People Are Throwing Juuls Out Windows To Quit

Got this from the world wide web and wanted to share it here.

Apologies if it's already been shared. It's a handy list for reference as well as informative.

E-CIGARETTE POLICY BRIEF: Seven Things Policy Makers Need to Know

All references are hyperlinked to official WHO and government reports, and peer-reviewed studies

The death toll from smoking is enormous

8 million people die every year from smoking-related diseases (WHO), including 480,000 in the USA (CDC) 1.1 billion people smoke worldwide (WHO), including 34 million in the USA (CDC) In the USA, smoking is now concentrated among low-income and LGBTQ people, people living with mental illnesses, and indigenous peoples (American Lung Association)

→ Tobacco smoking is, by far, the world’s leading cause of preventable cancer, heart and lung disease

Harm reduction can reduce that death toll

There is growing independent consensus that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking (35+ official public statements) There is strong evidence that smokers who switch to e-cigarettes have lower risk of cancer, heart & lung disease When not in tobacco smoke, nicotine itself does not cause cancer, heart or lung disease (CDC and IARC/WHO) → Other examples of harm reduction include seat belts, bicycle helmets, parachutes, methadone and condoms

Safer nicotine alternatives help smokers quit

Big pharma nicotine patches & gum (NRTs) cause neither addiction nor cancer, heart or lung disease (FDA; CDC) NRTs increase quit success from 5% (cold turkey) to 9% (on average, smokers try and fail 30 times before quitting) E-cigarettes are two times more effective than NRTs (Cochrane review of 50 peer-reviewed studies worldwide) Many adult vapers “quit by accident” with e-cigarettes (online survey); NRTs only benefit those who want to quit 92% of US all vapers are ADULTS; 4.3 million US adults have quit smoking completely with nicotine vapes (CDC) The adult cessation total may be 5.4 million because 26% of those who quit with e-cigarettes later quit vaping 2.1 million UK smokers (UK government) and 7.5 million EU smokers (Eurobarometer) have quit with e-cigarettes ‘Flavors’ are up to 2.3 times more effective for smoking cessation than tobacco flavor (Yale study) (UK study) 80% of US adult vapers prefer fruit, dessert or candy flavors that don’t remind them of smoking (FDA submission) → Forcing ex-smokers to vape tobacco flavor is like forcing recovering alcoholics to drink rum-flavored club soda

Teen vaping is undesirable, but not a crisis

In the UK, which promotes nicotine vaping for adult smokers, teen “current use” by never-smokers is just 1% US high school “current use” of vaping products dropped 29% between 2019 and March 2020 (CDC/NYTS) By March 2020, only 1 in 20 US high school students vaped daily (4.4%, but 53% of that may be THC not nicotine) US youth & young adult vaping dropped another 32% during the pandemic (JAMA survey up to November 2020) If both surveys are combined, just 1 in 10 US high school-age teens are now “current users” (13%) → If this assumption is correct, then US teen past 30-day ever-use is now lower than it was in 2015 (6 years ago)

Proposed policy “cures” are worse than the “disease”

Proposed policies to reduce teen vaping include higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, online sales bans and shipping bans E-cigarette taxes have caused cigarette sales to increase in 8 US states (National Bureau of Economic Research) E-cigarette taxes “increase prenatal smoking and lower smoking cessation during pregnancy” in female smokers Ecig flavor bans increased cigarette sales in San Francisco; Washington; Rhode Island; New York; and Nova Scotia Online sales and mail shipment bans reduce adult access, so are also very likely to strengthen cigarette sales → Higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, and online/mail bans protect big tobacco’s main cash cow: deadly cigarettes

Unintended consequences and logical inconsistencies

Probable outcome of ‘flavor’ bans: Teen vapers will switch to THC vaping or to cigarette smoking; many adult vapers will relapse to smoking; fewer smokers will quit; an illicit market (with no age-checks) will arise

The same organizations that claim teen vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking, also claim tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes repel teens (i.e., banning ‘flavored’ nicotine vapes will reduce teen vaping)

→ Definitions differ: adult current use = daily or regular use; teen current use = past 30-day ever-use

Full context of adult products that teens use, but should not use

US teens are more likely to smoke pot or use illegal drugs than to be “current users” of e-cigarettes (NIDA MTF) US teens are 2X more likely to binge drink than vape “frequently”; 3X more likely to binge drink than vape daily US teen binge drinking causes 3,500 deaths and 119,000 ER visits/year (CDC); US policy response? Age-checks US teen “current smoking” rates dropped 3X faster than historical trends after 2012 (NIDA MTF) → Teens should not vape, smoke, drink or use cannabis (and adults should try to avoid irrational moral panics)  

Pharma Vaporizer Brings Big Billionaire Names

Gates and Bloomberg
"Donating money to anti-vaping efforts while simultaneously investing in a pharmaceutical grade smoking cessation “vaporizer” that is completely in its own category – Pharma – could appear suspicious. Hale won’t need PMTA approval, because it will not be a tobacco product, but will require FDA approval as a drug."


As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking

By contrast, Hava Health is pitching a smoking cessation tool. “We have a patented design,” says Israel. “What we do is we separate nicotine from the other compounds. We reduce the nicotine as we leave the other oils the same. Over time we reduce the nicotine and increase the clean oils and we get them to zero percent.”

Reduce nicotine percentage downward. Umm, I think we've been doing that already with open system vaping. I bet it won't be as cheap as my diy.

Smdh  

If you’re from the United States or probably any Western country, you will know how quickly our culture can go from one extreme position to the next on just about any issue. Around 25-30 years ago, nicotine went somewhat suddenly from being a socially acceptable vice that could be done in nearly every public place by almost anyone to a highly stigmatized addiction that turned millions of smokers into second-class citizens. Unfortunately, since the most common delivery of nicotine had been through traditional cigarettes that have been lethal for so many people including both my grandfathers, the stigma behind nicotine has persisted into the era of vaping. And it doesn’t help that the practice “looks like” smoking.

However, in and of itself nicotine is not dangerous. It occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables, and does not cause lung cancer. It’s a drug, just like any substance or activity that releases dopamine in the brain. I’m personally much more concerned about the consumption of highly-caffeinated, high-sugar drinks, which are not age restricted, “flavor” restricted, and aren’t taxed to death. I’m also much more concerned about the proliferation of flavored beer and spirits in the last couple decades, which have minimal restriction on advertising and haven’t been scrutinized by the FDA to any degree comparable to JUUL or the e-cigarette industry in general. And while those substances can be very addictive, they are often encouraged in social settings, can be “enjoyed in moderation”, and aren’t considered an epidemic. Without getting too political, I’m entirely convinced that progressives would rather have 400,000 smokers continue to die each year because they didn’t switch to vaping than a new generation take up a significantly less harmful habit.  

Juul threw millions of dollars at Washington. It hasn’t bought much.

Juul Labs has spent millions of dollars on lobbying, hired high-profile Trump administration officials, and blanketed Washington with ads touting its efforts against underage vaping.

None of that was enough to keep President Donald Trump from moving to ban flavored e-cigarettes on Wednesday, delivering a blow to the dominant vaping company and its rivals.

“Vaping has become a very big business as I understand it, a giant business in a very short period of time,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, sitting alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. “But we can't allow people to get sick and we can't have our youth be so affected.”

Neither Trump nor Azar mentioned Juul in their remarks. But Scott Gottlieb, who pressed for greater regulation of vaping as Trump’s Food and Drug Administration commissioner before stepping down earlier this year, said the move would have an outsize impact on the San Francisco-based company.

“This problem was largely created by the cartridge-based Juul products in my opinion,” Gottlieb said in a statement to POLITICO.​
 

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

Takes a different angle... it’s the metals which have caused irreparable damage on a woman’s lungs...

in California though

The article goes on to say;

“Professor John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and consultant in respiratory medicine at the University of Nottingham, suggested that the conclusions were not all they seemed.

He said there was no evidence of any cobalt particles in the lung samples and that claims made about vaping were wrong.
He added: “There is nothing in this new paper that should change advice to smokers. If you smoke, switch. If you don’t smoke, don’t vape. And just as you wouldn’t buy unlicensed alcoholic drinks, don’t vape cannabis or other bootleg products.”  

Last week on a road trip with my motorcycle club, I had to go back to the “ash tray”. It’s to dangerous on the road, on “two wheels” with these constant sneezing attacks. I bummed cigarettes, then bought cigarettes. There’s thousands of road miles planned this summer, I’m leaving again next weekend. I love to ride, hate cigarettes, the taste, smell and cost but vaping will surely kill me!

There isn’t much of anything here or on the WWW about my issue with sneezing attacks. Not just a little sneeze but 4, 5 6 or more with an irritable urge, watery eyes and nose. When I put down my vape for an hour, it goes away, when I hit it, it starts back. Allergy medicine doesn’t stop it and makes me drowsy. This just started about 3 weeks ago, it’s like I’m suddenly allergic to...?

I’ve been vaping since 2013 when my lovely 77 yr old Aunt shared her vape. I had tried everything on the market including prescription drugs and hypnosis to put down my 20 year pack a day stink habit. For 5+ years I’ve been using an RTA and DIY juice. I’ve been using the same DIY products from Nicotine River (fresh frozen) since Dec 2019 as well as same flavors, TFA, LorAnn, Capella and same recipes. using a VG 70/30 @ 8+ Nic.
For 4+ years with zero issues I used the Lemo 2. Yes an oldie, but ya no how it is when you find a good combination. Until last year, I could get all the rebuildable supplies at Fastech. Since 2020 I’ve been buying and using different RTA’s, RDA’s Squonks, mesh coils, etc. searching for a “new love”.
My tanks are Profile Unity, Zeus Dual RTA, Creed RTA, Drop, Brunhilde and Dead Rabbit. JIC it was the new packaged supplied wicks & coils, I went back to my old wicking material which didn’t help. Tried 100% VG with VG Nic Salts, no change. I’m at a dead end, totally out of ideas, I give up, still hate cigarettes but...

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!  

White House abruptly cancels meeting with vaping advocates

The White House abruptly organized — and then quickly canceled — a meeting Thursday with frustrated conservative policy leaders, to try to tamp down anger about a sweeping vaping ban that’s inflamed the Trump administration’s traditional allies, four individuals with knowledge of the meeting told POLITICO.

“A ban on flavored e-cigarettes could cost Trump a second term,” Paul Blair of Americans for Tax Reform argued in a Washington Examiner op-ed last week. The “well-organized vaping constituency could swing the outcome of the Electoral College one way or the other.”​
 

Concerns about dripping

Newer-generation e-cigs allow users to choose — and change — what flavorings they heat up in their devices. Most vapers choose a liquid with nicotine (that addictive, stimulant found in tobacco). To get the biggest nicotine hit from each puff, some vapers take the outside cover off of their e-cigarette and use an eyedropper to “drip” the liquid directly onto the device’s coil.

This is an atomizer used for dripping. A couple drops of e-liquids are dripped directly onto the hot coils to create a vapor cloud.



E-liquids reach higher temperatures when dripped directly onto the coil. This also creates a bigger vapor cloud and provides a bigger throat hit. A new study now raises special concerns for teens who drip.

Allowing the liquid to get superhot can transform harmless chemicals in the e-liquid into toxic ones. (Note: At least one recent study showed that the hotter the vaped liquid became, the more likely it was to undergo such a toxic transformation.) And dripping makes this super-heating likely. Some people even use attachments, called atomizers, to do this more effectively.

Vaping hobbyists that do smoke tricks may have popularized dripping, says Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin. A psychiatrist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., she’s been studying vaping behaviors in teens. Many now drip, she and her colleagues report.

This team surveyed 1,080 Connecticut high schoolers who said they vaped. One in every four teen vapers said he or she had tried dripping.

This is the first time any study has reported on the popularity of dripping in teens. (Researchers don’t yet know how common dripping is among adults.) The new statistics appear in the February Pediatrics.

Most teens who dripped said they had hoped it would let them make thicker vapor clouds or give the vapor a stronger taste. At present, little is known about the health risks of this type of vaping, Krishnan-Sarin notes.

And that worries her. “There’s great concern,” she says, “that kids are being exposed to higher levels of known carcinogens this way.” Researchers don’t yet know if this is true. And that’s because no one has yet studied whether more of these compounds get into the body when people drip instead of vaping normally.

For now, Krishnan-Sarin says a bigger vapor cloud or more flavorful hit probably isn’t worth the risk. “You don’t know what you’re exposing yourself to,” she points out, and no one should assume that the e-liquids and the vapors they generate are harmless  

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis” - CASAA

The Illinois General Assembly’s Mental Health Committee will hold a hearing on the subject of “Addressing the Vaping Crisis” on

Monday, September 23, 2019
2:00 PM
Michael A. Bilandic Building

C-600, 6th Floor

160 N LaSalle St

Chicago, IL 60601

(notice)

The likely outcome of this meeting might be a recommendation that flavors other than tobacco be banned.

While this is a public meeting, many of the speakers are being selected in advance. If there is time left over, speaking will be limited to 2 – 3 minutes. Please be respectful and have your remarks prepared.

A witness slip is required whether you plan to speak or not, please submit a witness slip, here .

If you plan to speak, the witness slip is the only “sign up sheet” available.

Fill out the form with your contact information; under section III, select “Addressing the Vaping Crisis” from the drop down menu and click the “Opponent” radio dial; and specify written or oral testimony (Section IV).

Click Here to Send a Witness Slip
If you would like to have written testimony delivered to the committee, please send it to board@sfacoil.org.

Even if you do not plan to speak, your presence is important as it demonstrates the large numbers of people affected by this issue.

In addition to participating in this meeting, Illinois residents who vape and are not “sick from vaping” are being asked to fill out this survey from the IL Dept. of Public Health (IDPH). THIS SURVEY IS FOR ILLINOIS RESIDENTS ONLY! Do not encourage people outside of Illinois to participate by misrepresenting where they live.

Click Here to Take the IDPH Anonymous Survey
_________________________

I will be there - hope to tell my story.
Illinois - ONLY - residents - if you haven't yet Please take the survey.
Can't make it or don't want to speak? Please send a witness slip.
Let's pack this place!