Is vaping sticky?

[Eskie]

If you think Wave 1 was interesting, wait until you read the Wave 2 questionnaire. They broke e cigs as separate from ENDS (which included e cigar and e hookah, and is for actual vape stuff, not Blu or Vuse)They had ~50 pages on e cigs, and 5 on ENDS. Very in depth understanding of vaping will come out of that data.

 

[Ryedan]

I dearly hope they don't go "messing" with vape to make it addictive in the same way tobacco was manipulated.

I agree. They should most definitely NOT manipulate vaping to make addictive. That totally defeats the purpose of what vaping is about.

I feel I have to comment on this since I was the one who brought up the 'A' word originally

All of us who have switched completely to vaping from smoking have made vaping stick for us somehow. Reading my post again, I realize it could seem I meant more addictive is the only way to get to more sticky, but that is not how I see it. I just worry that it may be the easiest solution and hope that enough effort gets put into this so we don't end up going there. IMO the best thing to do is keep an open mind, stay vigilant and see what happens as things change.

 

[Eskie]

I feel I have to comment on this since I was the one who brought up the 'A' word originally

All of us who have switched completely to vaping from smoking have made vaping stick for us somehow. Reading my post again, I realize it could seem I meant more addictive is the only way to get to more sticky, but that is not how I see it. I just worry that it may be the easiest solution and hope that enough effort gets put into this so we don't end up going there. IMO the best thing to do is keep an open mind, stay vigilant and see what happens as things change.

I don't think manipulating vape stuff to make it more addictive is even needed. What is needed is testing what systems work best for those who want to stop smoking, a high 24 mg solution with a low airflow Nauti like setup, or lower nic 6 mg subohm types of systems. That would be more helpful assuring smokers can achieve a higher quit rate than trying to make it more addictive in the traditional sense of the word.

 

[sofarsogood]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

The premise of the article is that the tobacco controlers are misguided, not shameless self interested liars. I think they don't understand vaping because they don't want to understand.

Bonnie Herzog is a financial analyst. Her readers are looking for business information, not health statistics. The connection between spending and vaping is not linear like it is with smoking and cigarettes.

The author is right, vaping is misunderstood, even by vapers I would say. The approach she takes uncovers insights that may not be obvious even to vapers. But I still say, if there were no excise taxes on tobacco Han Lic would get the Nobel prize in Medicine.

 

[dripster]

The premise of the article is that the tobacco controlers are misguided, not shameless self interested liars. I think they don't understand vaping because they don't want to understand.

Bonnie Herzog is a financial analyst. Her readers are looking for business information, not health statistics. The connection between spending and vaping is not linear like it is with smoking and cigarettes.

The author is right, vaping is misunderstood, even by vapers I would say. The approach she takes uncovers insights that may not be obvious even to vapers. But I still say, if there were no excise taxes on tobacco Han Lic would get the Nobel prize in Medicine.

I think the tobacco controllers understand perfectly fine, but they simply don't want everyone else to understand.

 

[sofarsogood]

I think the tobacco controllers understand perfectly fine, but they simply don't want everyone else to understand.

I agree but the author's premise is the tobacco contolers are misguided, not self interested. She does such a good job of it it's worth discussing.

 

[dripster]

I agree but the author's premise is the tobacco contolers are misguided, not self interested. She does such a good job of it it's worth discussing.

What would it help if she changed her mind by plainly accusing them of being self interested?

 

[sofarsogood]

What would it help if she changed her mind by plainly accusing them of being self interested?

You are right unfortunately. There was a time, conflict of interest mattered. Not any more. The points in the paper won't sway the TC crowd but will help the people inclined to be on our side of the issue.

 

[Eskie]

You are right unfortunately. There was a time, conflict of interest mattered. Not any more. The points in the paper won't sway the TC crowd but will help the people inclined to be on our side of the issue.

Ah it's really early where I am, but at least I'm not getting 404s so that's good. Now, what was the issue regarding TC that would be a contentious matter, because I don't recall one.

 

[Iv3shf]

Definitely food for thoughts, the fun is in reading the comments!

The point is that this is a vaping forum and WE know what we're talking about, it's THEM that don't know what we're talking about (Do they care really?)
Can't wait for part two..

 

[Oliver]

Eskie, I broadly agree with everything you say, except to say that even your proposed changes wouldn't give much insight into the technology. You'll like part 2.

OK, I read your commentary. I also read the presentation that Fould's gave at Penn State. I went into the PATH study wave 1 and looked at the questionnaire concerning e cigarettes. I did not look at the raw data, and I didn't count up all the question on e cigs from page 66 to 90 in the survey.

I've got a few problems with interpreting this stuff. First, retrospective surveys are limited in their utility to the questions asked. Now, they did ask all sorts of questions of the e cig users. There is only one question that asks the single most important issue :
"[Do | Did] you use e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting tobacco altogether?
1 Yes
2 No
-8 DON’T KNOW
-7 REFUSED"
this is from page 90 of DS1001 Wave 1 Adult Data questionnaire. There are lots of other questions looking at those surveyed for what appeals to you, what doesn't, how much do you smoke, how often do you feel the need to smoke, and all sorts of questions. But what Fould never provides (and I'm not even sure if it can be extracted based on how this thing was set up) is: How many people who dual use (that big 87% group) tried or used or chose as a method, to stop smoking. If most of those users never planned to stop, and were only using it to fill in as a stopgap such as being somewhere cigarettes could not be used, purchased on a whim at the convenience store, or whatever OTHER than "I bought this specifically to stop smoking and I tried real hard to not smoke or cut down smoking while using an e cig" then that 87% figure is useless.

Dual use is not being documented solely among those who view e cigs ONLY as a smoking cessation aid/device. That dual use group identified provided no specific evidence that their e cig use was to stop smoking. Now, maybe the data is buried somewhere in there, but what I would want to know is this:

In the 13% only e cig users, what percentage used e cigs to achieve the goal of smoking cessation (I'd bet a pretty high percentage), and in the 87% dual users the same question (I'd bet lower than the e cig group). Without that all you have is selection bias that could have easily been avoided, and loaded the deck to miss that basic question. It is in fact the very first question required, as it would split the group and assure that things like dual use, e cig preferences, and satisfaction apply to the correct population, not just anyone deciding to mess around with an e cig without a strong motivation to quit smoking.

 

[Oliver]

Personally, I think it's very hard to make vape more addictive: the most you can hope for is to increase nicotine pharmacokinetics to cigarette-like levels - this should make vaping more "satisfying" for existing smokers. But even then, there's myriad compounds in cigarette smoke that remain absent in e-cigs.

I dearly hope they don't go "messing" with vape to make it addictive in the same way tobacco was manipulated. If they want people to stick with vaping and not go back to traditional smoking, they should stop trying to kill it by banishing the vapers from public view and limiting flavors to nothing or what the thought police believe would be appropriate for such a sad group of addicts. I really think that when the tobacco companies' manipulations came out as true fact, that was the time when the attitudes towards smoking and smokers really changed and put us where we are now.

Keeping vaping as something that is more pleasurable than smoking and offers a variety of high quality, safe hardware and many flavors and options in the juice will also encourage smokers to switch and stay with vaping. They may never convert 100% of the smokers, but if 95% could switch, that would be something to celebrate.

I think it is also important to keep vaping companies in business and allowing them to thrive and innovate. It is harder for the regulators to keep track of so many different vendors, but by preventing a privileged few companies from taking over the industry will make it harder for the monopoly to manipulate the products as they did with tobacco.

 

[Oliver]

Actually, there's no premise about intentions at all in this article.

Amelia and I are not agnostic on intentions, and there's a whole piece of work to be done on just how broken this all is; it just doesn't help the particular argument which is, at its most straightforward: you can't understand vape using tobacco research.

I agree but the author's premise is the tobacco contolers are misguided, not self interested. She does such a good job of it it's worth discussing.

 

[Oliver]

Definitely food for thoughts, the fun is in reading the comments!

The point is that this is a vaping forum and WE know what we're talking about, it's THEM that don't know what we're talking about (Do they care really?)
Can't wait for part two..

That's pretty much right. And then there's the interesting thing about how it is that this knowledge gets "transmitted", so that (say) the FDA understands how stupid the whole concept of a PMTA is at this stage in the innovation cycle.

 

[Bunnykiller]

the only thing that is sticky about other cessation options is the adhesive on the patches...

 

[mcclintock]

I know that every poll and questionnaire on vaping or smoking I've seen doesn't properly ask about dual use. OK you dual use, how many packs a day? .01 isn't an option either, multiple choice.

It is a great question though, I've known a few smokers that mess around with ecigs but it doesn't really cut into their smoking. I do know smokers have a lot of weird things to say as sort of excuses to not vape. Two different people said they'd switch if exactly like their cigs, only to admit later they didn't enjoy the taste of smoking at all! They seem obsessed with the idea that they don't want a new addiction and therefore don't want it to be too good. This is a misunderstanding of how vaping works. I've said vaping works by being addictive and that's a misunderstanding also, although close. "Sticky" is a good word, a combination of some addictiveness and otherwise being attractive. "Magnetic" better depicts invisible lines of force however.

A common fear expressed is that it's just exchanging one addiction for another, to which perhaps the best answer is yes and no, obviously cold turkey can not be improved upon if you have the willpower. For low willpower however, vaping is the real deal. It is a path to fully quit if that's what you really want, and if you don't really want to quit just want to not be ill, it's great for that too. And it is less addictive.

As to making ecigs more addictive, again I must point out that tobacco additives have very little to do with it, whole tobacco is naturally more addictive than refined nicotine due to its other active ingredient, whole tobacco alkaloids. And absolutely, WTA-infused ejuices probably should be well known to fill in lack of satisfaction, available in every vape shop and convenience store that sells ecigs, because by the time people find small vendors on the internet with them they usually don't need WTAs anymore (although there's now the argument that nic salts are the answer, conventional nic actually makes some people sick and with salts the nic level can be increased without problem). At the same time, due to lack of understanding or some other reason, few point out the reduced effectiveness and addictiveness of pure nicotine ejuice does mean you're 90% of the way to quitting by the time you're only vaping. However the taste and enjoyment does get mixed up in your mind with nicotine so there's that.

 

[y cherry y]

Ok. I haven't been following things as much as I used to, but in looking up PATH - this is a group of vaping enemies (Kasza, Goniewicz, et al) closely associated with the FDA, Roswell group, all the 3 and 4 letter agencies - likely backed by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

I wouldn't call Goniewicz an enemy of vaping.

 

[sofarsogood]

Actually, there's no premise about intentions at all in this article.

Amelia and I are not agnostic on intentions, and there's a whole piece of work to be done on just how broken this all is; it just doesn't help the particular argument which is, at its most straightforward: you can't understand vape using tobacco research.

Intentions are tricky. There are no mind readers. The traditional way to cover that is conflict of interest. Governments collect the lion's share of tobacco revenues. The people doing nearly all the whining about ecigs would see reduced funding as tobacco taxes declined. I consider that to be a conflict. All they need to do is shut up.

May be the tobacco crowd can't understand methods to stop smoking that involve a dual use stratagy. What happened to me over my 6 weeks of dual using is cigarettes became less satisfying and didn't taste so good. I still needed motivation and a little bit of grit to stick to zero cigs. Today cigarettes taste and smell awful.

 

[Oliver]

Intentions are tricky. There are no mind readers. The traditional way to cover that is conflict of interest. Governments collect the lion's share of tobacco revenues. The people doing nearly all the whining about ecigs would see reduced funding as tobacco taxes declined. I consider that to be a conflict. All they need to do is shut up.

May be the tobacco crowd can't understand methods to stop smoking that involve a dual use stratagy. What happened to me over my 6 weeks of dual using is cigarettes became less satisfying and didn't taste so good. I still needed motivation and a little bit of grit to stick to zero cigs. Today cigarettes taste and smell awful.

Whatever their current "understanding of methods to stop smoking" is, they're not going to discover anything about how people use vape to do so in the P.A.T.H data. Which is a crying shame, because a little slice of that $120mm could have gone a long way.

 

[Eskie]

Whatever their current "understanding of methods to stop smoking" is, they're not going to discover anything about how people use vape to do so in the P.A.T.H data. Which is a crying shame, because a little slice of that $120mm could have gone a long way.

No kidding. But whoever wrote those wave 1 and 2 questions had no intention of addressing that. The token single question about stopping smoking with vaping does not constitute examination of the matter in any meaningful way. The committee that assembled this thing viewed vaping as just another tobacco product.