I don't quite understand how the science is clear if "there is still no data on the long-term effects of e-cigarettes".
We dont have long term data because e-cigarettes haven't been used for a long time. They got popular ten years back?
Also, as a vaper who switch from cigs because I was desperate for an alternative, I'm also curious about the different strata of products that exist on the market. For example, I visit a juice shop that mixes their products on site with pure materials, and I get to customize what exactly appears within my harmful juices. I build and maintain my parts as well. How does this approach compare to 'over the connivence store counter' kits like Juul?
It wouldn't surprise me if those products contain preservatives, or byproducts of a corporation skirting regulatory lines, that could be hazardous for consumer health. Though, that is purely my speculation — yet I wonder if my choice method of getting my sweet, sweet nicotine will get lumped in with everything else.
So the science isn't clear yet. It's still emerging
You would think 10 years would be enough time to see a groups increased risk to associated illnesses. If I made a study group and made them smoke daily for 10 years there would definitely be poorer health. The science is pretty clear, but the WHO doesn't want to admit that vapes are net neutral, whereas tobacco is bad, so obviously that would make vapes "healthy" in comparison.
Nicotine in the body acts much like caffeine, it increases your blood pressure, giving the effect of a "calmer" feeling, and headaches when in withdrawal. No one is lobbying against coffee/caffeinated drinks, even though it's understood that too much caffeine can cause health risks. That's really where we're at. Alternative methods like nicotine gum or patches have existed for a long time and while there can be dependencies formed on these, no one would dare say nicotine gum is as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. The associated cancer risks from tobacco come from the carcinogens that are created when burning tobacco, not from the nicotine itself
Anything other than air going in to your lungs is bad. Vaping puts stuff that isn't air into your lungs. The science is clear on that.
Just how much damage it's doing isn't really clear because they're only becoming really popular now, but it is doing damage.
Cool. The science is in, when are we banning coffee?
I’m be fine with them banning coffee so that’s not the “gotcha!” you think it is. Alcohol too btw. Alcohol especially should be banned tbh.
Coffee isn’t inhaling stuff into your lungs that isn’t air though. I’m assuming you’re saying “caffein = bad”? People aren’t filling their lungs with caffeine from coffee.
Again - science is settled here. If it’s not oxygen it’s bad if it goes into your lungs.
I don't quite understand how the science is clear if "there is still no data on the long-term effects of e-cigarettes".
We dont have long term data because e-cigarettes haven't been used for a long time. They got popular ten years back?
Also, as a vaper who switch from cigs because I was desperate for an alternative, I'm also curious about the different strata of products that exist on the market. For example, I visit a juice shop that mixes their products on site with pure materials, and I get to customize what exactly appears within my harmful juices. I build and maintain my parts as well. How does this approach compare to 'over the connivence store counter' kits like Juul?
It wouldn't surprise me if those products contain preservatives, or byproducts of a corporation skirting regulatory lines, that could be hazardous for consumer health. Though, that is purely my speculation — yet I wonder if my choice method of getting my sweet, sweet nicotine will get lumped in with everything else.
So the science isn't clear yet. It's still emerging
You would think 10 years would be enough time to see a groups increased risk to associated illnesses. If I made a study group and made them smoke daily for 10 years there would definitely be poorer health. The science is pretty clear, but the WHO doesn't want to admit that vapes are net neutral, whereas tobacco is bad, so obviously that would make vapes "healthy" in comparison.
Nicotine in the body acts much like caffeine, it increases your blood pressure, giving the effect of a "calmer" feeling, and headaches when in withdrawal. No one is lobbying against coffee/caffeinated drinks, even though it's understood that too much caffeine can cause health risks. That's really where we're at. Alternative methods like nicotine gum or patches have existed for a long time and while there can be dependencies formed on these, no one would dare say nicotine gum is as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. The associated cancer risks from tobacco come from the carcinogens that are created when burning tobacco, not from the nicotine itself
Anything other than air going in to your lungs is bad. Vaping puts stuff that isn't air into your lungs. The science is clear on that.
Just how much damage it's doing isn't really clear because they're only becoming really popular now, but it is doing damage.
Cool. The science is in, when are we banning coffee?
I’m be fine with them banning coffee so that’s not the “gotcha!” you think it is. Alcohol too btw. Alcohol especially should be banned tbh.
Coffee isn’t inhaling stuff into your lungs that isn’t air though. I’m assuming you’re saying “caffein = bad”? People aren’t filling their lungs with caffeine from coffee.
Again - science is settled here. If it’s not oxygen it’s bad if it goes into your lungs.