourages people to believe it perfectly fine to subject others to it. If it's a way to quit smoking I don't see it. Many still do both!
I smoked over 30 years and quit. Breathing easy felt good but now I'm cursed with a vaper in my airspace!
Don't condone a practice as safe, Mr. Nocera, that encourages people to believe it perfectly fine to subject others to it. If it's a way to quit smoking I don't see it. Many still do both!
2
Personal experience: The e-cigs work if you want to stop smoking the real ones. I stopped cold 2 years ago after 45 years and many attempts. The e-cigs are much more socially acceptable, you don't smell like tobacco and neither do your surroundings. It does stand to reason that some will be safer. Vapor containing nicotine and one or two other chemicals figures to be safer that the smoke from burning heavily doctored up tobacco. All one needs to do is look at what cigarette smoke does to a cigarette filter to figure that out.
Also we should probably not confuse the vaping kits with the pre-packaged cigarette style products like njoy or blu. The latter have a de minimis risk of exposing kids to nicotine and whatever is in the flavor du jour of the vaping and huffing crowd.
And yes, the FDA should get some testing done and the lions should consider at least dancing with, if not lying down with the lambs.
Also we should probably not confuse the vaping kits with the pre-packaged cigarette style products like njoy or blu. The latter have a de minimis risk of exposing kids to nicotine and whatever is in the flavor du jour of the vaping and huffing crowd.
And yes, the FDA should get some testing done and the lions should consider at least dancing with, if not lying down with the lambs.
2
For those who are gung-ho for or gung-ho aganst vaping, let us remember there are almost always unanticipated and unintended consequences of most every policy. Recognition of this and adding in a touch of humility would help America develope policies that are most likely to succeed in ways the general public defines as "succeed."
2
I quit a 15 year habit using a vaporizer for three or four months, and I know I wouldn't have held off at several key moments without it.
I haven't smoked in two years and haven't used the vaporizer in 18 months, I'm hugely thankful for it.
I can only tell you about my case. Most of the comments I read about these things in the press are against them. Makes me wonder just how many people Big Tobacco really employs
I haven't smoked in two years and haven't used the vaporizer in 18 months, I'm hugely thankful for it.
I can only tell you about my case. Most of the comments I read about these things in the press are against them. Makes me wonder just how many people Big Tobacco really employs
2
The purportedly beneficial effects of e-cigarettes are dubious at best. Tobacco addicts who switch to e-cigs are merely replacing one addiction with another. Several posters herein have likened the situation to methadone vs. heroin and the comparison is apt. The only difference between a smoker and a heroin addict is that one addiction is legal and the other is not. Both will kill the user eventually. Until heroin and tobacco addicts deal intensively with the underlying emotional/psychological issues that drive them to their suicidal behaviour, with he goal of freeing themselves from it, the carnage will continue. E-cigarettes, by providing a handy, almost-socially-acceptable crutch for these sick and pathetic individuals, do absolutely nothing to encourage them to get off the cycle of self-destruction. Just as I avoid the company of smokers and junkies, so, too, do I, insofar as is possible, steer clear of anyone sucking on an e-cigarette and spewing smoke. There is something alarming about such people, and I want no more contact with them than I would with any other stranger who is clearly emotionally disturbed.
There is something alarming about people who equate addiction with moral failure. I want no more contact with them than I would with any other stranger who is clearly emotionally disturbed.
2
To see how close-minded your argument sounds, run it through your mind with caffeine addiction in place of nicotine addiction..
It's just so hard to feel bad for smokers who suffer as a result of their habit. I'm not sure it is my job to save them from themselves.
So stay out of the way. You aren't being asked to help or contirbute financially - you are just being asked to not do anything.
2
My mother died from her nicotine addiction. She got Reynards Disease where the nicotine closes off the capillaries. It started when the tips of her fingers grew numb and denigrated to gangrene. She then had digestive problems and exploratory surgery found her entire intestines were gangrenous. She died of starvation. I quit smoking in 2006 after 50 years as a smoker mainly because of my fear of the nicotine! It is more addictive than heroin! Do you want your child to become an addict? E-cigs are as dangerous as any tobacco product.
3
Thank you for this column! As a two-pack a day smoker for almost forty years, I have found that vaping is a better alternative than continuing to smoke cigarettes. Because many vaping systems allow the user to reduce the level of nicotine gradually, it has also helped me become significantly less nicotine-dependent. Not a perfect solution, but as someone who struggled to quit smoking cigarettes many times, this is the best means to it that I've found. And although I'd welcome studies into the long-term effects of vaping and e-cigs, and regulation of vaping liquids, I'm disappointed at the reaction of my never-smoking friends that anything which looks like smoking is somehow bad. Cigarette smoking is an addiction, not a moral failure, and we need to treat alternatives to it as possible means to help people quit.
6
Hard to believe I once smoked. Course it is hard to believe I wore plaid bellbottoms and disco shoes too. If the regulators are asleep at the switch they need to be prodded to take action. We are in an uproar over abortion. This stuff kills more, and probably does much damage to those unborn children. Here we have yahoos running around telling us how much we should protect the fetus where are they on this subject. Where is Big Ben Carson when you need him.
3
I'm a former smoker. My daily average was a pack and half of unfiltered Camels or Luckies. Quitting was damn difficult.
Two factors of success: the prodding of friends (thank you all), and laws prohibiting smoking in public places, offices, and schools. (Thank you big liberal nanny state.)
As a former smoker, I look on eCigs with a mixture of fascination and horror.
On one hand, I believe eCigs can help people quit. They deliver many of the same muscle memory mannerisms of cigarettes. So a smoker can engage in many of the familiar motions; hand to mouth, exhaling visible "smoke", inhaling thoughtfully, or angrily, and can get that mellow short term (20 minute) nicotine high. This makes eCigs superior to nicotine patches and gum which deliver the drug on a different dosing schedule, and don't provide any of the familiar mannerisms.
And truly need for those mannerisms is powerful. Look at eCig advertising, look at people using eCigs. See how much they enjoy the exhaling, the pause after the inhale and after the exhale. Users are not just pausing, they're posing. Savoring their many little daily moments of coolness.
But make no mistake. Those benefits to quitting that eCigs provide, are also a lure for returning. I don't remember how tobacco tastes. But I know what it looks like, and it looks like eCigs. If eCigs are not hidden away, I will go back. I will be hooked. I will suffer.
Two factors of success: the prodding of friends (thank you all), and laws prohibiting smoking in public places, offices, and schools. (Thank you big liberal nanny state.)
As a former smoker, I look on eCigs with a mixture of fascination and horror.
On one hand, I believe eCigs can help people quit. They deliver many of the same muscle memory mannerisms of cigarettes. So a smoker can engage in many of the familiar motions; hand to mouth, exhaling visible "smoke", inhaling thoughtfully, or angrily, and can get that mellow short term (20 minute) nicotine high. This makes eCigs superior to nicotine patches and gum which deliver the drug on a different dosing schedule, and don't provide any of the familiar mannerisms.
And truly need for those mannerisms is powerful. Look at eCig advertising, look at people using eCigs. See how much they enjoy the exhaling, the pause after the inhale and after the exhale. Users are not just pausing, they're posing. Savoring their many little daily moments of coolness.
But make no mistake. Those benefits to quitting that eCigs provide, are also a lure for returning. I don't remember how tobacco tastes. But I know what it looks like, and it looks like eCigs. If eCigs are not hidden away, I will go back. I will be hooked. I will suffer.
6
It amazes me that the discussion here is still about whether it's safer and that nicotine is a poison to attrack kids etc. etc. E-cigarette's are here to stay especially with close to 2 million users in the United States today and a million in the UK. First the Nay-Sayers need to get that in their mind and come to grips with it . The real discuss here needs to then be how do we get these into the hands of smokers who are going to die horrible death's if they don't stop smoking. Vaping is a viable option which has saved my life as well as millions of others around the globe.
2
It's significant that at no point did Mr. Nocera talk about the health effects of vaping. Why? It's because nobody knows whether or not e-cigarettes are a health hazard.
Does it make sense to drive people to a different vehicle for the delivery of a known addictive substance - nicotine - until we know whether or not we're simply substituting one coffin nail for another?
Does it make sense to drive people to a different vehicle for the delivery of a known addictive substance - nicotine - until we know whether or not we're simply substituting one coffin nail for another?
4
After 3 years of vaping I can safely say it has saved my life and restored my health. I'm cycling again!
12
I know, let's let perfect be the enemy of good. I'm an ex smoker and don't think that vaping is such a great idea either, but it's clear that vaping is a better choice than smoking. We've had warnings on cigarette packages for over 50 years and while the smoking rate is down it's hardly out. Just for once let's accept something that helps even if it isn't the ultimate answer.
52
Sure, and doing coke is less harmful than doing Heroin. What is you point?
Perhaps Mr. Nocera could provide scientific justification for his assertion that vaping is safer than smoking rather than quote the word of a nicotine salesman as gospel. The truth is that as of now, nothing has been done to demonstrate that this is factually true and until proper studies are conducted it will remain unknown if vaping is safer, the same, or more dangerous than other forms of nicotine delivery.
1
Let's differentiate between the effects of nicotine, the added effects of the carriers used in e-cigs, and the added effects of burning tobacco.
Nicotine in and of itself is a stimulant. It raises heart rate and blood pressure among others. It is not a known carcinogen by itself. But it will raise the rate of heart, kidney and liver disease in long term users. It's also highly addictive.
E-cigs have all the minuses of nicotine. Also, the common carriers for e-cigs are glycerols. Mostly benign, but there is evidence that glycerols from fog machines cause long term lung problems in actors and stage hands. The temperatures are lower than burning tobacco, so it is hoped that the combustion products aren't as bad. They probably also carry other airborne carcinogens into the lung and hold them there.
Burning tobacco is probably even worse: definitely produces carcinogens; definitely causes lung damage; definitely carries airborne carcinogens into the lungs. Also tobacco plants sequester uranium from the soil and smoking releases it, which leads to alpha emitters nestled down deep in the lungs.
So on that scale, tobacco is worst and nicotine pills the best. E-cigs are (probably) in between Except there are no regulations, so we're guessing.
Plus I am frankly less worried about a few old farts like me dying of lung cancer than I am about a whole new generation of nicotine addicts coming up and experimenting with the many, mostly carcinogenic forms of nicotine.
Nicotine in and of itself is a stimulant. It raises heart rate and blood pressure among others. It is not a known carcinogen by itself. But it will raise the rate of heart, kidney and liver disease in long term users. It's also highly addictive.
E-cigs have all the minuses of nicotine. Also, the common carriers for e-cigs are glycerols. Mostly benign, but there is evidence that glycerols from fog machines cause long term lung problems in actors and stage hands. The temperatures are lower than burning tobacco, so it is hoped that the combustion products aren't as bad. They probably also carry other airborne carcinogens into the lung and hold them there.
Burning tobacco is probably even worse: definitely produces carcinogens; definitely causes lung damage; definitely carries airborne carcinogens into the lungs. Also tobacco plants sequester uranium from the soil and smoking releases it, which leads to alpha emitters nestled down deep in the lungs.
So on that scale, tobacco is worst and nicotine pills the best. E-cigs are (probably) in between Except there are no regulations, so we're guessing.
Plus I am frankly less worried about a few old farts like me dying of lung cancer than I am about a whole new generation of nicotine addicts coming up and experimenting with the many, mostly carcinogenic forms of nicotine.
4
Once again, it is the all-or-nothing, either/or nature of the proposition that is the fallacy.
Generally, I appreciate Mr. Nocera's logic and advocacy, but in this case, I am puzzled by his warm embrace of e-cigs and arrogant dismissal of concerns.
Most e-cig critics I've seen aren't declaring they cannot/do not help cigarette smokers or at least qualify as a less harmful alternative. My concern stems from the horrendous history of the tobacco industry in hiding, if not flat out lying about, the health hazards of their products.
Yes, there may be an intuitive logic in that not breathing in toxins of combustion is a better alternative, but uncritically accepting that vape is harmless is naive at best, idiotic at worst. A more self-absorbed common retort is: "An adult should be free to choose whatever toxins they wish to ingest." Again, we're back to how long did the tobacco industry claim that there was no such thing as "secondhand smoke"? How insulting that non-smokers were subjected to the smokers' whims when "smoking sections" were implemented as, what, a farcical appeasement?
I'd like to believe the harm of tobacco use is on its way out and that, perhaps, e-cigs might help usher in that change. However, gathering evidence is demonstrating that the candy store of flavors DO encourage non-smokers - particularly young people - to take up vaping and a many of them actually do move to tobacco.
But, by all means, let's just accept the talking point advocacy.
Generally, I appreciate Mr. Nocera's logic and advocacy, but in this case, I am puzzled by his warm embrace of e-cigs and arrogant dismissal of concerns.
Most e-cig critics I've seen aren't declaring they cannot/do not help cigarette smokers or at least qualify as a less harmful alternative. My concern stems from the horrendous history of the tobacco industry in hiding, if not flat out lying about, the health hazards of their products.
Yes, there may be an intuitive logic in that not breathing in toxins of combustion is a better alternative, but uncritically accepting that vape is harmless is naive at best, idiotic at worst. A more self-absorbed common retort is: "An adult should be free to choose whatever toxins they wish to ingest." Again, we're back to how long did the tobacco industry claim that there was no such thing as "secondhand smoke"? How insulting that non-smokers were subjected to the smokers' whims when "smoking sections" were implemented as, what, a farcical appeasement?
I'd like to believe the harm of tobacco use is on its way out and that, perhaps, e-cigs might help usher in that change. However, gathering evidence is demonstrating that the candy store of flavors DO encourage non-smokers - particularly young people - to take up vaping and a many of them actually do move to tobacco.
But, by all means, let's just accept the talking point advocacy.
8
One of the foundations of modern industrial hygiene is the substitution of a safer product for a more dangerous product. Clearly, e-cigarettes fulfill this fundamental principle (when compared to tobacco cigarettes). Opposition to e-cigarettes is based on ill-placed moralizing and not on a desire to give tobacco users a viable and less harmful alternative.
2
Not every product that is "legal", needs to be, deserves to be, has to be, or ought to be "marketed".
E-cigs may well help people who are addicted to smoking tobacco, to stop smoking tobacco. Methadone is used as a replacement therapy to help people off of a heroin addiction.
But encouraging people to become addicted to a manufactured product, ought to be recognized as a predatory behavior, and banned as a criminal act, with criminal penalties.
The first issue of concern from he standpoint of public policy ought to be safety of the secondary 'smokers' or 'vapers'.
Innocent people should not be subjected to the poor health decisions of addicts who can't control themselves.
Why would any non-smoker EVER want to inhale someone else's air pollution exhaust, whether tobacco smoke or 'vapers'?
And lastly, may I suggest that instead of "tobacco control community", how about, "anti-cancer community", or, "health conscious community". Would that be a bit more accurate?
E-cigs may well help people who are addicted to smoking tobacco, to stop smoking tobacco. Methadone is used as a replacement therapy to help people off of a heroin addiction.
But encouraging people to become addicted to a manufactured product, ought to be recognized as a predatory behavior, and banned as a criminal act, with criminal penalties.
The first issue of concern from he standpoint of public policy ought to be safety of the secondary 'smokers' or 'vapers'.
Innocent people should not be subjected to the poor health decisions of addicts who can't control themselves.
Why would any non-smoker EVER want to inhale someone else's air pollution exhaust, whether tobacco smoke or 'vapers'?
And lastly, may I suggest that instead of "tobacco control community", how about, "anti-cancer community", or, "health conscious community". Would that be a bit more accurate?
8
I neither smoke nor vape, but I believe Joe is right on this, and I have previously argued this case. I would imagine, but I have not looked for proof, that a very high percentage of the nicotine is absorbed and not exhaled. Of course, the E-Cig creates no vapor when not being enhaled. Thus, I doubt there is much of a second hand smoke issue, compared to the benefit to the poor suckers that can't kick the habit.
I will become a serious advocate of vapor products IF they are banned from use indoors just as tobacco products are today. Many of the vapor products really stink, those artificial flavors produce a disgusting smell. Nothing worse than having a jerk vape next to you at a restaurant or bar and blow his/her vapor over your way while you are eating or enjoying an adult beverage. And yes it's happened more than once.
I do strongly agree it is a good gateway to a healthier lifestyle. So I do hope it catches on, but only after the laws catch up and ban it from public indoor spaces.
I do strongly agree it is a good gateway to a healthier lifestyle. So I do hope it catches on, but only after the laws catch up and ban it from public indoor spaces.
9
So Joe's plan is to allow addiction to e cigs as a substitute for addiction to real cigs and his USP (unique selling proposition) is that at least it won't kill you. Doesn't sound like a wonderful idea. However, I will fess up to something of an intellectual dilemma here. I've long thought drugs should legalized. The "war" on them has consumed vast resources, caused huge collateral damage here and elsewhere, and been a complete failure. So how does one reconcile skepticism about the pernicious effects of e cigarettes with a more tolerant, indeed totally tolerant, attitude to the availability of drugs. You can't. Hence I'm compelled to agree with Joe.
5
I'm a vehment anti-smoker.
My bona fides?
Back in the day when, gasp!, smoking was still allowed on airplanes, during the period when there were smoking sections in the rear, I once stopped the Eastern Shuttle to DC dead in its tracks on the tarmac because, in the musical chairs cattle call to get on the Shuttle which characterized boarding then, I found myself "shuttled" to the second last row in the plane, in the very bowels of the smoking section.
I complained to a stewardess about my plight, and, in a move clearly calculated to shame me, the stewardesses, on cue, marched the "No Smoking" sign back to my row and ceremoniously stuck the sign in the back of my seat, thus establishing that the "Smoking Section" now included only the very last row.
The plane was now able to take off.
The two guys sitting next to me, as well as most of the other passengers who had expected to be able to smoke but now found themselves in a "No Smoking" section, looked daggers at me all the way to DC.
The folks in the last row behind me?
I swear they blew smoke through the openings in the seats all the way to DC.
So why am I sympathetic to the point Nocera is trying to make?
Well, what if we have a national policy where the parents of kid's under 18 caught e-smoking, or smoking cigarettes for that matter, were non-criminally ticketed for, say, $25?
That would be common ground to work on with the e-cigarette lobby.
You think it might cut down on kid's smoking ueberhaupt?!
My bona fides?
Back in the day when, gasp!, smoking was still allowed on airplanes, during the period when there were smoking sections in the rear, I once stopped the Eastern Shuttle to DC dead in its tracks on the tarmac because, in the musical chairs cattle call to get on the Shuttle which characterized boarding then, I found myself "shuttled" to the second last row in the plane, in the very bowels of the smoking section.
I complained to a stewardess about my plight, and, in a move clearly calculated to shame me, the stewardesses, on cue, marched the "No Smoking" sign back to my row and ceremoniously stuck the sign in the back of my seat, thus establishing that the "Smoking Section" now included only the very last row.
The plane was now able to take off.
The two guys sitting next to me, as well as most of the other passengers who had expected to be able to smoke but now found themselves in a "No Smoking" section, looked daggers at me all the way to DC.
The folks in the last row behind me?
I swear they blew smoke through the openings in the seats all the way to DC.
So why am I sympathetic to the point Nocera is trying to make?
Well, what if we have a national policy where the parents of kid's under 18 caught e-smoking, or smoking cigarettes for that matter, were non-criminally ticketed for, say, $25?
That would be common ground to work on with the e-cigarette lobby.
You think it might cut down on kid's smoking ueberhaupt?!
1
The irony of the anti-e-cig crowd is that vaping has been available by Rx for many years, but non-prescription means are attacked as a "gateway" where nicotine patches and gum are not. While nicotine is a highly addictive drug, it's been fairly clear for at least 40 years that it's the other toxins in smoking that are the real killers, and if vaping gets rid of them, why the religious fervor against it? However, on the other hand, it is totally appropriate and necessary for the FDA to demand an accounting of the other chemicals in the vaping fluid. Many of these items and chemicals are made in China where we have seen a very lax attitude towards adulterating products with toxic products, from dog food to toothpaste to infant formula.
But the claim that e-cig vapor is no different than 2nd hand smoke is absurd. One is smoke, the other is water vapor. Without research such claims are spurious and, on the surface, make no sense. If you've ever been around both, the vapor is completely different and far less irritating than smoke.
Quitting smoking is insanely hard, as any ex-smoker knows. Even if you're not a heavy smoker, it's a tough road. I know, because that was me, 40 years ago. Even as a light smoker (no more than 10 cigarettes a day) the pull is still there today. For a heavy smoker? ANYTHING that can help is a boon. But, like the long-lasting resistance to the medical use of marijuana and other drugs, prejudice rules.
But the claim that e-cig vapor is no different than 2nd hand smoke is absurd. One is smoke, the other is water vapor. Without research such claims are spurious and, on the surface, make no sense. If you've ever been around both, the vapor is completely different and far less irritating than smoke.
Quitting smoking is insanely hard, as any ex-smoker knows. Even if you're not a heavy smoker, it's a tough road. I know, because that was me, 40 years ago. Even as a light smoker (no more than 10 cigarettes a day) the pull is still there today. For a heavy smoker? ANYTHING that can help is a boon. But, like the long-lasting resistance to the medical use of marijuana and other drugs, prejudice rules.
7
The difference is that nicotine patches and gums are not advertised to and are not attractive to young people and non-smokers, while e-cigarettes are.
E-cigarette vapor is not water vapor! Pro-ecigarette people should stop repeating that It is propylene glycol and/or glycerin with many other chemicals included.
E-cigarette vapor is not water vapor! Pro-ecigarette people should stop repeating that It is propylene glycol and/or glycerin with many other chemicals included.
Propylene Glycol is non-toxic anti-freeze used in swimming pools' and RV plumbing to winterize them without poisoning the water. It is also used in solar hot water heaters in case there is a leak between the anti-freeze and water in the heat exchanger, it won't be toxic, unlike ethylene glycol (automobile anti-freeze). If you noticed, I, too, call for the "other chemicals" to be listed, tested and, if dangerous, excluded.
This article answers some questions that many commenters have been asking:
"British health officials on Wednesday reported the results of a government-funded study concluding that the use of electronic cigarettes can reduce the health risks of smoking by 95 percent and may also help smokers quit the habit.
"The study, issued by the government agency Public Health England, also found little evidence that consumers who had never smoked before were adopting e-cigarettes in large numbers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/business/british-study-says-electronic...
"British health officials on Wednesday reported the results of a government-funded study concluding that the use of electronic cigarettes can reduce the health risks of smoking by 95 percent and may also help smokers quit the habit.
"The study, issued by the government agency Public Health England, also found little evidence that consumers who had never smoked before were adopting e-cigarettes in large numbers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/business/british-study-says-electronic...
17
I believe there is something to the argument that the e-cig industry might work to re-normalize smoking, especially if marketed directly (or indirectly) to youths. Some of these new users could eventually convert over the the "real thing". The e-cig industry will probably say there is no data to support that, but we know how addictive nicotine is and that users will do whatever they have to do to keep geting their fixes. Do we really want to wait a generation for the data to come in? Is it worth the chance? I think not.
I have used vapor devices going on 5 years. I have come to the conclusion which many studies have already concluded that obtaining nicotine in a non-burning form is not as addictive. The reason is that I keep lowering my nicotine levels - to almost nothing at this point, something I was never able to do when I smoked two packs a day for over 30 years .
63
First of all, e cigarette users are not going to switch to the real thing, that's absurd. E cigarettes contain nicotine and drugs are the only reason that people smoke, otherwise we'd see people smoking nicotine-free herbal cigarettes.
But the main problem with what you say is that there is already a deadly form of nicotine delivery available legally at the corner store. What sense does it make to ban a less harmful form of nicotine delivery while allowing the sale of the deadly one?
But the main problem with what you say is that there is already a deadly form of nicotine delivery available legally at the corner store. What sense does it make to ban a less harmful form of nicotine delivery while allowing the sale of the deadly one?
8
David, I concur. My experience isn't with e cigarettes (though I've tried them) but with nicotine lozenges and I found no problem in gradually tapering down. I just cut my dose in half and when the very mild symptoms have passed, cut it in half again, etc. Whereas cigarettes were impossible for me to quit. You can't taper cigarettes -- there have been various attempts to facilitate this, but it doesn't work in practice.
1
I am an ex-smoker thanks to NJOY e-cigarettes. I was a pack-a day-plus smoker for over 40 years. It is extraordinarily frustrating to see a viable avenue to quitting thwarted by what seems to be reactionary and nonscientific rhetoric.
Can't we agree on a lesser evil approach? It seems more important to be right about the evils of smoking than what actually works to help people quit or lower their risk and improve their health. The science gets sidetracked because, presumably, any concession to less than 100% non-smoking isn't acceptable.
Can't we agree on a lesser evil approach? It seems more important to be right about the evils of smoking than what actually works to help people quit or lower their risk and improve their health. The science gets sidetracked because, presumably, any concession to less than 100% non-smoking isn't acceptable.
19
Tristan,
I quit a three-pack-a-day nightmare. It's been thirty years and I still occasionally jones for a smoke. There was no soft or easy answer for me. Just grin and bear it. A scientific approach would be welcomed, but tobacco companies will never tell us what they put in their E-Cigarettes. We already know that it delivers an addictive nerve toxin called nicotine. What else is in their newest drug delivery system? I want to know.
I quit a three-pack-a-day nightmare. It's been thirty years and I still occasionally jones for a smoke. There was no soft or easy answer for me. Just grin and bear it. A scientific approach would be welcomed, but tobacco companies will never tell us what they put in their E-Cigarettes. We already know that it delivers an addictive nerve toxin called nicotine. What else is in their newest drug delivery system? I want to know.
I find little discussion in such discussions concerning the addictive properties of nicotine and the dangers of using it. It is a poison. Habitual use can engender arterial fibrillation. The health risk is different than that of 'tars' and the carbon residue of burning tobacco and paper, but it is no less deleterious.
23
Chlorine is a poison to0 but we added to water to make it safer. Anything could be argued- too much water will kill you too. Bruce, can you name one person who is died from heart failure due to vaping- just one, please! Many of us have been using Vapor products for a very long time – myself close to five years. I have never felt fibrillations from their use- ever.
Both cigarettes and e-cigarette contain nicotine, so they are equivalent on that count. However, cigarettes also contain tar, and 43 known carcinogenic compounds and 400 other toxins.
The first rule of medicine is the dose makes the poison. Nicotine is consumed everyday by nearly everyone in common foods as in tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, etc. Tobacco users consume a good deal more, but still far below the toxic level. Nicotine is only a poison when consumed in very high doses.
Nicotine is not associated to cancer, heart disease, or any other disease associated with smoking. The evidence is quite clear that it is not nicotine, or for that matter tobacco (smokeless tobacco is about 99% less harmful then cigarettes), but the smoke that kills.
Nicotine is not associated to cancer, heart disease, or any other disease associated with smoking. The evidence is quite clear that it is not nicotine, or for that matter tobacco (smokeless tobacco is about 99% less harmful then cigarettes), but the smoke that kills.
My theory is that public health advocates have seen enormous success in marginalizing tobacco use and have essentially won the war on smoking.
Along comes vaping and the E cig loophole and they're having none of it. They see people blowing clouds of vapor ( mostly water) and they think "you gotta be kidding me ".
Vaping will be viewed with hostility either as an unhealthy alternative to tobacco use or a gateway to it.
For full disclosure I'm a vaper. I've not used analog cigarettes in over two years. I've also reduced the nicotine content in my e liquid. My fingers are no longer yellow, my teeth aren't stained, my clothes and breath don't reek and after the initial investment for my vaping paraphernalia, my nicotine needs are met at a fraction of the cost associated with analog cigarettes.
Along comes vaping and the E cig loophole and they're having none of it. They see people blowing clouds of vapor ( mostly water) and they think "you gotta be kidding me ".
Vaping will be viewed with hostility either as an unhealthy alternative to tobacco use or a gateway to it.
For full disclosure I'm a vaper. I've not used analog cigarettes in over two years. I've also reduced the nicotine content in my e liquid. My fingers are no longer yellow, my teeth aren't stained, my clothes and breath don't reek and after the initial investment for my vaping paraphernalia, my nicotine needs are met at a fraction of the cost associated with analog cigarettes.
10
I couldn't agree more. And thank you for taking a level-headed approach to this matter, rather than joining in a press reaction that has otherwise been uninformed and hysterical. The public has indeed been sadly misled by the coverage of this issue, indeed, a recent British study concluded that e cigarettes are 95 percent safer than tobacco cigarettes, and the hysteria about schoolchildren subsides when one realizes that the increase in e cigarette use has coincided with an equal an opposite decrease in cigarette use -- in other words, the very same kids who would have started smoking cigarettes more than half a century after the surgeon general's report are now taking up e cigarettes instead.
Not that there isn't a possibility that e cigarettes will eventually become more popular and re normalize nicotine use -- but, if they prove reasonably safe, so what? It isn't as if nicotine is worse than alcohol and the other drugs that people use.
Not that there isn't a possibility that e cigarettes will eventually become more popular and re normalize nicotine use -- but, if they prove reasonably safe, so what? It isn't as if nicotine is worse than alcohol and the other drugs that people use.
9
The jury is still out on whether there is reduced harm from e-cigarettes. While in theory, e-cigarettes appear to bypass the most dangerous aspect of traditional cigarettes, combustive organic materials, the total lack of oversight in the manufacturing process continues to be a cause for concern.
Should we allow NJOY to tout purported benefits without comprehensive longitudinal studies on its health effects? Should we let them use fancy sounding science to do so? Absolutely not. Let us not forget when cigarette manufacturers introduced asbestos fibers into their filters and then unleashed a scientific sounding marketing campaign about these new "safe" cigarettes, which inevitably contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths. http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images_body.php?token1=fm_img19...
Should we allow NJOY to tout purported benefits without comprehensive longitudinal studies on its health effects? Should we let them use fancy sounding science to do so? Absolutely not. Let us not forget when cigarette manufacturers introduced asbestos fibers into their filters and then unleashed a scientific sounding marketing campaign about these new "safe" cigarettes, which inevitably contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths. http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images_body.php?token1=fm_img19...
40
This is precisely the kind of nonsense that is killing people. There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of oversight in manufacturing has led to widespread serous safety lapses.
I am sorry. I have a friend now who has tried to switch to e cigarettes and couldn't because he didn't find them "satisfying," which is to say that it didn't give him the strong nicotine hit to which his body is accustomed. You would have my friend continue to use a substance known to kill while waiting for a study on a substance that is almost certainly less lethal -- 95% less lethal, according to a British study. That's irresponsible and it's wrong.
I am sorry. I have a friend now who has tried to switch to e cigarettes and couldn't because he didn't find them "satisfying," which is to say that it didn't give him the strong nicotine hit to which his body is accustomed. You would have my friend continue to use a substance known to kill while waiting for a study on a substance that is almost certainly less lethal -- 95% less lethal, according to a British study. That's irresponsible and it's wrong.
51
My point is not to ban e-cigarettes, but to encourage further research and regulation before the "benefits" are allowed to be marketed or recommended. There has been a long history of greedy manufacturers selling harmful products, only to laugh their way to the bank in the wake of their casualties. If we have doubts in the science, authorities need to hold off on selling this as a cure, although individuals may choose to take on the purported risks in hopes of benefits.
And there certainly is evidence that some nebulous materials are found with in some e-cigarettes and thus penetrating deep into the lungs and by extension entire bodily systems of your friend and others:
"heavy metals, carcinogens and other dangerous compounds, such as lead, tin and zinc, that have been detected in some e-cigarettes." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/business/international/chinas-e-cigare...
And there certainly is evidence that some nebulous materials are found with in some e-cigarettes and thus penetrating deep into the lungs and by extension entire bodily systems of your friend and others:
"heavy metals, carcinogens and other dangerous compounds, such as lead, tin and zinc, that have been detected in some e-cigarettes." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/business/international/chinas-e-cigare...
1
E-cigarettes contain water, propylene or vegetable glycol, food flavoring and a small quantity of nicotine. There's no reason to add anything at all. It would be expensive and serve no purpose whatsoever. Studies that have examined the contents of the liquid have found nothing extra. Propylene Glycol has been used in asthma inhalors and in hospitals in spray disinfectant. (Go to CASAA for a nice compilation of studies.)
1
Of course e- cigs have to be regulated.
Nicotine is a deadly and addictive toxin.
They should be available by prescription to nicotine addicts once a FDA approved clinical study shows that they help addicts to stop smoking cigarettes.
They should not be freely available where they can be marketed to create yet another generation of nicotine addicts. (And the nicotine reservoirs have to be secure so that toddlers don't poison or even kill themselves by drinking them.)
Nicotine is a deadly and addictive toxin.
They should be available by prescription to nicotine addicts once a FDA approved clinical study shows that they help addicts to stop smoking cigarettes.
They should not be freely available where they can be marketed to create yet another generation of nicotine addicts. (And the nicotine reservoirs have to be secure so that toddlers don't poison or even kill themselves by drinking them.)
9
Nicotine gum and patches no longer require a prescription. Do you think they should go back to prescription?
Or do you think that should only apply to the form of nicotine replacement that actually seems to have a significant impact on smoking?
Or do you think that should only apply to the form of nicotine replacement that actually seems to have a significant impact on smoking?
12
No, nicotine in its vaping form is not a "deadly and addictive toxin". Pure nicotine is a dangerous toxin however its use in gums, patches and e-cigs is NOT toxic. Studies show the effect of nicotine in its most commonly used forms is about as harmful as a dose of caffeine found in coffee and sodas. In fact people who drink or ingest high dose caffeine products are putting themselves at much higher risk of experiencing heart irregularities then heavy (real) cigarette smokers. Recent studies show nicotine may protect the brain from Parkinsons and Altheimers. The scare mongering of nicotine (like marijuana) does a great disservice to public discourse.
4
@Lynn
Nicotine by itself it not deadly, only highly addictive, even more addictive than alcohol and forbidden substances. One reason of it being so addictive is that nicotine by itself is an antidepressant, whereas alcohol is a depressant.
Ergo, to give those who have tried and tried again to stop smoking an alternative to getting their usual nicotine fix without the carcinogens present in the burning tobacco that cause cancer, E-cigarettes will lower the death rate from smoking considerable.
There is no alternative to alcohol abuse, a habit that wreaks havoc, causes death in high numbers and dangerous changes in behaviour, yet it remains legal.
E-cigarette use doesn't destroy families, as other allowed substance abuse does, including alcohol.
Nicotine by itself it not deadly, only highly addictive, even more addictive than alcohol and forbidden substances. One reason of it being so addictive is that nicotine by itself is an antidepressant, whereas alcohol is a depressant.
Ergo, to give those who have tried and tried again to stop smoking an alternative to getting their usual nicotine fix without the carcinogens present in the burning tobacco that cause cancer, E-cigarettes will lower the death rate from smoking considerable.
There is no alternative to alcohol abuse, a habit that wreaks havoc, causes death in high numbers and dangerous changes in behaviour, yet it remains legal.
E-cigarette use doesn't destroy families, as other allowed substance abuse does, including alcohol.
1
Joe doesn't delve into why big-government liberals get so worked up over the e-cigs. I think it is the height of ridiculousness for our elites to squawk about a system that is MUCH healthier than loading one's lungs with tar.
They will eventually legalize them after quadrupling their cost with taxes - sort of like we do with gasoline, tobacco, and liquor. If they could just tax arrogance, they could actually pay for what they want.
They will eventually legalize them after quadrupling their cost with taxes - sort of like we do with gasoline, tobacco, and liquor. If they could just tax arrogance, they could actually pay for what they want.
3
Big gov liberals are worked up because they want CONTROL over everything. They sure don't want an individual having the right to 'choose his own poison' so to speak despite the fact there is zero second hand danger to their sensitive persons. I wish they'd devote their energies to eliminating mercury from tuna instead--save far more lives in the long run.
1
But are they necessary? Is this article necessary? Perhaps benefits of cocaine need to be seen on the front pages of NYTimes? How about benefits of rat poison? I mean, sheeeeeesh!!!
12
Rat Poison is regularly prescribed by the Medical Industry. Warfarin, a blood thinner kills rats, but helps to stop the of forming blood clots in people!! Is it necessary? Guess it depends on your prospective.
Nicotine may cause harm and so, perhaps, might the liquid vehicle, when heated, in e-cigs. And hooking people on any form of nicotine is certainly bad news. But, are e-cigs less harmful than cigarettes, or not? Will a person who switches from cigarettes to e-cigs reduce the chances of morbidity and mortality? The answers to these questions are critical for the the future choices of individuals and society. Therefore, well funded and well designed studies targeting these questions are vital. We need good science to make good choices.
5
Please Mr. Nocera can you provide me with a link to any study on the safety of vaping? What are the long term health risks of small particle accumulation deep in the lungs from vaping?
8
There's a solution to the actual cigarette AND the E-Cigarette…E-Stop and never look back!
8
Didn't we just get an article about vaping being a gateway to regular cigarettes and thus the rate of smoking among teenagers who increasing?
I don't think we should rush into anything besides regulation here. And when we've done our homework - real studies about the health consequences of vaping - then we can discuss how to promote them to smokers in need of a way to cut down on their habit.
I don't think we should rush into anything besides regulation here. And when we've done our homework - real studies about the health consequences of vaping - then we can discuss how to promote them to smokers in need of a way to cut down on their habit.
9
I don't agree with the idea behind E-Cigarettes. If someone wishes to quit smoking, it just adds a sense of something lacking, which might be a temporary fix. But, you know the Tobacco Industry--still smarting from controls over smoking--and is going to get behind E-Cigs as a marketing ploy for the next generation of smokers.
People who giver-up smoking tend to gain weight and drink a lot of coffee. Giving up drinking, go for smokes and coffee. Generally, its difficult to give-up something when you replace it with some of the same activities--and an E-Cig to the mouth is just not that removed from a real cigarette in it. Now, is it? And the, you give-up the charade--and go for the real thing.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
People who giver-up smoking tend to gain weight and drink a lot of coffee. Giving up drinking, go for smokes and coffee. Generally, its difficult to give-up something when you replace it with some of the same activities--and an E-Cig to the mouth is just not that removed from a real cigarette in it. Now, is it? And the, you give-up the charade--and go for the real thing.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Millions of us have switched and never look back- I am going on close to five years of no cigarettes after smoking over two packs a day for 30 years. The research is in this industry is close to 10 years old now. Just need to know where to look to find the research – something that those who are trying to profit from washing this market don't want you to know about.
Should e-cigarettes be classed along with the patch and other government supported methods to quit smoking?
2
Thank you (again) Mr. Nocera, for pushing the conversation forward. You are right, of course, about the appropriate course to take in the e-cig arena.
I also thank you for giving expression to a vexing question. I remain chagrined and bewildered at the resistance to helping / encouraging the tobacco-to-ecig process...
I also thank you for giving expression to a vexing question. I remain chagrined and bewildered at the resistance to helping / encouraging the tobacco-to-ecig process...
6
After smoking for over 40 years - and trying many times to quit - I finally did thanks to e-cigarettes over 2 years ago I did it! (and I've dropped the nicotine level as well - headed toward 0%). And I've convinced a few others to quit this way as well.
No longer coughing in the morning, burning holes in things and stinking up my house, no more second hand smoke to affect others, saving money ...
I really wish the demonizing of e-cigarettes would stop.
No longer coughing in the morning, burning holes in things and stinking up my house, no more second hand smoke to affect others, saving money ...
I really wish the demonizing of e-cigarettes would stop.
58
Joe Nocera is an interesting guy. Alone among pundits who consistently will list one way or another, he can be seen listing one way on one subject and the other on the next. Clearly, he’s a progressive at heart but recognizes that regulation can be damaging unless well-targeted and managed, and that BOTH sides adopt causes with a mindless intensity that is damaging to productive forward movement. He occupies an important niche, serves an important purpose.
This E-Cigarettes issue is an example. Another is his position on fracking and his counsel to chill to environmentalists who won’t hear of it as a transitional fuel source immensely less polluting than oil and coal, simply because it remains carbon-based.
He attacks excess on both sides (in most cases – his position on guns is as extreme as any of the most insistent gun rights activists). If we had more like him, we’d better evangelize a center-path that could get us moving again in the right direction, even if not at the speed either side would prefer.
This E-Cigarettes issue is an example. Another is his position on fracking and his counsel to chill to environmentalists who won’t hear of it as a transitional fuel source immensely less polluting than oil and coal, simply because it remains carbon-based.
He attacks excess on both sides (in most cases – his position on guns is as extreme as any of the most insistent gun rights activists). If we had more like him, we’d better evangelize a center-path that could get us moving again in the right direction, even if not at the speed either side would prefer.
2
In Britain their National Health Service puts smokers on e-cigs and has come out strongly in favor, having finished their research.
Funny how here, with our never-ending tobacco issues, it's the anti-smoking groups now up in arms.
Funny how here, with our never-ending tobacco issues, it's the anti-smoking groups now up in arms.
24
As a general response to other commenters, Mr. Nocera doesn't state anywhere that e-cigarettes are healthy, just a safer alternative to cigarettes for smokers unable to kick the habit. I'm compelled to defend this opinion piece, because if the new NJOY product is as appealing to smokers as is advertised, and truly less harmful, then people should know about it.
5
TRULY is the operative word there! Should we take the ecigs manufacturers word? OR do scientific studies? After all, nicotine is addictive, and unless ecigs are only available by prescription to people who are trying to quit smoking, ecigs will be available to youth who are not already smokers. AND, obviously, the manufacturers are depending on the addictive property of their product to maintain a steady customer base.
1
I quite smoking cigarettes over 2.5 years ago with eCigs. Never looked back. This, after trying patches, gum, inhalers (yes, all FDA approved) with no success. So yes, it is a much healthier choice. My heart rate is strong and my blood pressure is lower.
3
But, have you quit the ecigs, or are you just addicted to them now?
1
There's a great quote from years ago - "Cigarettes are the only product, that used as directed, will kill you"
Its nuts that Cigarettes are still on the market.
They should have be taken off the market years ago.
Its nuts that Cigarettes are still on the market.
They should have be taken off the market years ago.
6
Why are we not discussing chemistry?
Incomplete combustion of complex organic material produces carcinogens. Make the combustion more complete, or the material simpler, and you will get less cancer. E-cigs do both.
It is a thinking error to focus on the fact that e-cigs may still cause cancer. They almost certainly do. But they almost certainly are safer than inhaling smoke. Don't be like abstinence-only sex ed; be practical and make the world a better place.
Incomplete combustion of complex organic material produces carcinogens. Make the combustion more complete, or the material simpler, and you will get less cancer. E-cigs do both.
It is a thinking error to focus on the fact that e-cigs may still cause cancer. They almost certainly do. But they almost certainly are safer than inhaling smoke. Don't be like abstinence-only sex ed; be practical and make the world a better place.
2
Electronic cigarettes are almost certainly safer than smoking tobacco. They are almost certainly more dangerous than not smoking at all. A key issue is the promotion of e-cigs to non-smokers, particularly to kids. I see no reason for flavored e-cigs other than attracting non-smokers, especially young people. I suggest availability for smokers with clear information that they are not risk free but are safer than smoking and strictly enforcing the ban on sale to minors and banning flavors completely. Also, e-cigs should be banned from indoor smoking so as not to renormalize that behavior.
21
Agree about risk but nicotine and water vapor have no flavor -- they *have* to be flavored. And I don't think adult users should have to be deprived, or that teens try these things because of the flavor. Teens after all smoke cigarettes and chew tobacco, which taste vile. They aren't little kids -- they're after the high.
Studies have shown that it is the flavors that are different than tobacco that help many Ex-smokers quit. Of thousands who were polled a high percentage said that they would not have been able to quit if they only had tobacco flavored e-cigarettes. This goes to prove that adults like flavors too. Kids will be kids and do what they want. There are laws against children buying cigarettes but they still do somehow get them. What needs to happen are enforcement of these laws and this shoukd include e-cigarette's as well.
E cigarettes can save lives in the same way that methadone can save lives.
Does methadone encourage people to use heroin? Of course not. But millions of people addicted to prescription pain killers have switched to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get.
And as a result, we have a heroin crisis on our hands. People of all ages, but particularly young people, are dying of overdoses in record numbers.
If people who want nicotine have a safe alternative to smoking, we're happy to supply them with gum, patches, etc. Just not vaping--which is the form they prefer.
The benefits of e-cigarettes are obvious.
Does methadone encourage people to use heroin? Of course not. But millions of people addicted to prescription pain killers have switched to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get.
And as a result, we have a heroin crisis on our hands. People of all ages, but particularly young people, are dying of overdoses in record numbers.
If people who want nicotine have a safe alternative to smoking, we're happy to supply them with gum, patches, etc. Just not vaping--which is the form they prefer.
The benefits of e-cigarettes are obvious.
11
I do wonder how many patients who used to get opiates have switched to heroin after states added such things as urine testing, and their doctors minimized the use of these necessary medications simply because the paperwork required was more than they could deal with.
2
Yes, and it's not only the form they prefer, it's the only form that works for most addicted smokers. As a former smoker I've done the patches and gum and lozenges. They don't give you nicotine dosing profile you need and as a consequence, studies find a very low success rate. I managed with lozenges but not without a lot of withdrawal and they didn't work for anybody else I knew, the process was too miserable and they gave up.
1
To watch all those expensively-produved TV ads, you'f think all one had to do was spend some money. Who knew advertisers get iffy with the truth!?
I don't find any citation in Mr. Nocera's piece to any study showing e-cigs are an effective smoking cessation device. Nor do I find any reference to a study showing that the byproducts of combustion that e-cigs produce are harmless and non-carcinogenic. More science and less campaigning for the industry is needed.
58
Er, there is no combustion in an e cigarette. They vaporize water.
Anyone who wants to can read about the effectiveness of e cigarettes in smoking cessation, both their limits and the reasons they aren't 100% effective. These things have been amply reported including in this paper and Mr. Nocera's take on them is correct.
In some cases, with high vaping temperatures or unregulated e liquid, trace amounts of harmful substances have been found. But these are much, much lower than in regular cigarettes.
Again, Mr. Nocera's column is pretty much in accord with current scientific evidence, and the information you seek is widely available, indeed, the Times reported only a few weeks ago on a British study that concluded that e cigarettes were 95% safer than their tobacco equivalents.
Anyone who wants to can read about the effectiveness of e cigarettes in smoking cessation, both their limits and the reasons they aren't 100% effective. These things have been amply reported including in this paper and Mr. Nocera's take on them is correct.
In some cases, with high vaping temperatures or unregulated e liquid, trace amounts of harmful substances have been found. But these are much, much lower than in regular cigarettes.
Again, Mr. Nocera's column is pretty much in accord with current scientific evidence, and the information you seek is widely available, indeed, the Times reported only a few weeks ago on a British study that concluded that e cigarettes were 95% safer than their tobacco equivalents.
2
Proof?
As a 40 yr smoker, I switched to e-smokes with little discomfort and haven't smoked tobacco since that day. But you believe what your - tobacco funded - media tells you.
As a 40 yr smoker, I switched to e-smokes with little discomfort and haven't smoked tobacco since that day. But you believe what your - tobacco funded - media tells you.
E-cigs DON'T combust. And I am one of many who was able to quit. I smoked for almost fifty years, and I was able to make the switch in four days.
You can't bum a vape. That's its biggest drawback.
Most smokers in cities are the financially marginalized. They go to soup kitchens, to shelters, to the "places only they would know". Lai-la-lai.
If you consider that most, perhaps an overwhelmingly large proportion of smokers in large cities are desperate people who have little hope in life (as their subjective opinion, not my judgment), then you must admit that the e-vapes will never take on until there is a way of selling a hit for fifty cents, or whatever the market will bear.
I go to soup kitchens, and the single solitary drug that gets the largest volume of turn-around is tobacco-based nicotine. Cigarettes. Everybody there wants to optimally get a free cig, or else pay little for it, or else pay full price for it, and the goal of course is to alleviate the nagging, bothersome, torturous craving.
Once Vape manufacturers come up with a way to safely (financially, I mean) share vapour, then they got it made.
Most smokers in cities are the financially marginalized. They go to soup kitchens, to shelters, to the "places only they would know". Lai-la-lai.
If you consider that most, perhaps an overwhelmingly large proportion of smokers in large cities are desperate people who have little hope in life (as their subjective opinion, not my judgment), then you must admit that the e-vapes will never take on until there is a way of selling a hit for fifty cents, or whatever the market will bear.
I go to soup kitchens, and the single solitary drug that gets the largest volume of turn-around is tobacco-based nicotine. Cigarettes. Everybody there wants to optimally get a free cig, or else pay little for it, or else pay full price for it, and the goal of course is to alleviate the nagging, bothersome, torturous craving.
Once Vape manufacturers come up with a way to safely (financially, I mean) share vapour, then they got it made.
5
I guess one's stance on e-cigs depends upon where one's greatest concern lies: with the tens of millions of smokers who might benefit if the health claims of e-cigs turn out to be true, or with the tens of millions of non-smokers, many of them children, who may become addicted to nicotine through e-cigs thinking they are a safe alternative to tobacco products.
If e-cig proponents were pushing to protect the latter group they might find more support in their attempts to help the former. To start: ban the sale of e-cigs to minors. This seems like a no-brainer that almost everyone claims to agree upon, so why hasn't it been done?
There have been many claims over the years for "safer" products that turned out to be anything but. Heroin was supposed to be a safer alternative to morphine. Low "tar" cigarettes were obviously less harmful than regular cigarettes...except they weren't. So before we accept the health claims of e-cigs, let's do some studies. Do they help people quit, or allow them to maintain their addiction? Do they act as a gateway to conventional cigarettes? Do they produce other toxic substances, like heavy metal particles or breakdown products of flavoring agents, that negate their health benefits?
As an aside, vaping advocates would gain support if they could produce e-cigs that do not produce clouds of visible vapor. No one complains about asthma inhalers or nicotine patches. Take the bystander out of the equation and opposition will largely melt away.
If e-cig proponents were pushing to protect the latter group they might find more support in their attempts to help the former. To start: ban the sale of e-cigs to minors. This seems like a no-brainer that almost everyone claims to agree upon, so why hasn't it been done?
There have been many claims over the years for "safer" products that turned out to be anything but. Heroin was supposed to be a safer alternative to morphine. Low "tar" cigarettes were obviously less harmful than regular cigarettes...except they weren't. So before we accept the health claims of e-cigs, let's do some studies. Do they help people quit, or allow them to maintain their addiction? Do they act as a gateway to conventional cigarettes? Do they produce other toxic substances, like heavy metal particles or breakdown products of flavoring agents, that negate their health benefits?
As an aside, vaping advocates would gain support if they could produce e-cigs that do not produce clouds of visible vapor. No one complains about asthma inhalers or nicotine patches. Take the bystander out of the equation and opposition will largely melt away.
5
"With some 42 million American adults still smoking, and 480,000 of them dying each year as a result...it is the tobacco that kills"
That is patently false information, the number is 0. The health arguments are useless to repeat. Only serves to help smokers blow better rings around it.
Now, there is a good argument against cigarettes that ecigs address, which is that they don't produce smoke that waft and spread their odor. Which alone explains their success to date. Minus the odor, ecigs have made smoking more socially acceptable, even fashionably cool. However, thus far only captured smokers who love their smoke but hate the stigma because, as the column points out, in terms of the experience, ecigs haven't figured-out that special sauce yet. Which means a big part of 42m isn't buying. And hence the focus today of ecigs is to fill that gap.
The only question then is have ecigs come closer to the real thing? That Mr. Nocera hasn't, err, coughed-out yet. C'mon tell us Joe, how good is it? Never mind the statistical health mumbo-jumbo, just give your readers a taste review. How many stars NJOY? That's what I wanna know.
That is patently false information, the number is 0. The health arguments are useless to repeat. Only serves to help smokers blow better rings around it.
Now, there is a good argument against cigarettes that ecigs address, which is that they don't produce smoke that waft and spread their odor. Which alone explains their success to date. Minus the odor, ecigs have made smoking more socially acceptable, even fashionably cool. However, thus far only captured smokers who love their smoke but hate the stigma because, as the column points out, in terms of the experience, ecigs haven't figured-out that special sauce yet. Which means a big part of 42m isn't buying. And hence the focus today of ecigs is to fill that gap.
The only question then is have ecigs come closer to the real thing? That Mr. Nocera hasn't, err, coughed-out yet. C'mon tell us Joe, how good is it? Never mind the statistical health mumbo-jumbo, just give your readers a taste review. How many stars NJOY? That's what I wanna know.
1
Ahh, the self-medicating are so skilled at rationalization and denial. Though there may be fewer carcinogens in vape liquid when compared with the adulterated tobacco leaf found in most cigarettes, that does not mean vaping is at all safe. Enterprising inhalers and insufflators with a taste or need for stronger stuff than nicotine often do add methamphetamine, hash oil, ketamine, opioids, pcp, K2, salvia, or you name it (the entire pharmacopeia will soon be sampled) to the vape liquid, and smoke their concoctions in public.
1
Sources, please. Links, if you have them.
1
And that impacts your life how?
1
Certainly the device can be used as a delivery vehicle for other drugs in much the same way that loose tobacco and rolling papers can be. That might be another aspect in which the device is useful for harm reduction. In any case, what does that have to do with use of the device by ordinary cigarette addicts?
1
The science will take time, but I've spoken with a few doctors on this topic, and every one would be astonished if e-cigs prove to be anywhere near as harmful as real cigarettes, which is what they tend to displace.
In short, some members of the anti-tobacco movement are doing exactly what they accuse the e-cig manufacturers of doing: making wild, unsubstantiated health claims. Let's allow the science to run its course, and in the meantime, avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the probably-somewhat-less-bad.
In short, some members of the anti-tobacco movement are doing exactly what they accuse the e-cig manufacturers of doing: making wild, unsubstantiated health claims. Let's allow the science to run its course, and in the meantime, avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the probably-somewhat-less-bad.
31
Why can't people accept that vaporizing nicotine is orders of magnitude better for all parties involved. No tar. No smoke. No smell. Less risk of 2nd hand inhalation. It satisfies the 'oral fixation' aspect of smoking. The nicotine 'juices' come in varying concentration which makes it that much easier to work down to low levels before quitting. This is a huge step forward in treating nicotine addiction and should be treated as such. It should be cheaper than tobacco. It should be further subsidized with a prescription from a doctor.
Sure it's not a cure-all, but were talking about one of the most addictive substances known to man. Nicotine has higher recidivism rates than Heroin. We should be helping people transition away from tobacco, not demonizing them or those that promote vaping as a viable smoking cessation product.
Sure it's not a cure-all, but were talking about one of the most addictive substances known to man. Nicotine has higher recidivism rates than Heroin. We should be helping people transition away from tobacco, not demonizing them or those that promote vaping as a viable smoking cessation product.
113
Exactly. The problem is that anti-smoking advocates reacted with hysteria, and the press didn't do its homework and spread the poison rather than informing the public about the bottom line -- e cigarettes are almost certainly safer than tobacco cigarettes (95% in a recent British study) but should be used only by those seeking to quit smoking, as they are addictive and their long-term health effects are still unknown.
3
Make weed legal then we can talk. Nicotine is a real addiction, unlike MJ. Why promote addiction?.
Why is this a NYT pick? What evidence does the writer offer that nicotine is "orders of magnitude better" than vaping? "No tar. No smoke. No smell", that sounds good but does that automatically mean vaping is safe?
Consider this: when using an e-cig you are inhaling vaporized oils. Does inhaling vaporized oil sound healthy? Furthermore, do you know what chemicals are combined to create your favorite "juice"? No, then do you have faith that the manufacturer has your health in mind and has researched all ingredients to assure they are safe? Think about it.
Consider this: when using an e-cig you are inhaling vaporized oils. Does inhaling vaporized oil sound healthy? Furthermore, do you know what chemicals are combined to create your favorite "juice"? No, then do you have faith that the manufacturer has your health in mind and has researched all ingredients to assure they are safe? Think about it.
I think if a person is going to smoke anyway, switching to e-cigarettes can reduce some potential health problems. It might in the very least reduce secondhand smoke exposure to others living with a smoker.
15
I am not going to take the trouble to do a review of the medical literature and cite references. However, it is common knowledge among medical professionals and others acquainted with the science, that other constituents of tobacco smoke than nicotine cause most tobacco-related disease. It has puzzled me that public health professionals didn't embrace electronic cigarettes. Yes, they may provide a way to prolong, or, even, initiate, an addiction to nicotine. Based on everything we know about the harms of tobacco, the harms of nicotine sans tobacco is so much less that it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would not cause much less harm.
43
The strategy is wrong... start with the insurance companies. As long as the insurance companies refuse to recognize the science of which is more dangerous - and refuse to acknowledge that users of nicotine gum, patches, and e-cigarettes are different than users of tobacco - there will be no change in attitude because the financial incentive is not there.
10
To expand: having laid out the physiological ground, where e-cigs are probably safer than cigarettes, but not as safe nicotine pills, and nowhere near as safe as caffeine. Sorry, didn't cover caffeine in the earlier comment, but it is 1) less addictive, 2) causes less heart, kidney and liver disease, 3) is also not in and of itself carcinogenic , and 4) doesn't absorb well through the skin.
So then there's the whole question of addiction and social policy. Do we let a new addiction industry establish itself? I'm not sure that the correct solution to 42 million American addicts is to favor a more addictive version of the e-cig. That sharp kick is the exact reason for addiction!
If you want to coddle the remaining adult addicts that way (and as a former 20 year, pack a day smoker, I know how hard it is to quit), then at least make it a prescription-only option. Otherwise you end up with new generations of young addicts.
And black-market tobacco will always be cheaper (and more deadly) than it's technological replacement. Kind of like hydrocodone and heroin.
You seem to be thinking of smoking as a lifestyle choice. It probably was for the first 2 or 3 years. But after that it was a physiological addiction, a disease!
Teenagers and over the counter addictive drugs: what could possibly go wrong?
So then there's the whole question of addiction and social policy. Do we let a new addiction industry establish itself? I'm not sure that the correct solution to 42 million American addicts is to favor a more addictive version of the e-cig. That sharp kick is the exact reason for addiction!
If you want to coddle the remaining adult addicts that way (and as a former 20 year, pack a day smoker, I know how hard it is to quit), then at least make it a prescription-only option. Otherwise you end up with new generations of young addicts.
And black-market tobacco will always be cheaper (and more deadly) than it's technological replacement. Kind of like hydrocodone and heroin.
You seem to be thinking of smoking as a lifestyle choice. It probably was for the first 2 or 3 years. But after that it was a physiological addiction, a disease!
Teenagers and over the counter addictive drugs: what could possibly go wrong?
10
You ask can e cigarettes save lives?
The answer is no. Of course it is no.
The answer is no. Of course it is no.
15
On what evidence do you base your conclusion?
I am 74 years old. Smoked a pack a day for 55 years. Four years ago, a close friend said she'd wondered: "How much longer will Jay be with us?"
In early January of 2012, I purchased my first e-cigarette kit. Within 10 days, my night time coughing and spitting up phlegm disappeared. The natural color returned to my face. In three weeks, my sense of smell returned fully.
Burning tobacco releases more than 3,000 chemicals, many of them carcinogenic. Are E-Cigs totally safe? No. But based on my own experience, and research, I can say with confidence that I would not be alive to respond to your statement if I hadn't quit tobacco 3.5 years ago.
I am 74 years old. Smoked a pack a day for 55 years. Four years ago, a close friend said she'd wondered: "How much longer will Jay be with us?"
In early January of 2012, I purchased my first e-cigarette kit. Within 10 days, my night time coughing and spitting up phlegm disappeared. The natural color returned to my face. In three weeks, my sense of smell returned fully.
Burning tobacco releases more than 3,000 chemicals, many of them carcinogenic. Are E-Cigs totally safe? No. But based on my own experience, and research, I can say with confidence that I would not be alive to respond to your statement if I hadn't quit tobacco 3.5 years ago.
123
I concur. No e-cigarette on record has pulled children out of burning buildings, and no e-cigarette has been commended by the coast guard for pulling people out of dangerous waters.
However, more cigarettes have caused death by burning or by fire-smoke inhalation than e-cigarettes, and fewer e-cigarette smokers get cramps in cold water or run out of stamina in swimming than smokers of real cigarettes.
E-cigarettes are not in the habit of performing lung-transplants in patients dying of lung cancer or of emphysema, but the byproducts (and also the bi-products, or, in one word, the bye-bye-products) in tobacco cigarettes cause a markedly higher incidence of death due to lung cancer and emphysema than vapes.
I admit, however, that studies conducted may be inconclusive.
I also admit that the cause of high incidence of high blood pressure and of coronary heart disease in smokers is almost entirely due to the effect of pure nicotine. Nicotine constricts the blood vessels and thus it is the major ingredient among the 2000+ mix of poisonous tobacco fumes that causes some cardiac problems, and it is indeed the only major harmful ingredient that is present in vape.
Once they invent vapour cigarettes that contain no nicotine, then the battle will be finally and completely won. The battle for attaining a healthy form danger-free smoking.
However, more cigarettes have caused death by burning or by fire-smoke inhalation than e-cigarettes, and fewer e-cigarette smokers get cramps in cold water or run out of stamina in swimming than smokers of real cigarettes.
E-cigarettes are not in the habit of performing lung-transplants in patients dying of lung cancer or of emphysema, but the byproducts (and also the bi-products, or, in one word, the bye-bye-products) in tobacco cigarettes cause a markedly higher incidence of death due to lung cancer and emphysema than vapes.
I admit, however, that studies conducted may be inconclusive.
I also admit that the cause of high incidence of high blood pressure and of coronary heart disease in smokers is almost entirely due to the effect of pure nicotine. Nicotine constricts the blood vessels and thus it is the major ingredient among the 2000+ mix of poisonous tobacco fumes that causes some cardiac problems, and it is indeed the only major harmful ingredient that is present in vape.
Once they invent vapour cigarettes that contain no nicotine, then the battle will be finally and completely won. The battle for attaining a healthy form danger-free smoking.
1
How can you be so sure?
Just curious, are there any studies showing that e-cigs are not harmful?
10
Reply to EK in Somerset, NJ: I don't know of any studies, but a priori speculative reasoning may support the danger of nicotine in e-cigs inasmuch as nicotine constricts blood vessels in two ways: by immediate reaction, that is, all your blood vessels constrict right away when you smoke nicotine (or take it in any other way: intravenously or by swallowing, for example) and by long-term use, by way of nicotine accelerating the harmful excess deposits of cholesterol and triglycerides on the inside lining of the blood vessels. Nicotine also helps other substances block the blood vessels. Nicotine would be an ideal recreational drug for those life forms that do not rely on hemoidal circulation.
Read any of the the studies made by Konstantinos Farsalinos MD. E-cigs are at least 95% better than cigarettes. As a person who has had a heart attack, my cardiologist is completely on board with my using e-cigs. And 5 years after my heart attack, my arteries are doing just fine. Can they save lives? The answer is absolutely yes. Folks that have made the switch are now no longer waking in the morning coughing out a lung, they are breathing better, have increased stamina, their sense of taste and smell has returned.
2
Yes, but much less harmful rather than not harmful:
"British health officials on Wednesday reported the results of a government-funded study concluding that the use of electronic cigarettes can reduce the health risks of smoking by 95 percent and may also help smokers quit the habit.
"The study, issued by the government agency Public Health England, also found little evidence that consumers who had never smoked before were adopting e-cigarettes in large numbers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/business/british-study-says-electronic...
"British health officials on Wednesday reported the results of a government-funded study concluding that the use of electronic cigarettes can reduce the health risks of smoking by 95 percent and may also help smokers quit the habit.
"The study, issued by the government agency Public Health England, also found little evidence that consumers who had never smoked before were adopting e-cigarettes in large numbers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/business/british-study-says-electronic...
1
Again, another editorial by Nocera extolling the virtues of e-cigs. He even make the comment: "Though nicotine is addictive, it is the tobacco that kills." The problem is that Mr. Nocera doesn't know what he is talking about. Nicotine has be shown in numerous papers published by the CDC, Lancet and other respected journals to cause heart problems, stroke, reproductive problems and children and infant mortality. There have been an increasing number of injuries and deaths associated with children and infants to have spilled their parent's e-cig liquid on themselves and had to be hospitalized. You see contrary to what Mr. Nocera says, Nicotine is a poison which is directly absorbed through the skin. Children and infants are particularly vulnerable to this as their low body mass means that toxic and even fatal levels can be reached with one exposure.
I assume, hope, Mr. Nocera is an intelligent person, which means he has access to the same studies I have reviewed. The fact that he is ignoring those studies and promoting a product that has killed people even in its short commercial life, leads me to ask why?
I assume, hope, Mr. Nocera is an intelligent person, which means he has access to the same studies I have reviewed. The fact that he is ignoring those studies and promoting a product that has killed people even in its short commercial life, leads me to ask why?
36
Any RESPONSIBLE person would keep these items away from children. And one more thing, not every smoker has children to begin with. Please try another scare tactic. Everyone knows nicotine in itself is poisonous in concentrated amounts. So is laundry bleach.
2
I want to see statistics and links to studies. Otherwise it's simple scare mongering. Thanks.
Demon nicotine. What else you need to know? That death by nicotine is a tiny percentage compared to people who died of lung cancer and emphysema? Oh, and let's not forget about the children. All the children who have nicotine spilled on them. That must be a huge number.
5
"Though nicotine is addictive, it is the tobacco that kills."
Where is the support for this statement?
Where is the support for this statement?
15
I think what was being referred to was the numerous chemicals contained in tobacco smoke that are well established, known carcinogens which, with long term exposure inside the lungs, results in lung cancer followed by death. To be technically correct, one would say that nicotine, one of the most addictive substances in widespread consumption, combined with tobacco causes the deaths. Nicotine has its own dangers, as others have pointed out, but it is the tobacco smoke, beyond a doubt, that causes over 400,000 deaths per year in America. The two, in smoking, are inextricably linked, but it is the smoke that does the greater harm.
I wonder, additionally, how many deaths occur around the world where stronger cigarettes are often popular (Gitane, anyone?) and where American tobacco companies have eagerly sought markets in the wake of the turn against smoking here. On a the first trip I took back to France in long time a few years ago, I was nearly knocked over by the heavy tobacco smell (nicotine) on arriving at the airport. I guess they haven't gotten the memo yet.
Is it worthwhile to trade one very real, known danger (cigarettes) for something that is likely less dangerous by far, even though it (the new thing) might have unintended side effects, like encouraging smoking eventually? Personally, I would take that bet any time. Collectively, it seems very unwise to try to stop people (by not giving information) about something that is very likely a lot less dangerous.
I wonder, additionally, how many deaths occur around the world where stronger cigarettes are often popular (Gitane, anyone?) and where American tobacco companies have eagerly sought markets in the wake of the turn against smoking here. On a the first trip I took back to France in long time a few years ago, I was nearly knocked over by the heavy tobacco smell (nicotine) on arriving at the airport. I guess they haven't gotten the memo yet.
Is it worthwhile to trade one very real, known danger (cigarettes) for something that is likely less dangerous by far, even though it (the new thing) might have unintended side effects, like encouraging smoking eventually? Personally, I would take that bet any time. Collectively, it seems very unwise to try to stop people (by not giving information) about something that is very likely a lot less dangerous.
Everywhere. Look it up.
4
While it isn't 100% true, it largely is and there's abundant support for it, including the fact that in studies nicotine replacement products like patches and gum have not been shown to increase mortality, and also the scientific knowledge that has been amassed about what causes the harmful effects of cigarettes -- substances that are not present in significant amounts in e cigarettes.
4
Yes, the "near-impossible hoop" of actually proving their claims using valid scientific evidence. Perhaps you should ask why that is "near impossible" to prove, yes?
I am perfectly willing to accept the argument that for SOME already addicted smokers, e-cigs might offer a relatively safer path to quitting, just like nicotine gum or patches work the same way for SOME people. But that in no way means that they should be marketed as a way of getting even more young people addicted to nicotine - which is exactly how they are now being marketed. And as for eliminating second hand smoke, all I can say is that from my own experience of sitting in the same room as a "vaper" with clouds of something (smoke? vapor? mist?) wafting over me, I found it just as unpleasant as cigarette smoke. I really don't care if you can "prove" that it is less harmful to me, I still have the right not to be exposed to it.
For the record, I am a former four pack a day smoker who quit cold turkey almost 30 years ago.