A simple comparison, but a longer discussion.

Part of what we want to do is provide information for consumers to make the best choice for them and to have the freedom to make the choices they want.

The challenge is incentives. Who has the incentive to keep smoking popular? Who has the incentive to align laws, regulations to best benefit their investments in e-cigarettes? When there is so much money on the line, there is no room for a balanced and transparent conversation, which is why we created Start Juuling to provide clarity and transparency into a very important topic that impacts a massive population globally.

In our first part of the story, we wanted to provide you with a Nurses perspective on the simple truths about smoking versus vaping.

Kellie Ann Forbes, BScN RN, is a leading subject matter expert and contributor to the Vaping Advocacy and Education Project and here are her opening thoughts:

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of disease and death in first world countries; and the most common addiction in Canada. Quitting smoking is more achievable with vaping than any other NRT (nicotine replacement therapy). In controlled clinical trials, 21% quit smoking with vaping vs 6% with nicotine patches. Replacing smoking with vaping can reduce the occurrence of smoking-related diseases; the resulting human suffering; and associated tax costs. Vaping must be allowed in public places to maximize its potential to improve smokers’ health. 

Nurses assist people in achieving better health by helping them adopt less harmful behaviours; this is called ‘harm reduction’. Vaping is rapidly becoming recognized as the most effective harm reduction strategy for smokers. Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have reviewed the vaping science and recommends vaping for smokers. Outlawing vaping in public places is contrary to harm reduction. Governments making laws to outlaw vaping in public (vaping bans), significantly reduce the chances of a smoker successfully switching to vaping. Vaping in public places should be left to the discretion of the establishment for the following reasons: 

1. Exhaled vapor doesn’t compromise indoor air quality and vaping bans deceivingly imply that vaping is dangerous.

Unlike a burning cigarette, there is no side-stream when vaping: the exhaled vapor is the only vapor entering environmental air. In short, there is no second hand smoke. Over 9000 observations of vapor constituents have been analyzed using the latest technologies and found them to be less than 1% of Workplace Exposure Standards (WES) levels. With the exception of 2, which were less than 5% WES. 

2. Vaping bans prevent the smoker from keeping the amount of nicotine in their blood high enough to reduce the craving to smoke.

It took decades to understand the harm potential of tobacco smoke because it took decades to develop the technology to analyze the smoke. Since then, science has analyzed thousands of known substances and cataloged the levels of each substance in relation to how it affects human health. An example of this knowledge is feeling safe breathing city air because we have determined that the levels of carcinogens, heavy metals and toxins from vehicle exhaust are too low in the air to cause us harm. There is nothing new in ‘e-liquid’, the fluid used in a vaporizer.

3. Vaping bans prevent the smoker from learning how to use their vaporizer. 

Every year, smoking kills 37,000 Canadians and afflicts over 1 million Canadians with chronic disease at a cost to the taxpayer of at least $20 billion. That is $55 million every day! We are so compelled to help people stop smoking that Champix continues to be prescribed as a smoking cessation treatment even though it has been linked to several deaths. Side effects include aggression, violence and suicide.

4. Vaping bans greatly increase the chances of restarting smoking. 

There are many public risks that needlessly exist, particularly regarding allergies. One out of a hundred people has a peanut allergy. Consider this situation: person “A” holds a Snickers bar and opens a door with that hand and then person “B” touches the same door handle. If person “B” has a peanut allergy they can have an anaphylactic reaction and die unless they receive immediate medical attention. 

5. Vaping in public doesn’t re-normalize smoking. 

Now, we have discussed the lack of public risk posed by vaping. Vaping is also an effective alternative for smoking. In one European survey, 41% of those that bought a vaporizer quit smoking. The vaping industry has been completely driven by smokers seeking an alternative that is less harmful but similar to smoking. 

We are so proud and excited to be able to ask Kellie Ann Forbes these pressing questions and open up the dialogue on the important question around vaping and more importantly – bring transparency to brands like Juuling and Vyping that are the vehicles of Big Tobacco.

We want to represent the best parts of the industry and vaping in general – not create Big Tobacco 2.0.