The dangers e-cigs pose for Canadians -- please help me understand this

[ChrisUp2Late]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the claims being made in the media about e-cigarettes.

The ones that bother me the most are:

• we don’t know what’s in them, so don’t use them/ban them!
• we don’t know the long-term effects, so don’t use them/ban them!
• it ‘re-normlizes’ smoking, so ban them!
• think of the children, ban them!

I’ll ignore the specific problems I have with these claims (for the moment), but I want to get some feedback from people here on the relationship between risk and possible population level outcomes.

What I’d really like is some feedback on my math and my logic here. So apologies at the outset, and thanks for taking to the time to read this rather long post. Here’s what I’ve been thinking…

There are approximately 30,000,000 Canadians aged 15 and over. Roughly 20% of this population smokes cigarettes. That means there are currently 6,000,000 cigarette smokers in Canada.

We’re told that half of all smokers will die of smoking related diseases. If that’s true, then we can expect 3,000,000 of these smokers to die as a result of their tobacco use.

So let’s play the e-cigarette simulation game and see what effect e-cigarette use could have on that number.

First, we need to know how much less risky e-cigarettes are than tobacco cigarettes. Lots of debate out there, and many say “99% safer, plus or minus 1%.” But let’s be conservative and say they are just 90% safer.

If you switch from tobacco to e-cigs, your risk of death goes from 50% to 5% (.5 * .1 = .05). [I know, if you smoked for 40 years then switched, you might still die of ‘smoking related disease’ and we can play with the ‘how much safer’ number, but please, stay with me here for a minute.]

Now, let’s imagine what would happen to the death rate if a some percentage of smokers switched to e-cigarettes.

If nobody switches to e-cigs, we can expect 3,000,000 deaths (one half of users).

But if 25% of current tobacco users (1,500,000 smokers) switched to e-cigs, here’s what happens.

Of the remaining 4,500,000 smokers, we can expect 2,250,000 to die.

Of the 1,500,000 people who switch, we can expect 5% or 75,000 to die. That’s 675,000 fewer deaths (a total of 2,325,000 deaths).

But wait! What if non-smokers take up e-cigarettes? How many people who don’t smoke would it take to get the total number of deaths back up to 3,000,000?

In fact, to get back to 3,000,000 deaths, you would need 13,500,000 non-smokers to start using e-cigs (or 56% of the remaining population). That would leave just 4,500,000 not smoking cigarettes or using electronic cigarettes. Can we lure more than half of the currently non-smoking Canadian population into using e-cigarettes through sexy advertising and candy flavours? I don’t think so.

But wait! What about the “gateway” argument – the idea that non-smoking kids (or adults) will start using a “supposedly safe” e-cigarette, get addicted to nicotine, and then switch to tobacco cigarettes?

If we want to get back to 3,000,000 deaths, we’d need 1,350,000 young people to somehow start using e-cigarettes, then switch to tobacco cigarettes. [And there is no evidence that this is happening, but don’t get me started, and again, please stay with me here.]

But there are only 2,100,000 Canadians aged 15-19. And we know that 12% (or 252,000) of those young people already smoke tobacco cigarettes. So we’d need 85% of the 1.8 million young people who currently don’t smoke, to start using an e-cig and then switch to tobacco cigarettes to get us back to 3,000,000 deaths.

Is that even within the realm of possibility? I don’t think so. Are you worried that 85% of all non-smoking youth in Canada will use e-cigs as a gateway drug? I’m not.

Again, apologies for the length of this post, but I hope people will check the math for me. We can play with the numbers (use 50% safer and 10% uptake of e-cigs, etc.) but it's still a net health outcome win as far as I can tell…

Am I wrong about that? What do number-crunchers out there have to say?

Thanks!

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

It's not the nicotine!!!

"Personal Vapers" or E-Cigs are a viable replacement for delivery of nicotine, just like the patches and gums, it just "resembles" smoking and allows those who developed the bad habit of oral fixation thru smoking.

I know everyone has seen all the reports over e-cigs the media is pumping out, many have bought into the falseness of the claims...it's time to break it down with common sense.

What 3 chemicals are found in cigarette smoking? In every single one no matter what brand, flavor, strength? In what ratios?

There were studies ordered by the government of tobacco companies to produce a list of the ratios.

Nicotine, Tar, and CO Content of Regular Cigarette Brands

Now what can you tell me about that list...take a close look at look at the levels and ratios of nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide?

The amount of nicotine you actually get from the cigarette is between 5-15 times LESS than the other two chemicals individually, combined 10-30 times less, so what are you REALLY getting addicted to when you "burn a stinky?"

Now...ask yourself what are the effects of those chemicals on the human body after YEARS of use? What is the damage to your immune system with the constant stressing of it each time you smoke a cigarette for years, decades even, what does a healthy immune system do to cancer cells when they are found, what does a stressed or weakened immune system due to those stresses from the known chemicals in cigarettes?

Now...let's discuss these "e-cigarette" things
When they first came out in their infancy in there may have been problems..the government did a study and found in a handful of samples chemicals that can be harmful, what they didn't tell you is that in EVERY SINGLE one of those samples the 10-30 times the harmful chemicals WERE NOT THERE.

Over time, ingenious individuals found better products that didn't have those components that had the harmful chemicals that were found in the beginning yet most reports attacking e-cigs are based upon that early study. Technology has finally risen to allow those same ingenious individuals to create a device to deliver vaporized fluids containing small metered amounts of nicotine. Nichrome wire, high density Li Ion batteries.

Personal vapers e-juice NOW contains 4 separate elements, propylene glycol which can also be found in NUMEROUS products most of us use and ingest daily, it is not antifreeze even though some antifreeze's use it, guess what else is in antifreeze...dihydrogen monoxide...aka water.

The second is food grade artificial flavoring that does not contain Diacetyl which is a chemical found when heated can release harmful chemicals, and used in e-cig juice early on...thru the same ingenious experimentation they identified this problem and have removed that too, also anything using artificial flavoring...you guessed it...you consume daily, sometimes multiple times daily.

The third is pharmaceutical grade vegetable glycerine which also is found in many products used, consumed, and ingested daily.

Fourth being nicotine extract...which still allows personal vapers to get nicotine which is just another chemical stimulant similar to caffeine, in too much concentration can kill you, but due to ingenious and methodical measurements can be delivered in safe metered amounts just like analogs...but you guessed it WITHOUT the 10-30x the amount harmful chemicals found in cigarettes, you can actually get e-juice with no nicotine in it if you so choose

Those that claim personal vapers or "e-cigs" are JUST as harmful are being disingenuous or even downright wrong (maybe even paid to be wrong...hmmm) The budding personal vaper community doesn't have the media machine that those who want to see it stopped have

How can it be just as harmful when you are removing 10-30x the harmful chemicals from smoking, and comparing it to smoking, yet still getting that chemical stimulant, it would be like taking liquid concentrate caffeine (which you can buy in gallon jugs) and putting it in sparkling water and calling it a coffee product.

Governments and the FDA are looking to regulate and in some places even BAN personal vaping or the sale of its components because it "looks" like smoking even though it is almost NOTHING like smoking other than the small amounts of metered nicotine being delivered, there is no combustion, there is no tar, there is no carbon monoxide, there is no smoke how can it be a "tobacco" product or JUST AS BAD as smoking? It is an alternative form of nicotine delivery, same as patches, and gums that still can be bought over the counter or even on EBAY

I quit smoking because it is bad for you, I started vaping to get my nicotine because it is MUCH MUCH LESS bad for you!

It's not about just the nicotine...It has NEVER been about just the nicotine

Last time I checked....smoking cigarettes didn't stop "being bad for you" since the e-cigarette hit the market

Now with this information, you can choose to believe an error, or you can choose to correct it
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

 

[Zurd]

Is that even within the realm of possibility? I don’t think so. Are you worried that 85% of all non-smoking youth in Canada will use e-cigs as a gateway drug? I’m not.

A bit too much guess of statistics and numbers in your post but it's definitely not in the realm of possibility, I am totally not worried that young people will get addicted to ecigs. There's plenty of other things a lot more nasty available.

However, it is still an argument that will be made countless times, it doesn't matter if it's illogical or is utter nonsense, anti-ecigs people will try anything to get ecig banned/taxed/regulated.

 

[PineappleFrenzy]

There has always been, and always will be, a segment of the population that will systematically and zealously try to control the behaviors of other people. Because they are so enthusiastic at what they do they tend to gravitate to, and thrive in, careers which give them regulatory authority over others.

These people cannot be swayed by reason because they have an agenda. They will not cease until the world fits their "vision" of the way things ought to be.

We cannot change those people. But we must recognize that there are far more people out there who value compassion and reason more than power and control. We must appeal to those in authority who are of this latter type.

Energy directed at changing the attitudes of the stubborn is wasted. But appealing to those in power who are open to reason will yield fruit, and ultimately lead to the sensible health policies we all hope will eventually emerge in Canada.

We must succeed, because the lives of so many are at stake.

 

[Skitty]

I don't get it at all, I mean, even assume the end-is-nighers are right and vaping is equally as bad as smoking (stupid, but let's fight on one front at a time). It still removes the secondhand smoke thing from the equation, so it means there will be zero increase in 'suicide by smoke' so no negative there, and a big difference in those affected in terms of health, ....-litter, and just the pleasure of going in or out of any establishment without having to gasp through a fog of stale cancer-mist. So even if all it does is restrict a smoker's harm to their self, why is that not a positive outcome?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Concat]

Kind of funny... no one is out there lambasting fog machines at rock concerts and the like. No one even thinks twice about it. In fact, I've never seen it once in all the articles I've read. And it's not like fog machines are age restricted. And yes, ecigs are literally mini fog machines.

Add a little nicotine though, and incorrectly throw around the word "smoke" and suddenly people go crazy. You don't "know" what's in a fog machine either!

If you want to talk about age restrictions then that's fine. But let's not pretend that PG/VG vapor is something new. I mean, I only vape PG/VG and nicotine - no flavor. Put a tiny fog machine in my apartment and slap on a nicotine patch. Same thing. Where's the hubris for that?

 

[Skitty]

There is also the age restriction argument "but you can buy online if you just *say* you're 18/21/16/whatever!", but same goes for ciggies, alcohol, porn, etc. Unless they also ban online shopping, that's a non starter.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Concat]

And let's be real. The only kids going online for the nicotine variants are smokers themselves. All these kids that have tried ecigs always have the gas store no-nic variety, and the vast majority of those that buy them are smokers too.

It's similar to age restrictions on NRT products. Are we saying we don't want kids to quit smoking, or are we saying non-smokers will abuse nicotine patches? Please.

 

[PineappleFrenzy]

We will wise up one day. There's too many lives at stake.

 

[thedustwarrior]

Prohibitionists are pretty hilarious. It's too bad they always seem to be the squeakiest wheel when the Authorities show up with the grease can.

One would think, at least in the US, now that diet related illnesses are killing more people than tobacco, alcohol and drugs combined, that they would just let us vapers go and vape in peace. But once a zelaot get's a hankerin, they kind of act like a smoker

 

[bdpf]

I am extremely new to vaping since I only started last week and I completely understand the passion and devotion of the people on this great forum so please, don't take my next words the wrong way.

One things that bugs me in all those comments in this thread and others is how most of the community makes it look like vaping is totally harmless. Me personally, I can't believe that.
I understand that all ingredients (expect nicotine) are found in product consumed everyday. That doesn't really reassure me since a lot of the products people consume also include MSG which is a know dangerous chemical but that's another story.
Also, no one really knows how these products react to the fact of being vaped vs ingested.
Anything but air in your lungs can't be harmless to you.

It took about 50 years for the cigarette to be declared bad for you. Maybe 50 years from now, we'll look back and see that this was as bad, just in a different way. This is just to new.

When I was smoking, I knew it was bad for me, and accepted the consequences in return from the "pleasure" of smoking a cigarette. I never fooled myself in thinking that it wasn't that bad, that I knew dozens of people that smoked and none of them ever had cancer, after all, my grand father smoked 2 packs/day of unfiltered cigarettes for 55 years and he's still alive, etc, etc... just to reassure myself.

Now that I switched to vaping, I'm starting to enjoy it and I'll take it just the same way: I do because I enjoy it and am willing to leave with consequences if one day there is some. I just don't convince myself that the e-cig will never provoke some kind of disease a few years from now. Just my 2 cts.

 

[Zurd]

There's just one difference bdpf, PG and VG has already been studied quite extensively since the 50's, vaping is new, but the substance in vaping is not new. In one such study, they exposed rats to massive dose of PG for weeks, they were fine and live happily ever after. What about people in clubs, movies and stuff like that using fog machines, some of these people have been breathing PG and VG for decades, maybe not as much as we are vaping, but they are fine.

I'm not saying that vaping is fine with no consequences but it probably is.

 

[Concat]

Everything in life involves risk assessment.

I mean, you call MSG a dangerous chemical when in reality it has fallen victim to the same pseudo-science that currently plagues ecigs. It's been used for 100 years. It's controversial, sure, but not dangerous. The same goes for GM foods.

People evaluate risks based on the information they receive. With all the negative info on ecigs, it's not unusual that people believe the risks are high.

Just one person has to say "vaccines cause autism" and then a few years later children are contracting meningitis and the like.

Everyone has the right to assess their own risks differently. You say MSG is dangerous, and I say it's harmless. We can find plenty of articles that lean either way. It bothers me when articles will extrapolate from minimal data and make bold claims like "ecigs are as dangerous as cigs" because that is an opinion, not fact. People will adopt that opinion as their own because they are unwilling to view the data themselves and assess the risks for themselves.

 

[bdpf]

Oh, I assess data and risks pretty well and still smoked 16 years knowing them.

People tend to lean towards what's convenient for them. We like vaping, some studies show that PG, VG and artificial flavoring is non threatening to humans, therefore there is no risk involved so it's all good. Pretty simple way of reasoning for those people that you say "can't evaluate risk".

I'm definitely not saying that e-cig is as bad as cigarette, just saying that as time passes by, new research and discoveries are made, so whatever is considered harmless today might not be tomorrow. That's a fact I choose to accept and live with as opposed to telling myself that since these product are used in the food industry today, vaping will always be without consequences.

 

[Concat]

There are disingenuous arguments on both sides of the fences, for sure.

eg - "It's just water vapor"

 

[Skitty]

I'm definitely not saying that e-cig is as bad as cigarette, just saying that as time passes by, new research and discoveries are made, so whatever is considered harmless today might not be tomorrow. That's a fact I choose to accept and live with as opposed to telling myself that since these product are used in the food industry today, vaping will always be without consequences.

That's exactly it though: no one can say for certain that there's zero chance of any harm - even just allowing for things like PG allergies, incorrect use, etc. - but we do believe we should be allowed to make our own "risk assessment" when so many PROVEN harmful things are given that option. There is no logical reason to ban something because it might be harmful in the long term when things which ARE harmful in both the long term and the short are protected because adults can choose how to look after themselves.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DKM2]

those people including HC don't care about facts.

 

[bdpf]

That's exactly it though: no one can say for certain that there's zero chance of any harm - even just allowing for things like PG allergies, incorrect use, etc. - but we do believe we should be allowed to make our own "risk assessment" when so many PROVEN harmful things are given that option. There is no logical reason to ban something because it might be harmful in the long term when things which ARE harmful in both the long term and the short are protected because adults can choose how to look after themselves.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed 1000%

 

[mekks]

I don't think that everyone thinks there is no harm, although yes it could be easy to read it that way on the forums. People do recognize that if there is a risk it is much lower and comparable to that of NRT's that are already available on the market. Personally I think the reason for the passion is due more to each individuals personal experiences, as in the improvements in health they have noticed.

I know for myself that is where a large part of my passion comes from. For myself I noticed huge improvements especially when doing intense cardio workouts, before used to have my lungs give out first like gasping for air by the end of it now my body quits first. Also huge difference in my energy levels. Although when first making the switch it can be confusing and some withdrawal symptoms can easily be blamed on the e-cigs, that is one of the reasons I started searching for the symptoms I experienced to see if it was related to quitting smoking leaving the e-cig out of the search. Was a bit of an eye opener to see how much was blamed on nicotine withdrawal, while I was still getting nicotine.

I think that the experiences drive the passion to want accurate information out there, and as I am sure you noticed some articles are far from that. That passion could be easily misread unfortunately. But the one thing we do all recognize is the extent of the harm surely can not even be close to that of traditional cigarettes.

 

[Projectguy]

In all of these discussions one thing that puts the anti's into context is that despite absolute proof to the contrary, there is still a flat earth society Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia