I'm not able to accept this without decent evidence. There's some pretty clear psychopharmacology related to burning tobacco that is absent for ecigs. Specifically one of the byproducts of burning tobacco is a compound related to early anti-depressants - a mono amine oxidase inhibitor. The effect of this compound seems to be to potentiate the addictiveness of nicotine. That is move its addictiveness from O(n) similar to caffeine to greater than heroin (citations available). This is why the buzz you don't really get a buzz from ecigs that you get from cigarettes, and also why people who are using ecigs to give up smoking should initially start with a very high nicotine concentration (i.e. as high as they can tolerate) to saturate their system, so a relapse to cigarettes does not give any satisfaction. Additionally at low doses typical of ecig use, nicotine seems to be about as harmful as caffeine. It's the byproducts of combustion that seem to be the real problem.

I doubt we will see much research on the potentiation effects of tobacco on nicotine, since broadly it seems as if tobacco is "on the way out", so to speak.

However, there is quite a bit of research available [0, 1] that suggests that an addiction to one substance can prime the brain's neurological pathways to more easily become addicted to a second, unrelated substance.

By reducing the use of addictive substances overall, it might produce some decrease in addictions to more damaging substances (i.e. meth, heroin, etc).

Of course, the same argument could be said about alcohol or caffeine, and I don't think we're likely to see those go away any time soon. However, I think that's a false dilemma fallacy, as we're much closer (in % of population, at least) to reducing the use of nicotine than either of those.

[0]: https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/03/deep-cravings.html [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1578

How many years of cigarettes smoking and vaping did you have? From what you write it seems to me that either you never smoked for years both of them or now you started vaping and you want to believe in what you write. Sadly the things that you write are extremely dangerous for all the young people that start vaping.

I managed to break a seventeen year old cigarette habit by switching to vaping (after dozens of failed attempts either going cold turkey or with nicotinine gum/snus), and have now vaped exclusively for almost seven years. In my opinion his comment is 100% spot on.

> Sadly the things that you write are extremely dangerous for all the young people that start vaping.

Got any evidence for that assertion? Just saying it doesn't make it true, and the big problem with this research area is there are two different powerful groups (tobacco copmanies and public health policy makers). So the entire literature needs to be treated with great care. David Nutt, the british addiction specialist is a sober, sensible guy, and I'd go to what he has to say about it as a first port of call.

I was never able to give up smoking long term until the vapes turned up. Then a persistent decades long problem disappeared overnight. Funnily enough my tobacco habit got entrenched when I was in a job that allowed me to deal with it’s boring aspects by voraciously reading lots of psychopharmacology literature.

Getting everyone off very poisonous deadly substances is a fair tradeoff for getting new people hooked on something as dangerous as coffee.

E-cigs didn't destroy the kid's market for traditional cigarettes, though. When I was in high school (right before vaping took off), smoking was only "cool" for a small subsection of the school. For everyone else, it was a stupid thing and kinda trashy. I'm guessing that the set of high school aged kids who would have picked up cigarette smoking if not for vaping is really quite small.

So, we worked for decades to eliminate cigarette dependency, made huge progress, and now kids largely don't smoke. And then vaping came along, and a company is receiving billions from investors to get kids addicted to nicotine.

Vaping is healthier, but I can't think of a conceivable reason why this is a good idea.

Because the entire human experience shouldn't be an exercise in neurotic min/maxing and risk avoidance. I'd rather live in a world where people occasionally smoke or gamble or have unprotected sex than one where everyone is driven by Type A obsession with health and money and living forever.

If a kid picks up a nagging but ultimately harmless nicotine habit, is that really the end of the world? Given what we know so far about vaping and its safety, I'd say you could make an argument for the pleasure of flavored nicotine outweighing the annoyance of addiction.

Is there really evidence of an uptick in kids smoking traditional cigs due to vaping?

Even if there was, traditional cigarettes are on their way out, and what we are left with is something as dangerous as coffee and a bit more expensive.

> Juul particularly is getting kids hooked that otherwise would have never touched tobacco

Do you have evidence of this? From what I've read (the report I saw last had data in 2016), e-cig use is way up but general tobacco use among youth hasn't significantly changed.

As someone who smoked cigarettes and then quit by switching to vaping and weaning myself off, I can give anecdotal firsthand testimony that quitting vaping was much easier than quitting cigarettes. It's hard to say if some new vapers would have been smokers or not, and I agree that really none of it should be legal. But while any nicotine is legal, my personal experience gives me the opinion that vaping is a product which does indeed provide harm reduction.

I can provide anecdotal evidence that it’s no easier to stop vaping than to stop smoking. Should we make a poll on HN?

Right, and your personal experience would probably be the same as other _pre-existing_ smokers trying to quit, and it would be providing harm reduction if it worked for you.

But doea the harm reduction to pre-existing smokers outweigh the increased uptake in youth populations?