Talk:Tobacco smoking

Has anyone...
got a light? --Scherben (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Vaping
Should it get its own page? It's related, but I think it has problems on its own where vaping deserves its own article. 00:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an Old Ass comment but just popping in to say I agree, especially since we’ve been recently seeing the “vaping deaths” story (which, in fairness, does some to be more related to additives in illicit THC carts than in regular vapes, at least from what I’ve seen). Also I’ve seen a couple conspiracy theories that the vaping deaths were deliberately caused by the government/big tobacco/Juul/whoever else for various reasons (government tax money, cigarette profits, to eliminate competition respectively) though idk if those are widespread or if I just have a tendency to hang out particularly with paranoid vapers  08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have an old-ass draft I did here, but never filled out the cites for - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Cigarettes and Cigars
Good for posing not for smoking. 10:44, 27 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Nicotine’s contribution to depression.
https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/depression-stick-fake-vapings-contribution-youth

https://www.theonion.com/capitalist-heroes-this-vape-company-has-found-a-way-to-1847871341

03:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Vaping section
The vaping section of this article contains outdated information, for example "children can legally buy them in 10 US states and the District of Columbia" which is not true, it is illegal to sell e-cigarette products to minors federally and in all 50 states. The article also denies that electronic cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation aid with the only sources being a 404ed sciencenews.org article and a flawed study that targeted smokers in general and not specifically people who have used e-cigarettes to quit smoking and compared the success rate against other smoking cessation products, and there is no mention of the numerous studies that have demonstrated evidence that it is an effective stop smoking aid. There also seems to be an Americentric bias to the article, as the public health scares surrounding electronic cigarettes are almost exclusive to the United States, as were the incidents of vaping related injuries that occurred due to the sale of unregulated/illegal vaping products; in the UK electronic cigarettes are more strictly regulated and it is generally considered to be an effective tool in quitting smoking, as evidenced by the National Health Service's stance on this issue. . The fact of the matter is, there is overwhelming evidence that electronic cigarettes are a much more effective stop smoking aid than other such products and studies have shown evidence that e-cigarette use has reduced the overall prevalence of smoking. While it is of couse not a healthy habit at all, it is obviously much less harmful than tobacco smoking and there is evidence that it has contributed to the decline of tobacco smoking among the general public and therefore saves lives. As a wiki dedicated to dispelling medical misinformation, I feel it is important that this article at least acknowledges the possibility that this technology can be a rather effective form of treatment/harm reduction for an extremely harmful drug addiction that kills 8 million people a year. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2601:2c4:c400:7790:a11d:f58f:1233:87e0 / talk
 * I would argue the evidence regarding smoking cessation assuming the report on the 2021 systematic review from the NHS is accurate is mixed. Looking for meta analyses on the subject I easily found one that suggested the opposite effect on smoking cessation looking across 38 studies published in the Lancet. . Generally I am bit suspicious of the narrative regarding smoking cessation considering it’s already been noted as a marketing tactic pushed by the companies the make vaping products to begin with. Historically companies have always pushed studies of their own to manipulate the perception of scientific consensus (most famously with Tobacco, but also with fossil fuels, the hole in the ozone, etc).Which arguably in this case may only technically not be the case because there is no consensus to begin with. Caution is required. I also find it strange that the NHS doesn't cite the review referenced. Inconvenient for those who want to check primary sources.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)