Why do all of these articles always assume all vaping is nicotine-related? It’s exchanging the words “e-cigarette” with “vape”. Seems irresponsible of the author. It’s like writing an article on the dangers of squares and mixing in the word rectangle
Most of these anti smoking articles are written by people who don’t understand smoking devices themselves. Irresponsible for sure.
I don’t quite understand how the science is clear if “there is still no data on the long-term effects of e-cigarettes”.
Anything other than air going in to your lungs is bad. Vaping puts stuff that isn’t air into your lungs. The science is clear on that.
Just how much damage it’s doing isn’t really clear because they’re only becoming really popular now, but it is doing damage.
Cool. The science is in, when are we banning coffee?
I’m be fine with them banning coffee so that’s not the “gotcha!” you think it is. Alcohol too btw. Alcohol especially should be banned tbh.
Coffee isn’t inhaling stuff into your lungs that isn’t air though. I’m assuming you’re saying “caffein = bad”? People aren’t filling their lungs with caffeine from coffee.
Again - science is settled here. If it’s not oxygen it’s bad if it goes into your lungs.
Removed by mod
I appreciate your “aww shucks, kids gonna be kids” worldview; however, the data is clear, we have dramatically reduced the rate at which young people smoke cigarettes by instituting rules and guidelines concerning advertising targeting adolescents. Further, we have clear data showing that level of education greatly effects the likelihood of an individual using tobacco.
So with all due respect, this is something we can easily tackle. We know for certain the adolescents respond readily to marketing, and we therefore can control tobacco adoption by reducing said marketing to their demographic. This isn’t anywhere near as futile as you’re making it out to be.
Having worked with my government for school dental programs, I’ve met my fair share of students age 12 to 17 who smoke because their parents do. You’re right that marketing is a huge part of it, but I wanted to share the parents’ responsibility also.
“It beats smoking” is a low fucking bar.
The science is that putting shit in your lungs is not great. There’s no upside for non-smokers. It’s a lark. The only truly positive side is that it’s objectively better than inhaling smoke, and that only matters if it’s a tobacco alternative - and contains nicotine. Which let this low-impact delivery mechanism create new addicts.
Two decades in either direction and the calculus would be trivial. 1990, the way people smoked back then? We’d solve the epidemic overnight. Trade it for vaping in a heartbeat. 2030, the way statistics were headed? Pointless and inexcusable. A brief fad that would linger in countries with hookah culture.
Instead, the worst-case scenario happened immediately. The same murderous liars made money hooking a new generation with a fairly unsafe and hideously addictive chemical. Like they’d previously done by adding filters, and then menthol, and then cloves.
Smoking kills 8 million people worldwide every year. I think it’s worth pushing the alternatives.
Maybe I read it wrong but what I got from it is this:
Vaping is good as an alternative to non-smokers. The problem is that it’s being pushed to non-smokers. It’s not as bad as smoking, but the best is neither.
nah he just hates others who choose to do thinga they dont like
