The Great Vaping Debate – Washington Times

ANALYSIS / OPINION:

It seems so well intentioned: Prevent "harm" to consumers by standing side by side with scientific "doubt". But the practical effect of the so-called "precautionary" principle is often just the opposite: deprive consumers of easy access to obviously beneficial goods and services.

A good example is the rapid expansion of the "vaping" industry. Presented as a safer and cleaner alternative to tobacco, vaping offers an odorless, colorless liquid heated with a battery-powered unit to produce an aerosol mist that the "vaper" inspires and exhales in a form resembling the cigarette. . Currently, there are about 10 million or more vaping consumers in the United States – about 43% of the global total. But the market is about to explode.

Proponents say that vaping can help get rid of cigarette smokers, just as methadone helps heroin addicts get rid of their drugs. And the public health benefits are undeniable: Since vaping does not burn tobacco, it produces no tar residue, the toxin that causes emphysema and lung cancer. Without tar, the proven link between smoking and the deadly disease disappears.

But that did not stop the anti-vapors from putting pressure on their case anyway. Instead of focusing on tobacco, they highlighted the presence of nicotine in some vaping liquids, particularly in products like the "Juul" pen, which sweeps university campuses and reaches high schools. Critics say that vaping is likely to turn a new generation of teenagers into nicotine demons, bringing them back to smoking, reversing the impressive gains made in reducing teen smoking in recent years.

It's hysteria for the most part, the kind of liberal moral panics like to justify a crackdown that invariably places government regulators – the latest killings – in control of national politics.

There are many misconceptions about vaping and nicotine. In many vaping devices, it can fluctuate from bottom to top. But many and perhaps most vapors do not contain nicotine. Especially for new smokers, nicotine absorption is not the main attraction of vaping. These consumers resemble those who once preferred clove cigarettes to traditional cigarettes. They are looking from the start for an alternative to tobacco, less harsh in taste and less damaging to the lungs.

Anti-vapors know this and have begun to target sweet flavoring additives in the vaping liquid – 12,000 varieties and counting – that young adults find particularly attractive. But there is also a problem: the main ingredients of the vaping liquid, vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol are not toxic when ingested. What happens when these same ingredients are burned at high temperatures? Nobody knows, but this has not prevented a series of recent studies from concluding, with the weakest evidence, that the trace metals found in these liquids are likely to increase the risk of cancer .

If you want to know what vaping really looks and feel, do not listen to the regulators and their favorite anti-vapor scientists. Visit websites like vapinginsider.com and vaporbeast.com that extol the virtues of practice. There are many thousands of nationwide vaping shops that cater to all kinds of vaping connoisseurs, young and old, and none of them sells cigarettes. A growing number of vaping "conferences" brings together vaping enthusiasts nationwide to celebrate the latest technological advancements in the field.

I interviewed dozens of vapors individually about their smoking history and their habits. A Southern Virginia viper – let's call her Joanne – has almost completely quit smoking because she finds ejaculation more fun and enjoyable, and cheaper too. She smoked a pack of traditional cigarettes a day, which cost her between $ 40 and $ 45 a week. For a quarter of that price, she buys vaping liquid that lasts a week and a half. She says that the nicotine that she ingests daily is well below what she used to consume in a pack of cigarettes.

There is a constant message that Big Tobacco is pushing vaping for consumers to start smoking again, but most people have been opposed to vaping. to begin to fear its spread would further reduce their decline in tobacco sales and profits. Even the latest report from the National Academy of Sciences, one of the first to state that vaping was "safer" than tobacco, was forced to suggest that vaping could "hook" again the tobacco to non-smokers. This reminds you of the old discredited argument of the "gateway" against drugs: Let the kids try the potty and before long, they will sniff cocaine. In fact, it is pure conjecture disguised as "science".

Is the precautionary principle completely undesirable? Of course not. We should be concerned if the spread of vaping actually reverses the continuing healthy decline in teen smoking. But in a free society, we do not start from the presumption of guilt and prejudice to stigmatize the pursuit of happiness. We trust consumers that they apply their common sense and good judgment until a well-founded science suggests the opposite, as in the case of smoking. We are not there yet with vaping, not even close. And we should not let a thick cloud of ideological fog on the part of the disbelievers discourage the rights of individuals seeking to enjoy their lives as they see fit.

• Stewart Lawrence is a writer from Washington.