271–280 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like 400,000 people a year die in the US due to smoking. Vaping is mostly a substitute for smoking. But even if millions of non-smokers start vaping, it's a net positive.
Not when it turns out vaping is even more deadly than smoking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tens of millions of people vaping on an hourly basis for years amounting to ~500 cases Vaping is new. Maybe these are the early incidents of a yet-to-be-discovered chronic condition that takes a decade plus of vaping to develop. Hey, millions of high schoolers smoke cigarettes and none of them have lung cancer! (yet)
18 and 19 year olds are in commas, dead right now, or will be soon. This is killing people far faster than cigarettes. I'm of the opinion the small fraction of people claiming they only smoked nicotine are probably lying for reasons mentioned before. They are young kids who don't want to disappoint their families with the fact that they are now dying at a very young age from what used to be a mostly harmless activity…
But in the second paragraph, you say that Juul -- a legal company that produces NICOTINE cartridges, not THC -- should be shut down.
How does A lead to B here?
Does anyone have any idea if this is fatal/permanently debilitating or if it is temporary? That would seem kind of important. EDIT: I guess I meant to say, yes, people have died, but of those that recovered is it a full recovery or a permanent disability?
There have been 5 confirmed deaths so it seems fairly serious.
Almost 500k die from smoking cigarettes every year, so vaping seems like a great alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The information and wording used in these reports seems designed to maximize fear, but more importantly, maximize uncertainty, confusion, and speculative discussion . From the TechCrunch article: > One trend worth noting, however, is that very few of the cases involve only nicotine products You'd have to read these articles very carefully to discern that. > ... most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusive…
They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers. When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions. Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
Neither of these prevents them from publishing the dataset that they do have.
> When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions.
Correct, but they are broadcasting a high level of danger "associated with" vaping, and rather than transparently and fully disclosing the data that as-close-as-possible reflects the specific area of the danger, they are instead using ambiguous text to describe the data in a way that makes it highly uncertain where the actual danger lies, while "hinting" (but explicitly saying) that the danger lies in ecigs in general, not THC vapes in particular. Nothing about the data is forcing them to do this, they are choosing to do this. I am curious why.
> Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
Implying something, while hiding what actual facts (data) they have in their possession is precisely what they are doing now. And yes, it is irresponsible.
I can think of a several entities who would rather the actual data ("facts", to the best of our knowledge) is kept secret and have this (unnecessarily) vague story of danger drag out as long as possible in the media and public dialogue. However, I can think of no valid reason that the data needs to be kept secret - can you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ingredients you list are safe for human ingestion. It doesn't follow that they are safe for inhalation. Your point that they are likely safer than cigarettes is well taken, but your insistence on the ingredients being known to be safe to inhale is faulty.
> your insistence on the ingredients being known to be safe to inhale is faulty Please reread my comment - I never claimed that. I very explicitly stated that inhalation of anything is likely to be bad for your health.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that needs to be weighed against the fact that it seems unlikely 1) everyone would lie and 2) they would lie regarding a health issue that has killed people, meaning they have a strong interest in doctors having accurate information so it doesn't kill them too
> it seems unlikely 1) everyone would lie From the article "One trend worth noting, however, is that very few of the cases involve only nicotine products; most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine." I struggle to see why GP is completely ignoring this and is insinuating that normal nicotine vaping is dangerous. It is fabulously unlikely we have only just "discovered" this. Inst…
Several things have failed to show up in the comments that might illuminate this discussion. (1) The condition is called lipoid pneumonia, which comes from inhaling organic fats and oils. (2) The CDC reports and early studies indicate that the condition has appeared in some people who only vaped with nicotine in glycerol (which is also sometimes called glycerin or glycerine). (3) Glycerol (the Christmas molecule--HO…
Not a chemist so looking for a little clarification. The typical "base liquids" (that nicotine is suspended in) are vegetable glycerin ("VG") and propylene glycol ("PG"). When you say "glycerol", which exactly are you referring to? (Or is it both?) (VG makes the larger "clouds" that some people prefer, typically with lower nicotine concentrations. PG is much less visible and dissipates quicker, but some people consid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve stated this before: cigarettes will kill me with a 100% probability (I was smoking over a pack a day). Maybe vaping will not kill me. Maybe I’ll grow a third arm in 20 years. I don’t know. But I have to play the odds; “100% certainty” vs “maybe not”, I know which one I’m going for. Also, I’ve gone from 9mg of nicotine to 1mg in 2 years, because vaping allows me to monitor and measure exactly how much nicotine I…
"cigarettes will kill me with a 100% probability" The murder victim rate of smokers is non zero, the road accident fatality rate of smokers is non zero. And on the other side the lung cancer rate of non smokers is non zero. So you can't really say ahead of time you will even die of a smoking associated cause, and even if you did, you can't definitively state that it was caused by the smoking.
Virtually all humans would read the parent's post with an implied preface of "Unless I'm killed by an accident or asteroid or murder or one of a million other rare things not relevant to the topic at hand, it's VERY LIKELY that I will die from a smoking-related condition, or to put it colloquially..."
BTW, "lung cancer" isn't the only smoking-related condition that can kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still passing undue judgement and exhibiting stereotypical categorization towards people who use atomizers, without having all the facts. Most of these people don't push their temps to the max because it ruins the flavor and destroys the compound. They actually use very precise temperature control and a higher temp doesn't mean more clouds. Except for extreme temperatures, temperature has also not been cited a…
I can tell you aren’t willing to understand my argument, so I’ll just slowly back away.
The fact is, regardless of what either of us believe, that this is an ill-formed opinion of yours and it needs more work. Instead of being quick to double down, consider working to refine it by listening to what others have to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping How about we let adults do as they please instead. The most anybody should ever do about vaping is warn people that maybe it's not the safest thing in the world. Instead in the EU we have a ridiculous law that makes it illegal to sell nicotine liquid in container bigger than 10ml, which means that if I don't want to spend twice what I used on cigarettes, I…
Letting adults do as they please is a common refrain, but when you're living in a country with subsidized healthcare, the government has an incentive (at the macro level) to not let you do stupid things that raise healthcare costs, which are then passed on to the population at large. In America, you break it, you buy it. Everywhere else, I have no problem with a bit of governmental oversight to make sure people don't…