[jacobolus]

Cigarettes cause high rates of lung cancer, killing tons of people. It makes sense to heavily discourage teenagers from using them. As far as I am aware (I am not an expert about or user of any of these products) the risks from vaping are much less severe.

Is the concern just that the activity is nominally unlawful? Or that it will be a “gateway drug” (is there any evidence of that)? Or that it is a waste of students’ time? Or ...

Or are we worried about stimulants in general? Or is there still some significant cancer risk from vaping? (Are people freaking out about high school students drinking too much coffee?)

If students are just replacing cigarettes with vaping, that seems like an unambiguously positive development.

[ams6110]

Yeah I don't endorse vaping especially for young kids but it's better than smoking, and that was even allowed at my high school (in specific places).

We've eliminated all the really worrying stuff but people like to worry about kids so now we're down to sugar and vaping. Of the two I'd bet sugar is a lot worse, long term. Though since vape juice is unregulated and kids probably buy the cheapest they can find, I'd wonder what kind of chemicals are actually in it.

[nv-vn]

The good thing is that kids mostly use high quality vapes. For example, the Juul is cited as the most popular in the article. Other popular ones are Junos, Phixes, and Suorins. All of these have their own juices manufactured by the companies, and all these companies are pretty reputable to my knowledge. The Juul has succeeded in part because they designed their own pods that nobody else was producing, so they could guarantee high quality juices.

[tinus_hn]

Vaping is not better than smoking, it’s less bad.

If you think getting addicted to inhaling chemicals is not harmful you are deluding yourself.

Just like there are no ‘safe’ cigarettes, there is no ‘safe’ vaping. Even inhaling nicotine itself is harmful.

[hanklazard]

My concern would be around the long-term effects of inhaling vapor from heated metal alloys. I doubt that we have enough safety data, given the newness of the tech and (I assume) the variety of metals being used. That being said, I’m no expert so please chime in if you have information around this concern.

[algorias]

I don't understand exactly what you're afraid of. I often prepare the food I eat in a contraption of "heated metal alloys". We know perfectly well how to make such things safe.

[code_duck]

Different metals are in use, at different temperatures, and inhalation rather than ingestion.

Vape coils are typically kanthal, the same material as in my ceramic kiln wires, and were not designed for food/smoking purpose before people started using them for that.

[algorias]

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to sell a pot made out of unsafe materials and market it as a cooking implement. I'm also quite confident that it's technically possible to make a safe vaping device. So the issue would be a lack of regulation?

[code_duck]

Definitely, there is a lack of meaningful testing and regulation. Also, everything about vaping is too new to know the long term effects on human health.

[Scaevolus]

It's less severe, but nicotine alone is carcinogenic.

[jacobolus]

Okay, but so is standing near combustion-engine vehicles, cooking, soldering, shopping at stores full of air freshener, and many other things. There are many other common activities that have even higher risk of death/injury.

When walking around town with my 1.5 year old, I commonly see people smoking cigarettes outside freak out and start apologizing, worried that they might blow one puff of smoke in the general direction of a baby. But at that point we are talking about a ridiculous level of concern for a trivial risk.

As they say, the dose makes the poison. We should make public policy based on careful risk analysis, not absolutist reflex.

[Pulcinella]

Auto emissions are heavily regulated and many states also regulate in-door air quality including cooking so I am not sure what you are arguing for.

[jacobolus]

I speculate that standing near existing (heavily regulated) combustion vehicles, going to existing (heavily regulated) restaurants, cooking using existing (regulated) methods and tools, etc. has a decent chance of being a greater health risk than breathing nicotine alone. I am not an expert though, so would love to hear some actual evidence about it.

We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well.

But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.

[cctt23]

http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html

It’s a bit wearying to hear the old chestnuts trotted out here of all places. It seems like bad arguments and FUD never really change, they just finds new adherents.

[alpos]

This seems like you are being argumentative for no good reason. You may have misread the above post.

It seems to me that jacobolus was not defending vaping but merely wondering if we're all being a bit over-reactive at this point.

That position is not so much comparable to your referenced four-dog-defense as it is to something like "you've got a better chance of being killed by a lightening bolt than killed in a terrorist attack".

And that is a valid point to make when discussing any issue involving risk. Humans are prone to reacting to perceived risks without considering comparative risks factors. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...

[bjlorenzen]

Could you please source this claim? A quick google search is revealing a lot of contrary evidence.

[haZard_OS]

This summary is a few years old but still relevant :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/#__ffn_...

Long before that publication, however, Wright SC (et al) published a paper still referenced today in toxicology textbooks entitled "Nicotine inhibition of apoptosis suggests a role in tumor production" [ FASEB J. 1993; 7:1045-1051 ]

[eagletusk]

Nicotine is considered a nootropic that increases cognitive ability. Perhaps the kids are using it to up regulate their brains?

Studies here: https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/28-proven-health-benefits-ni...

[vkou]

From what I recall of being a kid, kids are using it to get social validation.

Also, because once you get addicted, nicotine withdrawal is bloody awful.

[narag]

I'm always surprised that the main reason people smoke is not cited first.

For all you that haven't done it: smoking causes pleasure. A fast, intense and repeatable pleasure.

[vkou]

As someone who's never smoked, but has stood next to people who have, I would guess it does quite the opposite. I imagine most people who don't smoke think this.

[lstyls]

Citation? NICE, for one, says there is no known cancer risk from nicotine alone: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph45/chapter/3-Consideratio...

[gwbas1c]

The risks of vaping are unknown. Just look for the mention of "popcorn lung" from the chemicals used for flavoring.

It's also more addictive than cigarettes because the devices can be tuned to deliver much more nicotine than a cigarette.

[mistermann]

More addictive than cigarettes....sorry but that isn't true. There is a lot more in cigarettes to addict a person.

[s73v3r_]

Not if more are taking up vaping than would otherwise be taking up cigarettes.