Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 259 posts

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#181

Post by [deleted] »

Scaevolus wrote: post #175
jacobolus wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

[deleted]

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#182

Post by ams6110 »

jacobolus wrote: post #173
cbhl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That means that in a school of of 360 kids (30 students * 3 classes * 4 grades), ~36 of them are now nicotine users through vaping. You may as well dedicate an entire classroom to holding detention. The US was slowly reducing the number of middle schoolers who smoke cigarettes. According to the CDC, cigarette use dropped from 4.3% in 2011 to 2.2% in 2016. [1] This would be a 5x reversal in less than a year. That…

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…

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.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#183

Post by 013a »

mrob wrote: post #143
013a wrote: post #107

One problem I think the industry has right now is the "gas station disposable" ecigs, like Blu, Vuse, Juul pods, etc. These things have massive amounts of nicotine, sometimes as high as 30mg/ml which puts the hit right up there with cigarettes. Combine it with the fact that they taste like candy and can be vaped indoors with no ill effects, and its a recipe for addiction. More traditional e-juice can range in nic con…

Seeing as nicotine is a known risk, but the carrier fluids and flavorings are a mostly unknown risk, isn't higher nicotine concentration better? You can get the same dose with less exposure to the unknown risks.

Not really.

Nicotine wears off very quickly. While it can remain detectable in your system for days, the feeling it gives only persists for 10-15 minutes after inhale, if that. Varying the dosage only really affects the intensity, not duration.

Speaking of intensity; if you don't have a tolerance, high levels of nic can be physically and mentally uncomfortable. Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might get slightly nauseous and uncomfortable even at 6mg/ml, definitely at 9mg/ml, unless you have a counteracting agent in your system like alcohol (which is why "leveling out" is a thing).

The chemically addictive properties nicotine has is only one part of the story. There's also the "throat hit"; the feeling of inhaling something warm and slightly uncomfortable. That's a major part of the addiction.

It also tastes great. And its "something to do"; kind of like a fidget spinner, it keeps you busy.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#184

Post by jacobolus »

Pulcinella wrote: post #180
jacobolus wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dir…

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.

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.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#185

Post by ams6110 »

mchannon wrote: post #36

A generation ago these kids would've gotten busted for smoking old-fashioned cigarettes ("Smokin' in the boys room"). Two generations ago it was legal to buy (at some states at age 16) and legal to possess and use, except on school grounds. Three generations ago it was legal even in doctor's offices and hospitals. California and Massachusetts (and oddly enough, Mississippi) are stoking up a new hysteria with public h…

Only a generation ago smoking was still allowed at many high schools. It was at mine (1980s). There was a designated outdoor smoking area for the kids that smoked.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#186

Post by mrob »

013a wrote: post #183
mrob wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as nicotine is a known risk, but the carrier fluids and flavorings are a mostly unknown risk, isn't higher nicotine concentration better? You can get the same dose with less exposure to the unknown risks.

Not really. Nicotine wears off very quickly. While it can remain detectable in your system for days, the feeling it gives only persists for 10-15 minutes after inhale, if that. Varying the dosage only really affects the intensity, not duration. Speaking of intensity; if you don't have a tolerance, high levels of nic can be physically and mentally uncomfortable. Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might g…

>Someone who can comfortably inhale 3mg/ml of nic might get slightly nauseous and uncomfortable even at 6mg/ml, definitely at 9mg/ml

That only makes sense if there's a standardized inhalation size, which there isn't. I've seen people using vaporizers specially designed to make huge clouds, and they're obviously using low concentration. If they used a stronger concentration they could get the same effect with a smaller inhalation size.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#187

Post by MaxLeiter »

steve_musk wrote: post #135
TheBeardKing wrote: post #109

>The 2017 Monitoring the Future survey on adolescent drug use found that 11 percent of 12th graders, 8.5 percent of 10th graders and 3.5 percent of 8th graders had vaped nicotine in the previous 30 days. Of those high school seniors, 24 percent reported vaping daily, which the study defined as vaping on 20 or more occasions in the previous 30 days I'm sorry, but is [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact…

Maybe it is region dependent? I have some younger relatives and high school/middle school and they make it seem like almost every at their school is vaping (mostly the new juul things)

Juuls are incredibly common in a lot of schools. At my school, the number of high schoolers that use a juul more than once a week is at least 20%. (Small school)

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#188

Post by alecco »

portofcall wrote: post #49
alecco wrote: post #23

For years it was obvious to me vaping was backed by an astroturfing campaign on Facebook/reddit/HN/etc. Same for many other things the online techie in crowd things they came up on their own. Let's fix this recurring problem.

If you’re right that might explain why this article was just flagged so much it went from near the top of the front page, to near the bottom of the second. Edit now the third page. 8 min later, 4th page.

And we got downvoted to hell. Yeah, this was by "fans" alone.

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#189

Post by eagletusk »

bjlorenzen wrote: post #179
Scaevolus wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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...

Re: Schools Struggle with Vaping Explosion

#190

Post by haZard_OS »

bjlorenzen wrote: post #179
Scaevolus wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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 ]

Post reply on HN