E-cigarettes

Surgeon General Launches E-Cigarette Scare Campaign That Will Harm Public Health

Vivek Murthy's concern about adolescent vaping is overwrought, and his propaganda is pernicious.

|

Office of the Surgeon General

A new report from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy repackages familiar alarmism about e-cigarettes, which it depicts as a grave threat to the youth of America using the same deceptive techniques favored by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "To protect our nation's young people from being harmed by these products," Murthy recommends policies, such as higher taxes, vaping bans, limits on advertising, and possibly flavor restrictions, that will undermine public health by making e-cigarettes less appealing to people who currently get their nicotine from conventional cigarettes, a much more dangerous source.

Murthy declares that e-cigarette use by teenagers "is now a major public health concern," noting that it rose "an astounding 900 percent" from 2011 to 2015. "These products are now the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States, surpassing conventional tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and hookahs," says Murthy, who worries that e-cigarettes "could be an avenue by which kids are addicted to nicotine" and eventually start smoking.

The numbers cited by Murthy come from the CDC's National Youth Tobacco Survey, which found that the share of high school students who reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month rose from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2015—an increase of 967 percent. But according to data from the Monitoring the Future Study, another government-sponsored survey of teenagers, nonsmoking adolescents almost never vape often enough to get hooked on nicotine. In the 2014 survey, just 0.7 percent of never-smoking 12th-graders reported vaping on 20 or more days in the previous month. Furthermore, adolescent vapers typically use nicotine-free e-fluid, so the share of nonsmoking teenagers who are even theoretically at risk of nicotine addiction via vaping is even smaller—something like 0.3 percent.

In addition to highlighting big numbers with little public health significance, Murthy copies the CDC's habit of calling e-cigarettes "tobacco products," which they aren't. That description falsely implies that the risks posed by vaping are similar to the risks posed by smoking, when they are in fact dramatically lower. Although Murthy concedes the difference in risk, his office deliberately obscures it. "Aren't e-cigarettes safer than conventional cigarettes?" asks a "tip sheet for parents" posted today. The recommended answer is absurdly evasive: "Because your brain is still developing, scientific studies show that it isn't safe for you to use any tobacco product that contains nicotine, including e-cigarettes. Whether you get nicotine from an e-cigarette or a cigarette, it's still risky. Some e-cigarette batteries have even exploded and hurt people." Uh, thanks, Mom, but how about answering the question?

This is propaganda masquerading as science, which has already warped public perceptions of the hazards posed by e-cigarettes. In a recent survey of American adults by Vanderbilt Law School professor W. Kip Viscusi, 48 percent of respondents incorrectly said e-cigarettes are either just as hazardous as the conventional kind or even more hazardous. Thirty-eight percent said e-cigarettes are less hazardous, but only 14 percent correctly said they are much less hazardous. Since Americans already tend to think e-cigarettes are much more dangerous than they actually are, Murthy's recommendation that public health agencies and medical professionals get out the word about the hazards of vaping is rather alarming, especially if his office's educational efforts are meant to be a model. Such efforts to scare people away from e-cigarettes are positively pernicious and potentially lethal to the extent that they deter smokers from making a switch that could save their lives.

Treating e-cigarettes as tobacco products is especially misleading in a discussion of adolescent vapers, most of whom are not consuming nicotine (which is usually derived from tobacco but can also be synthesized). On a newly launched website that aims to educate the public about "e-cigarettes and young people," Murthy's office says "e-cigarettes are considered tobacco products because most of them contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco." But most teenagers who vape use e-cigarettes that don't contain nicotine, which in any event need not come from tobacco.

"My concern is e-cigarettes have the potential to create a whole new generation of kids who are addicted to nicotine," Murthy told the Associated Press. "If that leads to the use of other tobacco-related products, then we are going to be moving backward instead of forward." In his foreword to Murthy's report, CDC Director Thomas Frieden warns that "many of today's youth who are using e-cigarettes could become tomorrow's cigarette smokers." But there is little reason to think that is happening, especially since smoking rates among teenagers have hit record lows despite the "astounding" increase in e-cigarette use.

The New York Times, citing "researchers," says "there is no evidence that the increase in e-cigarette use is leading to the drop in smoking." But there is more evidence to support that hypothesis than there is to support Murthy and Frieden's fear that vaping is a gateway to smoking.

"We know enough right now to say that youth and young adults should not be using e-cigarettes or any other tobacco product," Murthy told The Washington Post. "The key bottom line here is that the science tells us the use of nicotine-containing products by youth, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe."

There he goes again, inaccurately calling e-cigarettes a "tobacco product" and thereby ignoring a crucial question about teenagers who vape: What would they be doing otherwise? Even if we focus on the tiny percentage of nonsmoking teenagers who regularly vape nicotine, it is not safe to conclude that they would face lower health risks if e-cigarettes had never been invented. In that case, they might have gotten their nicotine by smoking tobacco, which would hardly represent a victory for public health.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

146 responses to “Surgeon General Launches E-Cigarette Scare Campaign That Will Harm Public Health

  1. Electronic ‘tobacco’ products and screeds about nicotine with usual children-die mongering – but nothing else.

    No cancer, emphysema, etc. past almost wistful, hopeful ‘maybes.’

    1. Exactly what is this guy’s job and why do we need it?

      1. He’s here to warn the ignorant masses about potential dangers, generate tax revenues and justify his existence.

  2. These products are now the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States, surpassing conventional tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and hookahs

    How can it be a major health concern when it’s replacing far more dangerous forms of tobacco use???

    I don’t know why but this shit really gets me fired up. e-cigarettes can save lives and instead you have a tax-payer funded propaganda campaign to destroy the industry. It’s disgusting.

    1. The only acceptable solution is for everybody to stop consuming tobacco. Your betters have spoken, do as you’re told.

      Except that a few million people should continue smoking so that they can be good little tax cattle. Don’t question this dissonance.

      1. Remember — there is no tobacco in vaping. Nicotine, some times, but never tobacco.

        1. True enough, nicotine would have been a better word to use in place of tobacco, but it’s not like the people wanting to ban everything are making the distinction.

      2. “Except that a few million people should continue smoking so that they can be good little tax cattle. Don’t question this dissonance.”

        And that tells you everything you need to know about why they are pissing all over e-cigs.

    2. The concern is that it’s being marketed to kids….much like cigarettes were. The vaping industry is nothing to be lauded. It’s not proven to be safe and shouldn’t be marketed as such.

      Not at all saying we need more nanny state invention, but more educational tools and studies would be nice to refute the unjustified “its safe and better than cigarette” marketing.

      1. it’s being marketed to kids

        Yeah, you can’t walk through a school these days without tripping over a vaping salesman.

      2. It’s illegal to sell any form of nicotine to someone that is a ‘kid’. Go ahead, give a kid a pack of Nicorette gum in front of a DEA agent. See what happens.

        Or are you talking about 18 year old’s who can be conscripted or freely join the Military and go off a-murderin’ and be considered 100% an adult in any form of criminal trial?

        Sorry, I think you may need to ‘tweak’ your reasoning there since marketing directly at a demographic that is legally prohibited from buying your product isn’t necessarily illegally but it also won’t generate much, if any, increase in sales compared to advertising to someone who can actually give you their money. Unless, of course, you believe E-CIG manufactures are specifically trying to murder children. That’s possible, I guess, but is it actually likely? No.

      3. But it *IS* much safer and better than cigarettes. According to the Royal College of Physicians it’s *at least* 95% safer. It’s *officially* recommended as a smoking cessation method in Britain.

        Nicotine, in and of itself, isn’t very harmful unless you’ve got high blood pressure and there are plenty of liquids with no nicotine in them at all (and most teens don’t get the liquids with nicotine anyway). The glycerin is food quality. Flavoring is the only other chemical in them and no one’s claiming any harm from those.

        The one study that found formaldehyde had to make their own battery to jump up the voltage way beyond anything sold to vapers to get the temperature high enough to actually start burning instead of evaporating the liquid and at that point, according to others who tried to duplicate the results, it tastes absolutely horrible.

        1. “But it *IS* much safer and better than cigarettes.”

          No one said it wasn’t.

          But that does not imply it is “safe”.

          1. Well let’s see…as far as we know safer than driving, safer than alcohol, safer than smoking. safer than wandering around in some urban neighborhoods after dark, safer than pissing off a cop, safer than a whole lot of prescription drugs. Actually there is no reason to think vaping is unsafe at all except for the fact that people enjoy it so it must be bad. I don’t need your permission to vape. Or the Surgeon General’s. Fuck off asshole.

          2. Facts are is that there has yet to be any legitimate peer reviewed studies that show it to be harmful

    3. because cigarettes are harmful, any nicotine consumption is harmful, therefore Major Health Concern.

      do you even public health crisis, broh?

      1. Better stay away from Broccoli, Potatoes, Eggplant, Tomatoes, etc. then for they all have Nicotine in them.

        As per study endorsed by the Royal Collage of Physicians Nicotine is no more harmful than Caffeine. But hey, what would they know? It’s not like they’ve been around for 500 years and are actually the ones who lead the charge against Tobacco years before the Surgeon General.

  3. I literally cannot even comprehend why the Surgeon General and CDC would continue their scaremongering about e-cigarettes. They’re almost trying to present e-cigs and regular cigarettes as economic complements when they’re almost certainly economic substitutes.

    1. Like greens who rail against nuclear power, they are trying to destroy something that presents a solution to what they claim is one of their biggest concerns. That tells you all you need to know about what they are actually concerns them.

      1. This. Revealed vs. stated preferences.

      2. Those whose paychecks depend on demonizing an industry or product are not interested in solutions.

      3. They know that if E-CIG continues to take up market share the Big Tobacco settlement cash will dry up and they will lose a major revenue stream. Can’t have that, no matter how many bodies you need to pile up.

        Those on the left that push for these things will stop at nothing but an absolute ban, while the government just wants their piece of the pie; and if it somewhat reduces smoking they just get to pat themselves on the back for their theft. Plain and simple.

    2. These dangerous things must be regulated! Otherwise, tobacco giants like Phillip Morris will use their political weight to capture the regulators in their favor!

      Oh, wait….

    3. If they gave a shit about the health of smokers they’d be handing out vapes like clean needles and condoms. But heroin users and gay males aren’t cash cows for the government.

  4. Some e-cigarette batteries have even exploded and hurt people

    Run for the hills?

    They keep talking about health concerns but they can’t cite anything but the precautionary principle.

    My concern is e-cigarettes have the potential to create a whole new generation of kids who are addicted to nicotine

    And why should I be concerned with that?

    1. Look, they were this close to raising the first generation of perfect little angles. But then along came the big, bad, mean e-cigarette makers who turned America’s precious snowflakes into lifelong degenerates.

      1. If you’ve got the angles, I’ve got the curves … err, something like that.

          1. I was thinking of The Guess Who and Clap For The Wolfman but all ist gut!

      2. I would really like to sit these people down in a room and try to figure out what makes them tick.

        1. I would really like to sit these people down in a room and try to figure out what makes them tick, then run out and lock the door behind me.

        2. I would really like to sit these people down in a room and try to figure out what makes them tick.

          You’ve been in that meeting, so many times.
          Discussion shifts to the thing for which you’re responsible, and invariably, you get that person – that person – who always has the light bulb go off.

          ‘”Don’t you see, it’s so simple, you just have to move the…”

          But you know the internals, why things are set up the way they are, and you know it would take ten hours to explain exactly how the “solution” is nothing of the sort, why it is so fundamentally flawed… why it would never, ever work.
          And you swear your world is Dilbert, come to life.

          Now picture hundreds of that person in a room, debating how society ought to be set up – that’s government.

          Courtesy of 0x90 , who posted this gem 2/25/16 on H&R.

          I thought so highly of it that I kept it for future use, and I am very glad you provided me with an opportunity to share it, LynchPin.

          1. I saved that too. And I’ve shared it on FB and other places. It’s….perfect.

    2. Some e-cigarette batteries have even exploded and hurt people

      Nearly all of the incidences I’ve heard about involved people attempting to modify their batteries. If there are any which were simple battery malfunctions, I’d appreciate link(s).

      1. Some e-cigarette batteries have even exploded and hurt people

        That text was probably originally typed on a gadget with a far bigger lithium bomb powering it. The dissonance is just awesome.

      2. They showed one exploding in some dude’s pants the other day. Good point – no mention of specifics, was it modified in some way, etc.

      3. You know what other naughty things are powered by batteries?

      4. “people attempting to modify their batteries.”
        Link? That would be an absolutely insane thing to try to do.

        It’s usually people using mechanical mods (mod refers to part of the device containing the battery casing and switch) who build stupidly low resistance coils and fire them with a low-amp battery that can’t take it. Battery heats up due to internal resistance, thermal runaway ensues. But mechanical mods are being rapidly replaced by the electronic box mods, which are idiot proof because they limit the wattage you can put out. There’s actually a growing attitude in the ecig community that mechanical mods are to be avoided, and that you shouldn’t use one unless you’re an expert and very careful.

        1. Also, the risk is multiplied if you’re doing the above and moronically throw your vape, battery inside, into a pocket or bag with other objects likely to hit the switch, as the circuit can be closed then for much longer than your typical 5 second puff.

          1. And that’s why pretty much all of them won’t stay on for longer than 10 seconds no matter how long you hold the button down.

        2. Or, in the case of that convenience story pocket fire video, the fool Josh Hamilton of Kentucky had put a big ecig spare battery in his pocket with loose change, car keys…he shorted the battery. No ecig involved.

          The whole Samsung Note 7 thing? It isn’t the PHONE part that’s exploding. Those goofy hoverboards? It’s not the wheels nor platform causing the fire, right?

    3. Odd, then, that they aren’t banning the use of Lithium batteries since that, along with your average run-of-the-mill retard doing ‘after market’ modifications, is the cause of these types of explosions.

      I’m sure they’ll do the right thing and outlaw all smart phones. You know, for the children. Note that more phones have exploded causing injuries, by the thousands, than C-CIG’s. Precautionary principle my ass, they just want the cash.

  5. This is propaganda masquerading as science, which has already warped public perceptions of the hazards posed by e-cigarettes

    Sez you, Jacob BIG VAPE Sullum.

    I see our contemporary Progs still haven’t shaken the Puritanical urges of their ancestors.

    1. Tony and our other trolls will mysteriously avoid this post like the plague.

      1. It’s nothing that a good eugenics program won’t take care of.

  6. Shouldn’t he be looking for a real job?

  7. Christ what an asshole.

    I could understand some sort of vague rationale that smoking in public is a public health issue because of second hand smoke, and even throw in littering if you really want to get desperate. But vaping? The private health risk is 1/20 of smoking tobacco ciggies, and considering how fraudulent the second hand tobacco ciggie threat is, I can’t imagine any reputable journal accepting any report on the dangers of second hand vaping.

    Christ what assholes these nannies be.

    1. It’s all optics, pure and simple. They don’t want to see anything that resembles smoking. Also, they were all nerds in high school that got picked on by the cool kids.

  8. “The numbers cited by Murthy come from the CDC’s National Youth Tobacco Survey, which found that the share of high school students who reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month rose from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2015?an increase of 967 percent.”

    Of course the increase is astronomical. E-cigararettes are *new*. Is he aware that when Cain was born, the world’s population increased by 50% in a single day?

  9. Vivek Murthy’s concerns about adolescent vaping is overwrought, and his propaganda is pernicious.

    And his lapels are a travesty.

    1. Just curious – was one of Obama’s directives for choosing appointed bureaucrats “and he/she can’t look cooler than me”? Every time I see one of his appointees, they look like complete dorks.

      1. Scott Adams wrote recently that part of appointments is indeed choosing someone who won’t steal your spotlight. His words:

        Brand-wise, Trump is better off surrounding himself with highly-capable people who don’t suck too much attention out of a room. You might think that isn’t important, but it is from a persuasion standpoint. I liked Trump’s pick of Pence because Pence is the boring, monochromatic version of Trump that makes Trump look like a star when they stand together. You need the same contrast for Secretary of State.

        Obama got the branding right with both Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry as Secretaries of State. Both Secretaries were respected players that have less rock star appeal than Obama himself. That is good branding. Obama got the contrast right, which you expect from a Master Persuader. Trump needs to do the same.

        1. Then James Mattis was the wrong choice.

          1. For SoS or AG or SG, yes. Appointing someone called Mad Dog to ostensibly protect the country is genius.

            “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

      2. Every time I see one of his appointees, they look like complete dorks.

        That’s an interesting point.

        There’s a saying about leadership which i can’t recall exactly… which says that there’s “2 kinds of executives”

        – one which chooses subordinates who are *highly competent and independent*, very strong-minded, people who will basically take the job and run their own show without further direction… all they need to know is “the Goal” = they’ll figure out “how to get there” on their own. they generally chafe under micromanagement.

        – and one which chooses subordinates who are *less competent and dependent*, and need the boss’s direction and approval before doing anything. They may never even be told the “goal”; they’re told what to do piecemeal because they’re not trusted to make decisions on their own. They don’t mind micromanagement because they don’t want to make ‘mistakes’.

        i don’t know how obama has been characterized as an organizational leader, really. I do know he’s known for having a very few close confidants, and everyone else basically waits for a memo to hit their desk. He has had a few flare-ups with some department heads in the past. Gates, for example, wasn’t a fan. I’m going to guess that hillary wasn’t either.

        1. I think Obama is more the Chauncey Gardner type executive. His close confidants tell him what to do.
          Remember that picture of Obama and his people watching the bin Laden raid. No one would guess that the skinny guy slouched forward in the corner is actually The Commander in Chief.

          I believe it was John who said, regarding Benghazi, that Obama wasn’t called because, why ? What is this guy gonna bring to the table for leadership or direction. And he doesn’t want to be called.

          1. regarding Benghazi, that Obama wasn’t called

            That’s an interesting point.

            I’ve heard that before as well. But its often mysterious who the actual decision maker is in regards to different policies. I’ve heard it said, “Valerie Jerret” is his #1 person, but that can’t be the case on all policy. I suppose a book will come out in a few years which clarifies much of the way things went down in his admin.

    2. He is an undertaker from the 1970s.

      1. He was voted most likely to be friendzoned to death.

      2. undertaker from the 1970s

        nice

    3. *unblocks images*

      Good lord – his face is a travesty.

  10. My fantasy is that President Trump appoints….. absolutely nobody to be the next “Surgeon General”. The “Surgeon General” might be the most pointless and retarded position in the entire government.

    In fact, the entire Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is pointless and should be completely scrapped. Give the ones that have been around long enough their pensions, and then decommission them all and eliminate the entire pointless service and save the taxpayers a few bucks.

  11. What’s the point of being the Surgeon General if you can’t launch a scare campaign every once in a while?

    1. Or tell young man to masturbate.

      1. Like they need to be told. Getting them to slow down is the trick.

        1. Truth. For a long time my little guy closely resembled a stalk of broccoli.

    2. Well, in addition to the exalted title, you get that snappy uniform and the chance to wear C. Everett Koop’s beard on formal occasions.

  12. A snip from Wikipedia: Limited data exists on the health effects of continued use of nicotine itself, because the majority of nicotine used is in products containing tobacco.[43] The long-term effects of nicotine in the form of snus were reported in studies to incur a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco.[43] The complex effects of nicotine are not entirely understood.[21] Some studies of continued use of nicotine replacement products in those who have stopped smoking found no adverse effects from months to several years.[43] Other studies suggest that people with cardiovascular disease are able to tolerate nicotine replacement products for up to 12 weeks.[43] The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.[18] A 2016 Royal College of Physicians report found “nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user”.[44]

    Not an authoritative source but certainly enough to suggest that perhaps the science isn’t settled on just how terrible nicotine is, regardless of how settled the theological question might be in the Church of Scientism.

    1. “The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.”

      If it got out that nicotine was no more harmful than caffeine, it could not be regulated/taxed like cigs and such. That is my guess. It’s the Church of $$$.

    2. No, the science is nowhere close to settled. Wikipedia leans toward “it’s safe” and uses wording to imply such, even though the references it sites offer conflicting, or more balanced information.

      Wikipedia is useless beyond the references it provides….and even then, they are often selectively picked.

      1. I would suggest finding evidence that it’s dangerous. People have been smoking for generations and despite the hysteria it has proven to be a very poor poison. 20 cigarettes a day, 365 days a year, for 40 to 50 years produces death in some percentage of users. Virtually all of the side effects from smoke and not nicotine.

        That’s pretty good evidence that nicotine itself, if dangerous would require more than a human life to create negative side effects. And there’s certainly no shortage of studies looking at it, but no evidence.

        So at this point nicotine= deadly deserves as much study as Bigfoot= real. If you have evidence present it otherwise the world should move on to more interesting questions because this question has been answered sufficiently through millions of examples.

        1. Very well stated. I would add that the “evidence” of nicotine addiction is also pretty weak.

  13. That darn Trump, appointing all these right wing psychopaths to important positions.

    1. He is the outgoing SG and an Obama appointee, so he is entirely consistent with the proggie hysterics over e-cigs.

      1. adjust your sarc-o-meter

        1. All the vaping shut it down.

  14. Nicotene is very addictive – I knew this kid who started with snush in high school and then he became a smoker and then he became a handsome and successful personal injury lawyer and then his addiction advanced to opiates and he finally killed himself with xanax and booze in his 50’s.

    Don’t smoke, don’t vape, don’t snush!

    1. How anecdotal of you.

    2. Are you trying to say ‘snus’?

      1. No, that’s how he spells “anus.”

    3. Snush? If you mean snus, that wasn’t even available in the US until about 10 years ago, so unless your friend is Swedish, its highly unlikely he used snus as a teenager.

    4. I thought that addiction is a myth? You can’t be consistent with your trolling, shreek.

    5. ” he became a smoker and then he became a handsome and successful personal injury lawyer ”
      Smoking didn’t make me handsome and successful but it did make me look cool.

  15. Not an authoritative source but certainly enough to suggest that perhaps the science isn’t settled on just how terrible nicotine is, regardless of how settled the theological question might be in the Church of Scientism.

    I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I’ve always been under the impression that almost all of the negatives of cigarettes have been due to things other than the nicotine content in them.

    1. And the same is true for vaping. Even if nicotine is shown to be of low chronic harm, which no studies actually show because all the historic data is clouded by tobacco, there is a huge safety issue with the other components in vaping. The flavorings are a complete unknown with limited oversight or chronic testing. Remember the issues with certain artificial butter flavorings on popcorn?

      Chronically inhaling a soup of industrial chemicals with limited exposure testing is the height of stupidity.
      The same can be said for cigarettes….but the funny thing is that there is a wealth of chronic exposure data already available. People know the risk profile and can make their own choice.

      Vaping is an unknown, and while people should be free to make stupid choices, I think there is room for some statist intervention to limit the “its safe” marketing and active promotion to minors.

      1. a soup of industrial chemicals

        The marker of a serious analysis.

        1. I am a chemist by trade. Yes, vaping is comprised of a soup of industrial chemicals.

          Propylene glycol is a common carrier, but it’s only ‘safe’ it it’s highly pure form. Using lower grade product, which is a common cost saving direction, brings in byproducts that are most certainly not safe. Ethylene glycol has been found in vape fluids.
          Polyethylene oxides are also being used. Big downside is that these can degrade over time and temperature to highly hazardous byproducts.

          And of course the flavorings, industrial chemicals themselves, which largely come from the food industry. Fun fact…..lungs are more sensitive than stomachs.
          Another fun fact….flavorings degrade with time and temperature also into interesting and hazardous chemistries.

          So, yeh. Chronically inhaling a soup of industrial chemicals is the height of stupidity. Just because it’s safer than smoking, doesn’t mean its safe.

          1. So you are just arguing for better quality control, right? Which is virtually GUARANTEED not to happen if it is made illegal.

      2. There’s two ingredients in E-juice. Both are known, both have been studied. One is used in inhalers. Your ignorance of the ingredients does not make the ingredients unknown.

        1. you don’t understand what you are talking about.

  16. Why do we even have an SG and who really cares what he or she says…I will continue to vape-thank you.

    1. Not to be repetitive, but that’s my take on it. Why is SG even a thing?

  17. “…who worries that e-cigarettes “could be an avenue by which kids are addicted to nicotine” and eventually start smoking.”

    This is still one the absolute stupidest things I have read. Teens are already getting all the nicotine they need from e-cigarettes, a better tasting more convenient form of smoking, why in the hell would they regress? To me it is the equivalent of saying teens using smart phones will eventually lead to them using rotary phones. I am sorry, but I can have absolutely no faith in the Surgeon Generals office regarding my health and well-being when they espouse shit like this.

    1. Apparently, very few teens get the liquids with nicotine in them. They just like the flavors. So even that isn’t a real issue.

  18. Where are the 4th estate fact checkers?

    1. Scanning Twitter feeds for any sign of a story they can use to push gun control?

    2. Waiting for Twitter to show them the way.

        1. Curse you, kbolino!

          *shakes fist*

    3. The NYT has been somewhat open-minded about e-cigs, or at least have allowed a few of their journalists to go off the reservation and says some nice things about them. Problem is that, as with AGW, there is a very powerful global movement that has deemed tobacco or nicotine in any form to be the devil’s weed, and the established media must do its job and bend over for them, otherwise it will just be “fake news” from now on.

  19. This is propaganda masquerading as science[…]

    Get *cough! Climate Change!* used to *cough! Zettled Zienze!* it.

  20. Nothing left to cut. How about starting with this useless position?

    1. Given Trump’s views and he is not as against big government as some of us would like, he probably won’t get rid of the office, but I am pretty sure he will change the name to Sturgeon General with a mission to ensure all caviar consumed in the US is harvested from American fish.

      1. Trump-brand American fish. The best, most classiest fish in the entire world.

  21. Honest question… what’s the point of vaping something other than nicotine?

    1. People vape weed. I guess to cut down on harmful smoke entering your lungs?

      1. OK… let me rephrase. What’s the point of vaping anything that doesn’t give you some sort of buzz?

        1. People who are trying to quit smoking often have as hard a time quitting the ‘motor-memory/oral-fixation habit’ as they do the nicotine craving. simply sucking on something cigarette shaped and blowing smoke-looking-stuff around tricks the brain into producing the same relaxing-effect, and satisfying that need. Disassociating the “act” from nicotine itself is a big step in habit-breaking.

          For people not trying to quit, who just want to do it for kicks? I suppose its no different than chewing gum, really; just something to occupy your mouth with that provides some flavor on the side.

          1. Seriously, after seeing it at a Reason-Museum of Sex event, I, a non-smoker, took up vaping to lose weight. Started nic-free, but didn’t kill my appetite, so I gradually introduced & stepped up nicotine until it did. Then I got atrial fibrill’n.

            1. So, Warfrin or Xarelto? Don’t leave us hanging.

      2. There is already some proggie grumbling about 420 becoming the new tobacco, as companies like Altria and Reynolds eye the emerging market.

        1. Heaven forfend!

          They might be disappointed with the profit margin. I bought some juice 3 weeks ago for $20, and the bottle’s still half full.

    2. Looking cool without getting addicted to anything?*

      *Just a guess. I’m way past the age where looking cool matters.

      1. Aren’t you a bass player? That’s cool enough.

        1. Yes, but I vape because I’m an addict, thank you very much.

          1. I heard somewhere that addiction is a myth…

            My 14yo daughter, the drummer, has developed a fascination with the bass. She is going into school early to practice on one of theirs! Any recommendation for a guitar for her? A million years ago, I had a Fender Jazz, but it’s long gone.

            1. Squier or Epiphone, perhaps. Decent enough for beginners, won’t cripple your bank account.

              If you remember how to do set up, consider filing the nut grooves so the strings are closer to the frets. One of the most frustrating things for starting guitarists / bassists is the high action, which is the last thing you need before you get the strength in your fingers. If you do this, however, make sure to get a replacement nut, as it’s easy to file below the point where you get open string fret buzz. (You may be able to compensate by raising the bridge saddles, but this will partly defeat the purpose.)

              1. Perfect. She can earn the good ones!

                Thanks for the advice!

            2. One of the most frustrating things for starting guitarists / bassists is the high action

              Damn right. 14 isn’t so bad, but when you’re 12, you get hand cramps just trying to fret a normal guitar or bass. Low(er) action as a start helps.

              Any recommendation for a guitar for her?

              for bass, see if you can find a “short scale length” instrument, like a fender mustang. You can find used ones for between $2-300 bucks. There are also some knock-offs but i don’t know who makes the same short-scale/guitar-neck on a bass. Ask the dude @ guitar center.

              For guitar, i tend to think kids should not be given electric guitars to start if they really want to learn how to play. It promotes bad habits, and they don’t develop hand-strength as quickly. an ovation ( or their cheap brand – “applause”? – or takamine) acoustic is a good one because both have low-action and electric-shaped necks (unlike the thicker dreadnaught necks or spanish guitar necks which are hard for kids, especially girls)

              1. here’s a cheap “applause“-ovation for $200 & change new.

                they’re basically electric-necks on an acoustic. very easy to play for kids. the advantage of an acoustic is that it doesn’t hide any mistakes (*also doesn’t require buying the kid an amp) and kids will learn very quickly the difference between a properly fretted note and a half-assed one, because it will sound like shit when they do it wrong. an electric tends to mask the subtle differences and lets bad players sound “ok”. it also teaches the right hand tons more because it will instantly give you different dynamics depending how hard or soft you pick/strum… etc etc. many many advantages.

                1. I like that idea. She has been playing an acoustic of mine – the neck is great, but the action is aggressive for her. My dad has a Takamine that plays OK for her, but his classical, despite the easy action and nylon strings, was way too wide for her.

                  But that’s all moot. The girl loves rhythm! I’ll check out that Ovation for her. She’ll be thrilled with whichever I get her. The one at school is pretty bad.

                  Thanks, guys!

                  1. Thin/medium gague, flatwound guitar strings can also help, fwiw. they’re made for archtop jazz guitars, but you can put them on anything. they may not sound as bright or loud as regular strings, but they will be a lot less painful on the fingers and easier to play for extended periods, especially for a new player.

    3. For some people using it to quit, nicotine free vaping is the last step. I’m down to very low nicotine levels myself and might do that. Part of the reason that I find vaping preferable to gum/patches is that is also kind of matches the physical habit.

      Also some flavors can taste pretty nice.

    4. Flavor. There’s a whole lot of flavored liquids, many of them without any nicotine in them at all.

  22. Vivek Murthy’s concerns about adolescent vaping is overwrought, and his propaganda is pernicious.

    Wait, our government engages in fake news?! I wonder when Melissa Zemdars will put federal agencies on her list of fake news sources.

  23. Murthy looks high in that picture.

  24. Dramatically lower risk?! Is it even measurable or estimable for vape? Whether of nicotine, cannabinols, or perfumes?

  25. The government say that bringing tobacco use to zero is their goal as a means to greatly reduce health issues and morality rates that are correlated to tobacco use. To this end they have raised taxes and enacted draconian public use policies and spent billions on education to create high levels of pain for tobacco users. The along comes the single best solution to reach their supposed goal: the e-cigarette. All the addition with almost no public health risks. If they wanted to reach their goal all they would need to do is make e-cig smoking legal in public and private areas, no taxation, and allow it to be sold in retail stores (rather than e-cig stores that are licenses). The tobacco use would plummet and public health would improve. So it is pretty obvious that they have no real desire to eliminate tobacco use. So it is pure puritanism that drives this or is it economic? I am hoping economic since puritanism is a disease that is hard to eradicate.

    1. “morality rate” LOL I meant mortality rates. Really

  26. Vapes are tobacco products the same way that vodka is a potato product or cyanide is an almond product.

    Do our surgeon generals get their MD’s from a fucking cracker-jack box? The last moron said, “There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.” Because there’s safe levels of exposure to uranium, mercury, and nerve gas but tobacco is the killer right? Never seen such contempt for common sense.

  27. Apparently, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy was born in the UK.

    Cigarettes are called fags there.

    Which means he’s against fags.

    Which means he’s a homophobe.

    Why did Obama hire such a homophobe?

  28. I always thought Surgeon General was like a personal doctor of President who prescribes medicines to President and writes 420 prescriptions for him and his family etc. I did not know it is some kind of public office. But since he has “General” in his name he has to wage a war.

  29. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it…….
    If Trump doesn’t appoint a Surgeon General in new Administration…….besides the shrieks of the power freaks, who would notice? I would love to see a big pile of nominations Trump just didn’t get around to filling, starting with this.

  30. I don’t think there is anything this particular SG won’t label a “health crisis”.

    It seems to me like he had two qualifications for being nominated: Heading up Doctors for America (n?e Obama), and being willing to proclaim gun-ownership a health issue.

  31. Why the Fuck do we have/need a Surgeon General. Fuck of, Statist!

  32. And yet, Dr Murthy and his minions (and all of big tobacco pushing this propaganda), still call it a tobacco product, when there is not one bit of tobacco used to produce it! It should be no more dangerous than peanut butter, from what we know about it. It is no different than food products, except for the juice that has nicotine in it. And, that is restricted to adult use, already. The nicotine alone has little impact, as well, at the concentrations used in the juice.

  33. E-cigarette user here – I stopped smoking cigarettes completely in May, the day I bought my first e-cigarette setup. I haven’t even had a craving since. In fact, tobacco smoke is repulsive to me now. I breathe much easier, I have more energy, and I don’t offend people with my odor. That’s my anecdotal evidence. As far as the “research” done on e-cigs, I can say, as a user, that the methodology on the most widely-cited studies is abysmal. Anyone using an e-cig the way they are used in these studies would immediately disassemble their gear to see what was wrong…they wouldn’t continue using it in those conditions. When you are pushing 100 watts through a coil with 1 ohm of resistance, you are not getting an accurate representation of “normal use” – not even close. You are going to have burned cotton and melted metal. Another study I saw was using a concentration of 3.6ml per 100ml nicotine concentration, which is utterly ridiculous. I smoked some pretty hardy cigarettes for many years before I quit, and the highest concentration I’ve ever used with an e-cig is .6 ml per 100 ml. 3.6ml/100ml level of nicotine would make a three-pack-a-day smoker sick. But nevermind doing accurate science – we have a moral obligation here, people! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

  34. Fuck these fucking fucks!

  35. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  36. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  37. “Some e-cigarette batteries have even exploded and hurt people.”
    Some? Is that some number anywhere near 7,600? Because, there are an estimated 7600 smoking related residential fires each year in the US, and that’s nowhere near the top of the list of the dangers of smoking. 18,000 people in the US quit smoking by vaping in 2015 alone. If the surgeon general was genuinely concerned with public health he would urge smokers to switch to vaping as the British Medical Group has done.

  38. Vaping is as bad for the heart as cigarettes. It does remove the cancer risk, but more are killed by heart attacks anyway.

  39. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  40. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.