Vaping Is Better Than Smoking, But It’s Still Very Bad

My post yesterday about vaping among teens produced some feedback. First, here’s an email from reader JB:

I have three kids between 6th and 11th grade and I can say that vaping is a huge issue. I am old enough to remember the smoke-filled bathrooms in high school and the ubiquitousness of cigarettes everywhere. I remember riding dirt bikes out to the middle of nowhere and turning green smoking Marlboro (in the box, naturally). Hell, I remember really creative advertising for smokes. Juul makes the old penis/camel ads look ancient and boring. The kids laugh at the new ads with prominent adult voices. The flavors (are gross and) are aimed at kids. The devices are incredibly small and easy to hide.

Kids master how to vape in class or take a quick pop walking in the stairs. I have no doubt that I have had kids vape in my large lecture classes. Twenty-five rows deep means the back of the room is the wild west. With smokes, you had the issue of the smell that stuck to you. With Juul, that is not an issue. What we have seen here is how this has spread across the groups in high school. While smoking at school was mostly for a narrow demographic back when I was in school, vaping shows up across a broad swath of kids. I think Juul and similar products have altered the terrain for years to come. From a policy perspective, the ship was way out to sea before there was any response.

On the other side, a few readers have asked about the benefits of vaping. There’s obviously one huge benefit: e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco and therefore won’t give you lung cancer. That’s not to say they’re completely safe, but they’re certainly safer than smoking tobacco. The big caveat is this: they’re only safer if you give up cigarettes when you begin vaping. The evidence so far is unclear about how common this is. Some vapers stop smoking, while others just end up smoking and vaping.

Still, there’s no question that at least some number of current smokers give up cigarettes in favor of vaping, and for these people it’s a clear improvement. But the really big question is how many people do this vs. how many teens take up vaping as a brand new thing and get addicted. For them, this is a clear net loss. Nobody can provide you with exact numbers about this, but here’s a very basic chart of cigarette smoking in the US:

Smoking among both teens and adults has been on a long-term decline ever since the Surgeon General’s report in 1964. Did vaping contribute to making that decline even steeper? Among adults it doesn’t look like it, but among teens it took a 4 percent annual decline and turned it into an 11 percent annual decline since 2014.

On net, then, vaping has probably had very little effect one way or the other on adult smoking. Vaping is beneficial if it helps get you off tobacco, but it looks like that hasn’t happened much.

Among teens, however, vaping looks like it’s taken the place of tobacco to some extent. A rough look at the data suggests that about 25 percent of teens vape, and perhaps 4-5 percent of this is done as a substitute for tobacco smoking. The other 20 percent is made up of kids who did nothing before and took up vaping as a brand new thing. The majority of these kids are vaping nicotine and will almost certainly become lifelong addicts. This is why cigarette companies have shown so much interest in acquiring vaping companies, and it’s why Altria, the maker of Marlboro, is close to deal to take a 35 percent stake in Juul.

On net, then, I’d call vaping a huge net negative. It appears to have, at most, a tiny beneficial effect on adults, and among teens it attracts lots of new addicts while having only a modest effect on tobacco smoking. If vaping were harmless, that would be one thing. But anything as addictive as nicotine should be kept far, far away from children and teens.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate