[qwerta]

I do not understand why some people try to regulate this. My guess is that income from smoking-tax is shrinking.

I never smoked cigarette in my life, but I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee. It works, no hassle with tea or coffee preparation, also it is probably healthier. But being labeled as a smoker puts me off.

[deskglass]

"I tried e-cigs as a replacement for coffee...it is probably healthier." I'll grant that vaporization ameliorates the problems merely caused by smoke inhalation, but doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own? I'll also not aware of there being health issues that result from drinking a normal amount of tea or coffee.

[gwern]

> but doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own?

Nicotine on its own causes very little harm.

(A word of advice, though, if you decide to read up on this topic: it is extremely common in the research literature to lazily conflate tobacco with nicotine. You will routinely find abstracts which say something like 'we sampled smokers...' and then in the conclusion write '...we conclude that nicotine damages cognitive performance', as if tobacco was nothing but solidified nicotine. When you find something negative about nicotine, you need to check that tobacco is not driving the results.)

[mikestew]

> it is extremely common in the research literature to lazily conflate tobacco with nicotine.

It is also assumed that the tobacco is burned. Sure, snuff can cause oral cancer (unlikely though it may be in comparison to cigarettes), but if you dodge the oral cancer bullet what are the other potential problems? I have no idea because everything I find conflates tobacco use with burning it and inhaling it. Smoking is bad, we get it. Smoking automotive tires is probably bad, too. How about the effects of tobacco itself, separate from the bad effects of burning something and inhaling it?

[qwerta]

+1

Also nicotine effects are more isolated to brain. Caffeine affects whole body including metabolism stimulation and hearth rate. Not so good for office worker.

[yetanotherphd]

Reading the Wikipedia article on the health effects of coffee, coffee is almost certainly a net plus for health.

Nicotine is ambiguous.

[praxeologist]

"doesn't inhaling nicotine cause many health problems on its own?"

Not really. Nicotine seems to be about the same or maybe a few times as dangerous as caffeine, which is to say barely dangerous at all.

Most of the danger of cigarettes is burning the plant material. There is a study assigning cancer risk to the toxicants of tobacco smoke and there is a list of the top 50 or so chemicals of concern called the Hoffman analytes. Nicotine isn't on this list.

[jtreminio]

You have no idea what chemicals are actually in that stuff.

[joshcanhelp]

If you buy from legitimate sources, you do. There are quality liquid producers that only use FDA-regulated flavors and sweeteners, organically-source vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and water. You can buy cheap from producers overseas, and I'm sure many do, but you can be as picky with your liquid as you can with what you eat.

[nerfhammer]

lacking regulation you have no idea if such claims in their marketing material are even true

[Game_Ender]

Even with regulation you still have to trust the companies making products. Most regulations do not require statistically significant independent sampling of every batch of product people consume. With such independent testing, you are going to have to trust the producer.

[nerfhammer]

That would make sense if the penalty of finding a tainted batch were to send it back for another one. However, the case is that if you ever get caught selling tainted products you could get shut down completely.

[Nursie]

Standardised doses, known ingredients etc etc.

Regulation doesn't have to mean restriction, as an ex-smoker that used e-cigs to quit, I think it's a great idea to get them regulated and legit.