Age Restriction

[Hooked]

I wonder why there's an age restriction if one is buying 0mg nicotine? If one is buying juice with nicotine, I can understand an age restriction, but 0mg...? It doesn't make sense. The government may as well put an age restriction on drinking Coke then which, may I add, is unhealthy because of the high sugar content!!

So many things don't make sense. For example, before I started vaping recently, I used Nicorette (nicotine chewing-gum, mostly available in 2mg nicotine per piece. It's a healthy alternative to cigarettes, BUT it's available only at Clicks, DisChem and some pharmacies. One can't buy it at PnP or Checkers - yet one can buy cigarettes. Is life meant to be so confusing?

 

[Christos]

I wonder why there's an age restriction if one is buying 0mg nicotine? If one is buying juice with nicotine, I can understand an age restriction, but 0mg...? It doesn't make sense. The government may as well put an age restriction on drinking Coke then which, may I add, is unhealthy because of the high sugar content!!

So many things don't make sense. For example, before I started vaping recently, I used Nicorette (nicotine chewing-gum, mostly available in 2mg nicotine per piece. It's a healthy alternative to cigarettes, BUT it's available only at Clicks, DisChem and some pharmacies. One can't buy it at PnP or Checkers - yet one can buy cigarettes. Is life meant to be so confusing?

Coke being unhealthy is selective and fear mongering reading. There is just as much sugar in fruit juices and in some instances more. #Just saying

The act of vaping itself should carry an age restriction to prevent minors from vaping because it's cool.

E.g. should 0% alcohol content be ok for kids to purchase?

Just some food for thought.

 

[Feliks Karp]

Is life meant to be so confusing?

Yes, as a galactic mishap the very essence of what makes you human is confusing at best, don't expect to make much sense of anything.

 

[Hooked]

Coke being unhealthy is selective and fear mongering reading. There is just as much sugar in fruit juices and in some instances more. #Just saying

The act of vaping itself should carry an age restriction to prevenIt minors from vaping because it's cool.

E.g. should 0% alcohol content be ok for kids to purchase?

Just some food for thought.

 

[Hooked]

I agree with you about fruit juices. As for youngsters vaping because it's cool, well, IF they're vaping 0mg then why not? Far better to be cool with vaping than with tik, for example. No harm in 0% alcohol either, so why not? Better that youngsters have some innocent fun, than becoming addicted to harmful substances. Be cool, but be healthy, is what I say!

 

[Silver]

My view relating to this topic is that people who dont smoke should not start vaping

Unless, they would have started smoking

Irrespective of age

 

[Stosta]

I agree with you about fruit juices. As for youngsters vaping because it's cool, well, IF they're vaping 0mg then why not? Far better to be cool with vaping than with tik, for example. No harm in 0% alcohol either, so why not? Better that youngsters have some innocent fun, than becoming addicted to harmful substances. Be cool, but be healthy, is what I say!

The problem also comes in with the general image that it portrays.

When a person predisposed to hating everything and everyone is standing in a mall and gets a huge cloud blown in their face by some 14 year old that is trying to look cool, that person isn't going to objectively look at the individual, but more than likely paint all vapers with the same brush. They're not going to go do research on vaping, or think to ask the kid if there is any nicotine in the juice, it will simply be an act that enforces another negative view towards vaping as a whole.

 

[Feliks Karp]

The problem also comes in with the general image that it portrays.

When a person predisposed to hating everything and everyone is standing in a mall and gets a huge cloud blown in their face by some 14 year old that is trying to look cool, that person isn't going to objectively look at the individual, but more than likely paint all vapers with the same brush. They're not going to go do research on vaping, or think to ask the kid if there is any nicotine in the juice, it will simply be an act that enforces another negative view towards vaping as a whole.

Much how when I saw a bearded ginger vaping I decided that all vapers have neither fashion sense nor a soul.

 

[Stosta]

Much how when I saw a bearded ginger vaping I decided that all vapers have neither fashion sense nor a soul.

Haha! That coming from a fellow vaper must have been a really disappointing realisation!

 

[RichJB]

The issue of vaping poses a real dilemma for public health experts. I recently worked on a national mental health research study and communications plan which really opened my eyes to the broader and more integrated view of substance abuse and dependence. I had known, prior to the desktop research study that we did, that smokers around the world tend to come mainly from the poorer and less educated groups. But smoking rates among the disabled, the LGBT community, those with mental health conditions, refugees and immigrants are also invariably higher than among the general populace. So smoking rates become an almost foolproof indicator of socio-economic and other stressors. It doesn't apply individually, of course. There are many smokers who are educated, wealthy, successful, happy family life, no history of mental health problems. But at a group level, smoking rates indicate demographics who are marginalised and subject to stressors of one type or another.

The primary focus in smoking is on the health risks, and that is correct and good. But it's about more than that. There are two other factors that public health experts consider: the quality of life hit and the financial cost. An LGBT person is already stigmatised and feeling marginalised in society. If they smoke, the non-smoking majority say that they stink, that they are stupid, that they are killing themselves and don't care, that they are weak-willed. Is that a good message for someone who is already feeling stigmatised, and who belongs to a demographic with a far higher suicide rate than the general population? Is smoking improving their quality of life? And again, I'm not just talking about health risk, I'm talking about their self-image and their position in society too.

Then take the poorer people. My gardener is a Zimbabwean immigrant who smokes. He lives in an informal settlement and has a family to feed, kids to educate. Can he afford the finances to smoke? Would that money not be better spent in improving his lot and the prospects of his children?

And it becomes a vicious circle. The more marginalised someone feels, the more stressed they feel and the more they smoke. Which leads to them becoming more marginalised. It also doesn't just apply to nicotine but to alcohol, weed, hard drugs, glue, and then even addictive behaviours like gambling, porn, computer gaming, social media, and so on. If a domestic maid spends every cent she has on lottery tickets, it is not going to physically kill her. But she is not a healthy individual. Her qualify of life is affected even if she is not physically ill.

Public health experts want nicotine dependence gone. Not just because of the health risks but because it's a marker for all these associated problems too. A doctor will tell you vape, don't smoke. That is fine, he is looking at the health problem individually. A public health expert, i.e. someone who looks at the health of groups not individuals, will tell you that breaking the chain of substance dependence and/or addictive behaviour is key to improving the overall health (including mental health) of the populace. So on the one hand, public health bodies want to encourage vaping (compared to smoking), on the other they want to discourage vaping (compared to not being dependent on any substance).

It has created a dilemma for them. Do they take the glass half empty view that substance dependence is inevitable but at least we can reduce the physical harms from it? Or do they take the glass half full view that a populace who is not dependent on any substance is an achievable goal worth striving for? There are no easy answers to that.

 

[Feliks Karp]

Haha! That coming from a fellow vaper must have been a really disappointing realisation!

It's why I have slowly but surely been giving up vaping, I fear one day I may start listening to metal while reciting Byron in between sipping micro-brewed beers.

 

[RenaldoRheeder]

@RichJB - Thank you for a very informative post - makes for very interesting reading and some food for thought


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hooked]

The issue of vaping poses a real dilemma for public health experts. I recently worked on a national mental health research study and communications plan which really opened my eyes to the broader and more integrated view of substance abuse and dependence. I had known, prior to the desktop research study that we did, that smokers around the world tend to come mainly from the poorer and less educated groups. But smoking rates among the disabled, the LGBT community, those with mental health conditions, refugees and immigrants are also invariably higher than among the general populace. So smoking rates become an almost foolproof indicator of socio-economic and other stressors. It doesn't apply individually, of course. There are many smokers who are educated, wealthy, successful, happy family life, no history of mental health problems. But at a group level, smoking rates indicate demographics who are marginalised and subject to stressors of one type or another.

The primary focus in smoking is on the health risks, and that is correct and good. But it's about more than that. There are two other factors that public health experts consider: the quality of life hit and the financial cost. An LGBT person is already stigmatised and feeling marginalised in society. If they smoke, the non-smoking majority say that they stink, that they are stupid, that they are killing themselves and don't care, that they are weak-willed. Is that a good message for someone who is already feeling stigmatised, and who belongs to a demographic with a far higher suicide rate than the general population? Is smoking improving their quality of life? And again, I'm not just talking about health risk, I'm talking about their self-image and their position in society too.

Then take the poorer people. My gardener is a Zimbabwean immigrant who smokes. He lives in an informal settlement and has a family to feed, kids to educate. Can he afford the finances to smoke? Would that money not be better spent in improving his lot and the prospects of his children?

And it becomes a vicious circle. The more marginalised someone feels, the more stressed they feel and the more they smoke. Which leads to them becoming more marginalised. It also doesn't just apply to nicotine but to alcohol, weed, hard drugs, glue, and then even addictive behaviours like gambling, porn, computer gaming, social media, and so on. If a domestic maid spends every cent she has on lottery tickets, it is not going to physically kill her. But she is not a healthy individual. Her qualify of life is affected even if she is not physically ill.

Public health experts want nicotine dependence gone. Not just because of the health risks but because it's a marker for all these associated problems too. A doctor will tell you vape, don't smoke. That is fine, he is looking at the health problem individually. A public health expert, i.e. someone who looks at the health of groups not individuals, will tell you that breaking the chain of substance dependence and/or addictive behaviour is key to improving the overall health (including mental health) of the populace. So on the one hand, public health bodies want to encourage vaping (compared to smoking), on the other they want to discourage vaping (compared to not being dependent on any substance).

It has created a dilemma for them. Do they take the glass half empty view that substance dependence is inevitable but at least we can reduce the physical harms from it? Or do they take the glass half full view that a populace who is not dependent on any substance is an achievable goal worth striving for? There are no easy answers to that.

What a well-written, comprehensive answer!! I quite agree that any form of substance-dependence is a marker of mental health problems, but if the dependence is not harmful to one's health, and if one can afford it, they why not? Having said that, the best course of action would be to treat the cause (mental health problem) and not the symptom (substance-dependence) but that is easier said than done. As for me, I'm happy to go along with the glass half empty view and to add vaping to my list of non-harmful addictions!

 

[RichJB]

It's a fascinating area of study. One thing I've noticed on the forum is how many vapers are OCD. That is a completely lay observation, I have no training in this field. But if we were to assess OCD rates among vapers, I'm sure it would vastly outstrip the general OCD rate among the national populace. I am very mildly OCD but it has faded with age. For eg, when I was younger, I would time my strides to step on cracks in the pavement. Was this a subconscious/genetic factor in me taking up vaping rather than quitting smoking altogether? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. You wouldn't think there was any correlation between being OCD and vaping. But I don't think it's coincidence that so many forum members are OCD to some degree.

 

[Brendan]

This issue is an incredibly complex one!

My personal view is that the best strategy is one that promotes education and harm reduction rather than trying to stamp out dependence entirely.

I honestly believe that there is no way dependence can be eliminated completely by prohibition, criminalisation or any legislative measures. The simple fact is that our biology will never let that happen, all dependence producing substances or behaviours work by stimulating the pleasure centers of our brains. They all do it in different ways and work differently, but the bottom line is that whatever substance or behaviour you look at that we consider dependence producing, all of them bring pleasure or enjoyment to that specific person. I have had some experience in this regard and have seen first hand the experiences of others. Legislation/prohibition/criminalisation have nearly no effect on this. Regardless of what form the dependence and/or addiction takes people will find a way to get their "fix". This applies to anything whether it be cocaine, nicotine, prescription meds, shopping, food or sex. Once that substance/behaviour has become an addiction or dependence it becomes an issue, one way or another.

I'm not saying that addictions and dependencies can't be beaten, they definitely can be, but what I'm trying to say is that as long as our bodies get a pleasurable "reward" from something there will be people at risk of dependance/addiction and we will never stamp it out entirely.

And then there is the huge issue of addictive personalities which I'm not even going to start to get into, but believe me when I say that I have seen people bounce around from addiction to addiction, and sometimes to things like cooking or reading books. Lol.

I really believe that when dealing with any addiction/dependance the strong arm method is not the best treatment, nobody wakes up one morning and says to themselves "I'm going to become addicted to/dependant on ...".

The best method to combat this would vary hugely on a case by case basis, but the only thing that applies in every case is education and harm reduction.

 

[Silver]

This is a very interesting thread
Thanks for your great piece on glass half empty vs half full and the complexities behind public health views on vaping @RichJB

I just think that one needs to be practical. I take the point that substituting one addiction (smoking) for another (vaping) is maybe not the first prize

But

Now we have vaping available.
And most research seems to suggest it is considerably less harmful than smoking.

So until public health figures out ways to completely eliminate dependance on substances, surely its a good idea to get those addicted to smoking off smoking and onto vaping in the meantime?

The way I see it, the two issues are working in parallel. Ie working on the broader substance dependance problem should be happening all the time irrespective of whether they promote vaping in favour of smoking.

 

[RichJB]

So until public health figures out ways to completely eliminate dependance on substances, surely its a good idea to get those addicted to smoking off smoking and onto vaping in the meantime?

This is in line with the idea proposed by Scott Gottlieb, the new FDA chief: that cigarettes have their nicotine slashed to non-addictive levels while less hazardous forms of nicotine like vaping and NRT are allowed to keep their current nic levels. Gottlieb envisages a conveyor belt type of effect where smokers are shifted from more hazardous to increasingly less hazardous means of getting their nic.

However - and this is where the vaping industry and even the pro-vaping medical bodies part ways - the vaping industry wants vaping to be a lifelong alternative to smoking, with the vaper neither quitting nicotine nor making any attempt to do so. Public health bodies, even the Royal College and Public Health England, view vaping as a transition stage from smoking to quitting nicotine altogether.

At the moment, the fact that both the vaping industry and public health bodies are anti-smoking is interpreted by the vaping industry as evidence that we are on the same page and have the same vision. That was never the case. Public health's vision is a world where nobody is dependent on nicotine and nobody spends any time or effort or money to acquire their fix. The vaping industry's vision is for people to become lifelong vapers instead of smokers, and to spend as much as possible on vaping devices, juice and accessories. For now, there is an uneasy calm because both parties are so virulently anti-tobacco that they are willing to overlook their differences to fight a common foe, just as the DA and EFF are willing to overlook their differences in opposing the ANC. But when the difference in vision becomes apparent, as it surely must over time, sparks are going to fly.

Scott Gottlieb made a media address recently and Wayne released a short video about it yesterday.



This will be interpreted as a "change of direction" by Gottlieb, that he's now turning on vaping after initially being supportive. It isn't. Gottlieb is being consistent with the public health view that no never-smokers should start smoking OR vaping, that it should only be used by current adult smokers, and should ideally be used to transition them from smoking to vaping to quitting nicotine altogether. So the 'inconsistency' does not lie with Gottlieb. It lies with the vaping industry believing that Gottlieb endorses smokers becoming lifelong vapers and chucking 50ml of clouds a day. Gottlieb has never endorsed that, neither will any public health body.

I see little prospect of reconciliation between the visions of the vaping industry and public health. If public health is to endorse vaping in the way which the vaping industry wants them to, it would require public health to endorse lifelong substance dependence, something that public health bodies will never do. And if the vaping industry is to build its business model around what public health wants, it means limiting their customer base to current smokers only, and then only temporarily until those customers quit everything. No industry can build a sustainable future on a dwindling base of temporary customers and negative growth.

 

[Andre]

This is in line with the idea proposed by Scott Gottlieb, the new FDA chief: that cigarettes have their nicotine slashed to non-addictive levels while less hazardous forms of nicotine like vaping and NRT are allowed to keep their current nic levels. Gottlieb envisages a conveyor belt type of effect where smokers are shifted from more hazardous to increasingly less hazardous means of getting their nic.

However - and this is where the vaping industry and even the pro-vaping medical bodies part ways - the vaping industry wants vaping to be a lifelong alternative to smoking, with the vaper neither quitting nicotine nor making any attempt to do so. Public health bodies, even the Royal College and Public Health England, view vaping as a transition stage from smoking to quitting nicotine altogether.

At the moment, the fact that both the vaping industry and public health bodies are anti-smoking is interpreted by the vaping industry as evidence that we are on the same page and have the same vision. That was never the case. Public health's vision is a world where nobody is dependent on nicotine and nobody spends any time or effort or money to acquire their fix. The vaping industry's vision is for people to become lifelong vapers instead of smokers, and to spend as much as possible on vaping devices, juice and accessories. For now, there is an uneasy calm because both parties are so virulently anti-tobacco that they are willing to overlook their differences to fight a common foe, just as the DA and EFF are willing to overlook their differences in opposing the ANC. But when the difference in vision becomes apparent, as it surely must over time, sparks are going to fly.

Scott Gottlieb made a media address recently and Wayne released a short video about it yesterday.



This will be interpreted as a "change of direction" by Gottlieb, that he's now turning on vaping after initially being supportive. It isn't. Gottlieb is being consistent with the public health view that no never-smokers should start smoking OR vaping, that it should only be used by current adult smokers, and should ideally be used to transition them from smoking to vaping to quitting nicotine altogether. So the 'inconsistency' does not lie with Gottlieb. It lies with the vaping industry believing that Gottlieb endorses smokers becoming lifelong vapers and chucking 50ml of clouds a day. Gottlieb has never endorsed that, neither will any public health body.

I see little prospect of reconciliation between the visions of the vaping industry and public health. If public health is to endorse vaping in the way which the vaping industry wants them to, it would require public health to endorse lifelong substance dependence, something that public health bodies will never do. And if the vaping industry is to build its business model around what public health wants, it means limiting their customer base to current smokers only, and then only temporarily until those customers quit everything. No industry can build a sustainable future on a dwindling base of temporary customers and negative growth.

All of that is based on the view that nicotine is addictive per se.

 

[RichJB]

That is the view that public health bodies have. If vapers want to tell them they're wrong, they already have an answer for us: "If nicotine isn't addictive then you surely won't mind if we legislate it out of your juice. If you're not dependent on it, you shouldn't need it." How will the vaping industry answer that?

I have problems believing that nicotine isn't addictive. My family members quit smoking cold turkey and stopped nicotine in all forms, I switched to vaping. They feel no withdrawal symptoms anymore and do not crave cigarettes. I can only go an hour or two without vaping before I start becoming anxious and craving it. If it's not the nicotine in my juice that is causing this, then what is? Even if the nicotine in my juice didn't cause my nicotine addiction, it is nevertheless perpetuating it. It is keeping me craving nic where my family members have long since got over cravings. So I am still substance-dependent. Even absent any physical health considerations, I need to spend money on it and I need to schedule my daily routine at least partly around the never-ending need to consume nic regularly. Public health argues that this is a bad thing. It is difficult to argue that it's a good thing.

The one case where the "non-tobacco nicotine doesn't cause addiction" argument may hold good is when it is applied to never-smokers who start vaping. But if that is the case, would the vaping industry be prepared to state its position publicly that the industry has no objection to never-smokers starting to vape because it's non-addictive and relatively harmless? It would certainly be a change from what the vaping industry has stated up to now. The only reason the vaping industry has been given any sort of a hearing by public health is because of the industry's insistence that vaping is a harm reduction tool. But never-smokers don't have any harm to reduce. How is the vaping industry going to pitch this to govt and public health?

 

[Hooked]

t's a fascinating area of study. One thing I've noticed on the forum is how many vapers are OCD. That is a completely lay observation, I have no training in this field. But if we were to assess OCD rates among vapers, I'm sure it would vastly outstrip the general OCD rate among the national populace. I am very mildly OCD but it has faded with age. For eg, when I was younger, I would time my strides to step on cracks in the pavement. Was this a subconscious/genetic factor in me taking up vaping rather than quitting smoking altogether? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. You wouldn't think there was any correlation between being OCD and vaping. But I don't think it's coincidence that so many forum members are OCD to some degree.[/QUOTE]

There is certainly a correlation between addictions and mental health problems. A survey which was conducted found a higher incidence of smoking amongst people with mental health problems, as compared to the general population. As for an addictive personality - oh that's me - and my current addiction is vaping, followed by Backgammon!