I want to like this story. There's a wary, cynical part of me that feels there's another angle that I can't quite put into words yet. Something along the lines of, even if there's no nicotine, there's still a need to regulate heavily, to protect the children.
I want to like this story. There's a wary, cynical part of me that feels there's another angle that I can't quite put into words yet. Something along the lines of, even if there's no nicotine, there's still a need to regulate heavily, to protect the children.
Right. My comment was less about the piece and more about the researcher quoted in the piece.There are some 'hints' of that but in this case, the author hits back rather hard with data contrary to the common 'dangers' - gateway, nic addiction, etc. About the only thing left open was the 'we don't know enough' - this is where the long term VG and PG Dow Chem studies, and Pierce's study on diacetyl belong.
Most of the 'mixed pieces' we see point out the benefits first, then counter with the 'downsides', and it is the downsides people are left with - hence what looks like a "balanced piece" is in reality just more propaganda. Sequence matters. Much like the Hajek, Burnstyn, Polosa, et al., studies that list the junk science stuff then follow up with how they are junk science and then showing true science studies that show the opposite.
"In conclusion, the majority of US youth who use vaporizers and e-cigarettes do not vape nicotine," the researchers wrote. "This finding challenges many common assumptions and practices, and points to the need for vaporizer-specific research to assess and ultimately regulate the public health threat of vaporizers."
Right. My comment was less about the piece and more about the researcher quoted in the piece.
This final paragraph of the piece, which is a quote from the researcher, doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.
No kidding... my thoughts exactly.So goobermint doesn't need to save the children after all?
And the Washington Post is willing to admit that?
Hath Hades suddenly frozen over?
I want to like this story. There's a wary, cynical part of me that feels there's another angle that I can't quite put into words yet. Something along the lines of, even if there's no nicotine, there's still a need to regulate heavily, to protect the children.
That is probably why the FDA does not want to give 0 nic a break...
The appeal of smoking/vaping to kids is visual. If there was no visible smoke or vapor there wouldn't be much attraction. Is there something primordial about "fire breathing"?
My thinking here is, they're not going to be able to play the evils of nicotine card forever. So, embrace it, and the fact that most teens aren't using nicotine, then explain why the children still need to be protected from the public health threat that is vaping.
Thanks for sharing this. Nothing is more interesting to a high school adolescent than something they aren't supposed to have (or do).Today I talked with a highschool aged girl who is a dual user but mostly smokes. Her mother, who also smokes, was in on the conversation. The way a lot of kids get cigarettes is to steal them from parents who smoke. (My parents didn't smoke.) The girl told me lots of kids are vaping in her school. Some are dual users. A big theme seems to be kids using vaping as a form of rebellion. There are suspensions because of vaping but it sounds like the suspended vapers would be making some other kind of trouble or already are. I bet kids who want to vape in peace are succeeding. But may be most of the vaping is a social statement and if it wasn't vaping it would be something else.
I was smoking in highschool days and was never caught or confronted about it. In the Spring time we smuggled squirt guns into the building and staged ambushes and big shootouts in the stairwells. I was never caught doing that either.
The FDA (and ANTZ) will claim that the education programs don't work because of the siren song of the Big Evil Tobacco Companies(tm) to hook youngsters on nicotine addiction. "Woe is me, it's a constant uphill battle to keep the cheeldren off nicotine!"If the FDA is so worried about the "kids" picking up smoking, aren't they admitting that their "educational" products/programs all these many years are failures?