An estimated 65% of Americans think that vaping is bad for you.
For those of you who are considering quitting smoking with vaping, all of the news’s negativity can be a little bit discouraging. Is it actually better for you than smoking? Or do you worry that you might be trading one bad habit for another?
The chances are, if you’re here, you are thinking about starting vaping because you want to quit smoking. Smoking accounts for at least 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the United States. For those of you who have tried to quit, you know it can be pretty much impossible. If you try to quit cold-turkey or use an NRT therapy like the patch, your chances of success are about 5%. Studies show that vaping can increase your chance of success to 50%.
So why does the news seem to hate vaping so much?
Why are the public health agencies and big health non-profits aggressively fighting something that could potentially save so many lives? What is very clear from almost every study is that vaping is (by far) better for you than smoking. So, shouldn’t our government and public health organizations be cautiously embracing anything that’s cutting down on smoking-related illness and death? Is it possible that their concerns are not based on science or the good of public health, but other motivations?
Let’s look at some of the common claims you may have seen in the news as well as the facts and try to get to the bottom of what’s really happening here.
1) Claim: The impact of vaping on the body over many years or decades is completely unknown.
There is no way you can argue against this one, as vaping is still pretty new.
However, reports (like the one commissioned by Public Health England) suggest that vaping is up to 95% less harmful to health than tobacco cigarettes. So for sure, a lot more studies need to be done, but almost all health experts agree that vaping is an unquestionably better alternative than smoking.
Everyone agrees that more studies are needed, but the real question is- why isn’t the government ramping up efforts to fund these unbiased studies when cigarettes cause so many deaths and preventable diseases?
2) Claim: Nicotine causes cancer
Nicotine, on its own, is no more dangerous than caffeine. And guess what? Nicotine has lots of positive effects. Now that nicotine is being looked at separately from tobacco, some call it a wonder drug. It can be used to relieve and prevent various neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Tourette’s, and schizophrenia. It might even improve attention and focus enough to qualify as a cognitive enhancer.
It’s not Nicotine that causes cancer. The tar that’s produced when tobacco and its preservatives are burnt cause cancer.
A smoking cigarette contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including more than 69 chemicals that are known to cause cancer and heart and lung disease. Some of these chemicals are cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, tar, and poisonous gases such as carbon monoxide.
Vaping does not burn tobacco (or anything for that matter.) There is no tar and none of these carcinogens.
Whether you vape with nicotine or without- the fact stands that nicotine is not carcinogenic and has not been linked to cancer.
3) Claim: there is no way to know what’s in e-juice
Unlike cigarettes, e-juice contains only a few ingredients: propylene glycol (PG) and/or vegetable glycerine (VG), nicotine, flavoring, and sweetener. None of these pose any risk to your health.
One of the media’s favorite scare tactics is to talk about the dangers of e-juice that contain diacetyl. Diacetyl is used in food to give butter, margarine, shortening, oil sprays, flavorings, and other food products a buttery taste- and it is sometimes used as a flavoring in butter-flavored e-juice.
The media loves to talk about how e-juice containing diacetyl “may” cause harm to the respiratory system over time, and a condition called “popcorn lung” (bronchiolitis obliterans.) These reports failed to mention that regular cigarettes also contain diacetyl, and smoking a cigarette will produce a 750% higher exposure level than vaping. It gets even better because, according to Critical Reviews in Toxicology, “smoking is not a risk factor for bronchiolitis.” So, if the cigarette smokers will be fine with a 750% higher exposure level, I think it’s safe to say that the risk to vaping may be more than a bit sensationalized.
Now, let’s talk about the ingredients in cigarettes. Oh wait, we can’t because no one has any idea what’s in them! Many government sites (including the FDA) claim that there are over 7000 chemicals in cigarettes. But they’re only able to publish an “established” list of 93!
4) Claim: E-Juice contains antifreeze
Many e-liquids contain PG. PG is recognized as safe for human consumption by the FDA and can be found in various products on the market such as margarine, ice-cream, toothpaste, wine, dog food, mouthwash, cough syrup, and it’s also used in inhalers.
PG is an FDA approved food additive that is used to make antifreeze safer in accidental ingestion, more environmentally friendly, and superior performance over what was previously used – ethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is very poisonous- it’s slightly sweet taste poisoning thousands of children and pets. As a solution, non-toxic PG based anti-freeze solutions were produced.
A tiny percentage of people may have a sensitivity to PG. For those vapers, 100% VG e-juice may be a better option.
5) Claim: Vaping is a gateway to smoking cigarettes
The number of smokers is going down. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC found that smoking by adults declined to an all-time low of 15% in the first quarter of 2015 (that’s a decrease from 16% in 2014 and 19% in 2010).
Most vapers are almost exclusively adults who used to smoke.
The number of American teens that smoke has continued to decline, reaching the lowest record last year. These trends are not consistent with warnings that the rising popularity of e-cigarettes will encourage the consumption of cigarettes.
A more important question for those who worry about teenagers vaping is what would have happened if vaping didn’t exist. Would those teenagers have ended up as smokers?
6) Claim: flavored e-juice is a way to market vaping to children
Whoever makes these claims should maybe also look into banning flavored alcohol. Maybe we should also ban delicious food, so kids don’t get obese.
While many smokers start out looking for something that tastes like their favorite cigarettes, over the long term, most of us end up switching to flavor once our taste buds come back. Tasty flavors keep vapers from smoking. Isn’t that the whole point of vaping?
Many surveys show that many vapers don’t feel they would have been as successful with vaping if there hadn’t been flavor options.
7) Claim: Vaping is “renormalizing” smoking and making it more acceptable
Cigarette sales are down, and quit attempts are up. It looks to us like people are moving away from tobacco, not to it.
A few key things to keep in mind:
The number of vapers who never smoked is almost non-existent. One study estimated the number of non-smokers who are now vapers to be 0.2%. Not even 1 percent.
The majority of vapers do not use cig-a-likes. If you’re going to argue that vaping normalize smoking, that argument has to be based on the assumption that people will confuse the two. The majority of vapers use a device that looks nothing like a cigarette. And vaping definitely does not smell anything like smoking.
Let’s bring up that Harvard study again- 65% of Americans think that vaping is bad for you. (If you vape, I’m sure you’ve experienced the negative looks and fake coughs, even though e-cig vapor contains less volatile organic compounds (VOC) than normal indoor air, dissipates almost instantly, and smells a million times better. From personal experience, most non-smokers are very judgemental about vaping and do not understand the facts at all.
Finally, the fact that vaping was invented and is popular is completely dependent on whether smoking is seen as negative in society. The purpose of vaping is to help people quit smoking, so how can vaping possibly normalize it?
The only effect that seeing people vaping is having is to make vaping seem more normal. Considering the health benefits of quitting smoking- I think this is a good thing.
8) Vape mods are dangerous weapons that could explode unexpectedly at any time
The media loves these stories.
It’s currently estimated that there are 60 million vapers around the world. Between 2009 and 2014, there were 25 reported cases of vape battery explosions. You probably heard about every one of those cases on the news because they make a really juicy story.
Out of these 25 incidents, 20 cases occurred while the batteries were charging. This means that the chance of your vape exploding while you’re using it is roughly 0.0000001%.
If you’re a smoker, your chance of dying from a smoke-related disease is 66%. I think I’ll take the exploding mod odds, thank you very much.
Let’s be clear- a mod is an electronic piece of equipment with a powerful battery. Similar to driving a high-performance vehicle, if you aren’t taking the time to educate yourself on proper operation and safety precautions, you’re putting yourself at risk.
In a nutshell, take care of your battery. Don’t overcharge it, don’t let it touch metal objects, and know your max discharge rate. Please do us a favor and steer clear of mech mods. Check your coils with an ohm reader if you’re sub-ohming, and make sure your air holes aren’t blocked. If you vape and you don’t know what some or any of this means, please, please educate yourself. And if you’re going to let your teenaged kid vape, educate yourself and then educate him or her. Would you let them drive your sports car without a driver’s education or a license?
And if you own a vape shop, please educate your new customers and don’t sell them devises you know they don’t understand how to use. We can all play a part in reducing this already non-existent risk.
The unanswered question
Why do all these government and health agencies want to make vaping look bad? Are the leaders of these health bodies really this ignorant? Or is it possible that they are more concerned more with the collection of cigarette taxes than saving smokers?
Let’s look at Brazil, Uruguay, and Singapore, where vaping has been banned without any conclusive scientific evidence to back up the negative claims. It’s interesting to note that collectively, just these three countries alone make around 4 billion per year on tobacco cigarette taxations. In the UK, around 14 billion is made through tobacco taxations. Without all the addicted tobacco smokers, governments would lose out on a key revenue stream.
I’m going to guess that this revenue loss also scares proclaimed public-health organizations that don’t want their share of tax dollar funding to go down. The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Americans, or non-smokers Rights (ironically), are some of the most active anti-vaping advocates. I can only guess that they feel that it’s more important to make money from consumers and businesses at the end of the day, not to eliminate smoking. Vaping helps people to quit smoking. Shouldn’t these “health” organizations be cautiously backing up something that supports their own mandate? Something just isn’t adding up.
Lastly, let’s not forget the $96 billion in bonds that tobacco companies made to U.S. states in a legal settlement in 1998. Under the agreement made between the biggest U.S. tobacco companies and 46 U.S. states, the tobacco companies make annual payments to the states using a formula tied to U.S. tobacco shipments. This accord ended years of litigation from the states, which we’re looking to recoup healthcare costs related to treating illnesses caused by smoking.
The states with the highest populations, such as California and New York, are owed the most. As tobacco shipments decline, so make the payments they receive. It’s currently predicted that 65-80% of the tobacco companies are headed towards default. Is it a coincidence that the greatest opposition to vaping is coming from California and New York? It really does seem odd.
Vaping appears to be the most successful smoking cessation product ever invented. I can’t think of any possible reason why government and public health groups are trying to skew public perception other than the financial benefits they reap from keeping the population addicted to smoking.
Yes, more study is needed to determine the long term effects of vaping on our health. Still, we hope that if we put what’s important- helping over one billion smokers worldwide to quit- above the needs of governments and government-funded organizations to make money- then perhaps we can get the funding needed for conclusive studies.
Let’s continue to save lives with vaping.
If you liked this article, please share it!