[300bps]

I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking. When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different. The problem is that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be safe. From the article:

Most public health officials seem to agree that the levels of toxins in e-cigarettes are far lower than those in traditional cigarettes. But they also say that far too little is known, not just about potentially harmful aspects of particular brands of e-cigarettes, but also about whether there is harm from “secondhand vapor.” Dr. Glantz of U.C.S.F. says that in the absence of data, indoor smoking bans should also cover e-cigarettes.

The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeo...

I understand why my mother started smoking when she was 16 and then smoked a pack a day for the next 43 years until she died from cancer. Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?

[anextio]

> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking.

Most reasonable people in the vaping community discourage that kind of behavior. At the end of the day, there will always be assholes.

> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty

There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring.

Adverse effects generally come from an allergic reaction to PG, which is uncommon but well known. Those who are allergic are advised to use 100% VG mixtures.

Aside from that, PG is well known to be safe for human consumption as regulated by the FDA. It is an ingredient in inhalers for asthma and is used in smoke machines. It can cause a humidicant effect on the throat, which leaves it dry, but drinking liquids easily avoids this problem.

No one is arguing that e-cigarette companies should not be regulated to make sure that the juice they produce is of a high quality, but arguments to regulate them heavily (or like regular cigarettes) is based mostly on FUD.

> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?

Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy. That's not something that's ever going to go away.

While long term data on e-cigarettes is not yet available, most experts agree that even in the worst-case scenario, they are nowhere near as bad for you as regular cigarettes. The FUD that exists in the debate can mostly be traced back to groups that have a temperance movement-esque attitude toward nicotine habits.

Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.

E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to get themselves off the dangers of regular cigarettes. That in itself is a public health miracle. The rates of cessation for cigarettes through traditional methods are frighteningly low, yet with the introduction of e-cigarettes, many people (including myself) will never touch a regular cigarette again after the first day.

I have a more advanced device than the ones you pick up at a gas station. It has variable wattage, variable voltage, an ohm-meter, a puff counter, and I can charge my iPhone from it via USB. As well as getting me off tobacco, it's also given me something else to geek out over, and I really enjoy it and the community around it.

Access to these devices must be made available widely and without encumbrance to as many people as possible. Regulations that come in should be about quality of product, not discouragement of purchase.

[300bps]

Because humans aren't rational machines and there are many things that cause people to take up habits that aren't healthy

I get this, but usually there is some substantial benefit to the habit.

To start smoking cigarettes today, you are well aware of the fact that it will:

1. Make you less healthy while you are alive

2. Will prematurely end your life

3. Will make you reviled by a large portion of the population

4. Will cost you a ridiculous amount of money

5. Will cost you a tremendous amount of time while you seek out cigarettes and smoke them

... there are many more negatives.

What possible positives are there that outweigh these negatives?

Nicotine is no more addictive or harmful to a person in a normal dose than caffeine, and its effects are similar also.

This is just so incredibly ridiculous. I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life. I've gone "cold turkey" several times and the only effect was a slight headache that was off and on for a week. I think it's actually pretty easy to quit caffeine but from what I hear, it's nearly impossible to quit smoking cigarettes.

And if the effects of caffeine are similar to the effects of nicotine why not just use caffeine? It seems to have few of the negatives and all the positives (including the social impact of smoking which can be transferred to the social impact of getting coffee).

I just don't get smoking at all. I don't see any benefits to it in a vein similar to I don't see a benefit of smacking myself in the head with a hammer. It's hard to explain away such things with, "Yeah, people aren't rational" because you don't see many people smacking themselves in the head with a hammer.

[anextio]

I started smoking in university, and where I'm from a very high percentage of university students smoke (usually roll-your-own cigarettes, though).

I can remember the first time I had a puff of a cigarette, and I was quite drunk at the time. The thing about smoking while drinking is that, at least at the start, a cigarette seems to make you twice as drunk as you were before, while also making you feel really good.

Of course before this I had smoked weed a bunch of times, and here that is usually mixed with tobacco in a joint, so I was used to it at least in that aspect.

But most people here who smoke weed and not cigarettes are quite able to handle the occasional tobacco in a joint without making a cigarette habit out of it.

Anyway, basically it just started out as something that I would do while out drinking. I would get drunk with my roommates, and occasionally have a puff or two from a cigarette in that state. Eventually I would have a whole roll-up to myself. Eventually I started buying my own tobacco to use with my own weed, and at times I would occasionally have a pure tobacco roll-up with no weed, just for the nice feeling.

For a lot of people, it generally starts out with the connection to drinking. Drinking and smoking are very conducive to each other, and it's how many many people get started.

I don't think I need to go into the details of how alcohol affects your judgement.

How my addiction came about was a slower process. At one point for whatever reason I decided to have a cigarette in the morning just as I was walking to my college, and by god did it feel great. At this point I was still convinced in the back of my mind that I had it under control, and could quit whenever I wanted.

The tradition of a morning cigarette turned into a necessity. Within about 6 months, I had an awful nervous feeling in my arms and stomach until I had the first cigarette of the day, and once it gets to that point, you're screwed.

I was young and foolish, I was drinking, I was doing it with my friends, I was getting social satisfaction from it. I enjoyed the ritual of making the trek to the smoking area with a friend or two for a nice chat while everyone else was inside.

I was smoking up until early August this year. I'm not a drinker at all anymore, and it's always been completely clear to me the health risks of smoking cigarettes, but the excuses still pile up: stress at work, stress at home, no time, trying to find as much enjoyment from my free time as I can, etc.

I switched to an e-cigarette (I hate that term, by the way, much prefer vaporizer) then in August, and the difference has been night and day. I never had another cigarette after that day, and to be honest, I despise them now. I've never had a craving for one and the smell of the smoke disgusts me now like it never did before when I was a smoker.

My cravings have gone down as well. I no longer feel that nervous feeling when I wake up in the morning. My nicotine requirements have gone way down. I'll be moving to a lower nicotine % juice when my current bottle runs out. My blood pressure is great, I can run again, my circulation is better and I don't cough up gunk.

I still have no full intention of quitting. Nicotine for me, like caffeine for some, is an aid to my work pattern. Walking down to the curb for a cigarette or leaning back for a few puffs from my vaporizer are the things that get my mind past a difficult bug or coding problem.

[mst]

You might find that asking the question without repeated use of the word "ridiculous" and without calling people "reviled" would make it more likely that they'd answer you.

Then again, I'm not really seeing any evidence that you want your mind to be changed, so perhaps a better approach would be for you to simply post "I don't understand smoking at all and I don't honestly want to" and skip the insults for that reason instead.

[cdcarter]

Well first of all, and as much as your deep-set hatred for smoking may not let you see it, you get a MUCH different feeling from a long drag on an American Spirit than you do from smacking yourself in the head with a hammer. One can be described as quite pleasant, the other quite...blunt.

I'm not a regular smoker, but I'll take a drag from a friend's every few months, and I enjoy it. But I also lost a family member to lung cancer, so I am particularly careful.

From my own anecdotal evidence, people start smoking in three ways: 1) Started as a kid under 16. Usually through parental influence (if they're smoking around the house a lot, you become very likely to). Otherwise through peer pressure (cool kids behind the bleachers). 2) Started while drunk. See the sister-comment for details. 3) Dated a smoker. This one will get ya, and definitely was the closest I ever got to smoking regularly. Once you get used to the smell of it, the taste of it, the release of a post-coital cig... I'm sure you can imagine how it can be to be deeply in love with someone and have incredible sense-memory connections with their brand of cigarettes.

Hopefully this might give you a little more compassion for people who have become smokers through any avenue, and instead of mocking them for their choices, help them seek cessation therapy.

[fein]

"I've never smoked a cigarette but I have been addicted to caffeine multiple times in my life."

Woops, a little bit of liberty taken there. The caffeine-> nicotine comparison refers to the isolated stimulants, not the act of smoking. People don't seem to be primarily addicted to nicotine in the sense of a cigarette, but the combination of nic + everything else in there.

You don't have to smoke to get a nicotine fix. You don't even need tobacco products.

[DanBC]

> There are four ingredients in e-cigarette juice: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring.

There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions.

> Regulations that come in should be about quality of product,

Yes.

[anextio]

> There should be four ingredients. God only knows what actually goes into the lower quality versions.

Then we're in agreement. I don't know of anyone (besides the usual anarcho-capitalists) who thinks that low quality ingredients should be used in any consumed product.

[kweks]

I'm a non-smoker, but enjoy the effects of nicotine, and also find its effects on concentration etc useful when working. I've tried wearing patches during coding binges to (non-scientific) success.

The only real concern I'd have about vaping is forming an oral habit / gesture habit. What's your experience with this?

Also, what's a good spot to dive into the community, especially to find quality products? I'm in France - huge consumers of e-cigs, but there are plenty of cheap ones - I'd like to avoid using 'dangerous' flavours - an would probably prefer to mix the juice myself.

Thanks !

[ahallock]

> I am starting to see people puffing on these stupid e-cigarettes in restaurants that ban cigarette smoking.

Ad hominem. Plus, just because something resembles smoking does not mean you should conflate the two, "poisoning the well."

> When you say something to them they invariably try to "educate" you on what an e-cigarette is and how it's different

Condescending and derisive.

> The FDA is collecting reports of adverse effects and there are plenty

Finally we get to some actual evidence. I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias. Did you find any opposing data?

[300bps]

Ad hominem

Criticizing someone's behavior is not an ad-hominem. You really don't seem to know what ad-hominem means at all. This should help you:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Condescending and derisive.

Ironically, it is condescending and derisive that they are trying to educate me about e-cigarettes.

I'll check it out, but from that intro you're probably seeking confirmation bias

Did you just read a Wikipedia article on logical fallacies and are trying to fit as many "big words" into your HN comments as you can?

[ahelwer]

I think you misunderstood his intentions. You see, fallacies are like Harry Potter spells except their Latin names produce crushing arguments instead of magical effects. You are now engaged in a duel and must respond with your own invocations. This is how debates are conducted.

[samatman]

You have the scientific method backwards. Things are not shown to be safe, ever. They are shown to be dangerous.

For example, cannabis smoke. It has been shown to cause emphysema. Despite rather large and lengthy population studies, it has not been shown to cause lung cancer. That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that.

E-liquid is hugely variable in quality because there's no regulation. While I happen to think quality e-liquid will be safe for say 98% of the population to inhale, and the rest will be just as easily sent into shock by, say, perfume (this allergy is quite common), it is only detailed study which can actually answer this question.

[anon1385]

>That's despite both your instinct and my own that "of course any smoke causes cancer of the lungs". No, cannabis smoke has not been demonstrated to do that.

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full

The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.

In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.

[samatman]

What you are showing here is that we've moved on to the meta-analysis part of the scientific method. Basically, given many studies, featuring an unknown number of bad actors and poor methodologies, what conclusion can we draw from the numbers?

There are 400 people enrolled in that study. British health services have conducted multiple longitudinal studies, on Jamaican, British and Indian populations, over more than 100 years, with larger sample sets. Different conclusions were drawn.

Note: what I wrote is not a meta-analysis either. I don't have one in my back pocket. If you find one let's talk.

[socillion]

"Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use... Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821

Wildly off topic, though.

[nickdoesdesign]

Wow, looking through your citation, almost all of the reports are because the user had a lung condition prior, or an allergy to glycol. This is merely confirmation bias in a report, at best. This is why they SHOULD be regulated, so the adequate warnings can be expressed and the low quality one thrown out of the market, but it does not show that ALL should just be removed.

We already see that your experience has shaped your worldview, but dont impose that on others.

[throwaway0094]

> The problem is that [we know nothing about the safety or lack thereof of] e-cigarettes

> Why in the world are people starting to smoke today with everything we know about it?

We don't know anything about it [e-cigarrettes]. There is no literature that suggests that nicotine alone causes cancer, and no research at all on the safety of the devices themselves.

Should we do more research as they gain popular adoption? Definitely.