[bspn]

I agree that for traditional tobacco smokers it is likely a net-positive, and it is potentially a tool they can use to reduce their nicotine intake and even eliminate it altogether. The concern with the latest explosion in schools, however, is the significant number of kids getting addicted to nicotine who may not otherwise have tried smoking traditional cigarettes. The nicotine level in a Juul pod is incredibly high, and it doesn't take long for these kids to get hooked. That's something we should be concerned about IMO.

[neaden]

I definitely agree with this, the ideal would be current tobacco users switching to vapes while no non-tobacco user touches them. I just am not sure how we can get to that ideal and how to balance encouraging smokers to switch without encouraging kids to think of vaping as safe.

[Domenic_S]

> The concern [is] kids getting addicted to nicotine

Non-snarky question: why is that a concern? Nicotine -- in the absence of burning tobacco -- isn't bad for you.

[dgacmu]

In general, there are pretty good reasons for suggesting that people avoid addictions before they're at an age where they'll make decisions about it that they'll be happy with over the long term.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164...

> AAMODT: So the changes that happen between

> 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts

> around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through

> that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully

> developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to

> inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to

> reach a goal.

If nothing else, there's a monetary cost, a possible convenience cost, etc., and people should choose maturely whether that's something they want to take on.

(And there are some plausible health risks still with vaping, as others have noted.)

[ben509]

Reading between the lines of the various pieces on vaping I've seen, there seem to be two common assumptions at work: 1. vaping is like cigarettes, therefore must be unhealthy or 2. this is a new substance being ingested and therefore must be unhealthy.

I'm entirely supportive of people who want to study this stuff, but the impulse that any new product should be illegal until it's been proven safe to fairly arbitrary standards seems unreasonable to me. And I think there's a bit of a baptist-bootlegger coalition between the medical researchers and tobacco companies.

[YSFEJ4SWJUVU6]

I don't think it's quite that clear – however, I think it is considered clear that nicotine is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco smoke.

[Domenic_S]

We currently think that nicotine has a protective effect on the brain. Research is spotty but promising. Google “nicotine protects brain” to get started!

[YSFEJ4SWJUVU6]

Oh, I'm certainly under no impression that nicotine might not have any health benefits, but with various inconclusive research it's hard to assess the complete picture and net effect. I think it's partly this way because nicotine has been studied quite little disconnected from tobacco research. (It is my understanding that there is indeed no conclusive evidence of nicotine being greatly harmful to health, and I do use nicotine products myself.)