Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ythl 3511 days ago
Do we have any statistics on percentage of vape users quitting analog smoking vs. recreational/teen experimental usage? If there are strong recreational vape trends in youth I can see why anti-vape ads might be a thing.
1 comments

Teens already experiment with smoking actual cigarettes, all vaping does is provide them with an alternative to experiment with that is far safer and less addicting than tobacco.
It also provides a cotton candy flavored gateway into an addictive habit.
To quote the Smoking Still Kills report, which was backed by over 100 health organisations in the UK including the Royal College of Paediatricians, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and plenty more:

>This has raised concerns that the use of electronic cigarettes could lead to the ‘renormalisation’ of smoking and provide a gateway to smoking for young people. Yet so far there is little evidence that this is happening. The use of electronic cigarettes by people who have never smoked has been, and remains, negligible.

>If electronic cigarettes are a gateway, they currently appear to be a gateway out of smoking.

Do you also favor coffee demonization commercials being started? Anti-cola campaigns? etc?
Which addictive toxic drug are you suggesting coffee is a candy-flavored gateway to?
Which toxic drug are you suggesting is present in eliquid? You can't be talking about nicotine, since that's no more toxic than caffeine and is not carcinogenic.
frakr was implying that the ecigs are a gateway drug to cigarettes.

Hardcore coffee addicts don't usually end up smoking coffee with 4000 other random addictive chemicals mixed in.

And wrt your question, who knows what other chemicals are in ecig juice, as the ingredients seem to be completely unregulated.

That's not a good enough reason to not have anti-vape commercials. Just because it's "less bad" than analog cigarettes doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out about their negative effects.
Nor does it mean we should arbitrarily ban or restrict them to satisfy the whims of people who haven't looked at the evidence.
Nor should we assume that people who disagree with us "haven't looked at the evidence"
We should, when they don't present their reasoning. Or when we know they're being financially influenced by "Big Tobacco". Tobacco laws are being driven by religious puritans who hate the idea that someone is enjoying a drug. To them, that's cheating at life by being happy before judgement day. They'll grasp at any straw to advance their agenda of control, even if it means cooperating with "scientists" from tobacco companies.

We should immediately reject all governmental proposals that aren't backed up by rigorous science. Not only would this stop a ton of abuse, but we'd save a fortune in tax money that could then be spent on initiatives that actually save lives.