Talk:Electronic cigarette
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page history | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Usage of electronic cigarettes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Cannabis
[edit]Vaping isn't only for nicotine. I'd like to see this article expanded to include the increasingly common practice of vaping cannabis products. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- They have different nomenclature and health effects. E-cigarettes replace cigarettes. THC vapes are not intended to simulate cigarettes and are often referred to as vape pens.
- While all e-cigarettes are based on glycerin and/or propylene glycol, THC vapes usually use an oily substance. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Even unguided e-cigarette use among smokers unwilling to stop smoking is effective in causing smoking cessation
[edit]What is this meant to mean?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like someone read a study, took it as fact, and copied the text into the lead. I've tried to remedy it. Reconrabbit 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Revert 24th April 2024
[edit]Re: this revert.
AlexGallon, I can see why you've done this, but with this particular article we need to bear in mind our audience. A substantial proportion of the people who type "electronic cigarette" into the search box are teenagers considering taking a puff—and English isn't necessarily their first language. So the lead of this particular article tries to use the simplest possible grammatical constructions. Short, declarative sentences in the active voice with as few subclauses as possible. We can use college level English in the body text; it's just the lead that needs to be super-accessible.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree with your reasoning – very well explained, so thank you. AlexGallon (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.
[edit]This line is not supported by it's own sources, especially in the context of it's section regarding "gateway drugs". It has a heavy lean towards the negative.
> Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.
Suggest changing this to:
> There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will try a traditional cigarette at least once in their life.
---
This source does not even discuss the topic, it is not a research paper related to the discussion: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416
The only thing remotely related is from the Author of the study speaking their personal opinion regarding potential ethical concerns, for it to be _potentially_ a gateway drug:
"The growing ubiquity of e-cigarettes lends itself to ethical scrutiny. Many have expressed concern about the potential for e-cigarettes to act as a “gateway” to cigarette smoking.39,40 Unlike other NRTs, e-cigarettes provide a recreational function and could feasibly entice unintended product users (eg, nonsmokers and youth) to engage in smoking-like behavior when they otherwise would not. However, it is unclear how many youth or nonsmokers are purchasing these products."
--
This source specifically states there is not enough evidence: https://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf
Quote (Page 6, point D):
"These data do not allow the conclusions to be drawn as to whether this is a sign of adolescent smokers switching to ENDS, an established pattern of dual use, or a temporary experimentation fashion. Therefore, in the absence of longitudinal data, existing evidence does not allow an affirmation or rejection of the role of ENDS in increasing nicotine addiction among adolescents above existing uptake rates, much less as to whether ENDS lead to smoking in these countries. Among adults the pattern of dual use seems also the predominant one, resulting in a reduction of smoked cigarettes and with few never smokers starting to use ENDS (below 1% of the population)"
--
This source does not draw conclusions, only specifically stating there is a strong correlation between:
- EVER having used e-cigs and EVER smoking a cigarette (what kind of e-cig use? In passing? Habitual? Etc?)
- Current users of e-cigs and EVER having smoked a cigarette (this does not support the statement above, it is not a gateway if someone who uses e-cigs tries a cigarrette out of curiosity, nothing else being available, or simply tried it at some point in their life, etc).
"Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up."
--
The only source (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e045603#T1) which seems to support the lean this statement has, is very unclear with regards to whether the measured effect was "never users becoming habitual tobacco users after using e-cigarrettes", or "former cigarettes users who tried e-cigarettes relapsing to cigarettes", or "never users having _ever_ smoked a cigarette after first using e-cigarettes" and so on. It cannot support the statement it is attempting to. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a medical article, so we apply medical sources in accordance with WP:MEDRS. The systematic review and meta-analysis published in the BMJ trumps the WHO paper.—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless, one source which itself does not claim a gateway effect, only a correlation between vaping and smoking, still does not support this statement. It itself makes no claims to a ‘gateway theory’.
- Only that vapers will eventually try a cigarette at some point. The heavy lean in the context of that section implies use of one leads to habitual use of the other. There is _no_ evidence to support this. J. Christ Denton (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I read the source very differently. It says: [Aladeokin and Haighton's UK-based]
meta-analysis showed e-cigarette users were much more likely than non-users to go on to smoke combustible cigarettes, even after adjusting for covariates
, and [Soneji et al's US-based]meta-analysis showed a markedly higher odds of combustible cigarette use in those who had used e-cigarettes
.My position is that the first of those is not a claim of a correlation. It's a claim that vapers go on to smoke tobacco, and the sequence is clear: first they vape, then they become more likely to start smoking. "Gateway" is a reasonable way to summarize this.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)- You are implying causation, when there is only correlation. A "gateway" must in itself be the cause, but as we all know, people do not start smoking because they start smoking. The evidence is unclear, and that is clear. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- For example, I could find a strong correlation between those who drink water, and those who eat food. People who eat food at the start of their life are 9001x more likely to drink water, and people who start drinking water in their life are extremely likely to also begin to eat food. However, neither of these things are caused by each other.
- There is simply too many other factors here to suggest that e-cigarrette usage is _the_ cause of later tobacco usage. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say it's _the_ cause. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation, and in my view the BMJ source is clearly claiming the latter and not the former, so there doesn't seem to be much possibility of us agreeing about this.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe that making alarmist statements based on personal interpretations of semantics is valid documentation, reporting, or science.
- Given the three other sources mentioned do not even remotely appear to agree, or are not even remotely related to the topic, it seems very clear that statement was ham fisted in with an intended bias. I’m not sure how that’s not very obvious to you. J. Christ Denton (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, hang on. This article does have quite a number of phrasing problems, and there's definitely a lot of hamfisted language.The article was started by a problematic editor, who is now not allowed to edit any medical articles at all. There was quite a lot of drama about him. The article needs properly checking and rewriting. That's an exercise I've been slowly chiselling away at for years and will continue when I get the opportunity.I won't make the specific edit you ask for, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to you and it doesn't mean I oppose other changes. I would particularly welcome proposals that make the article more accessible (reduce the reading age, simplify convoluted sentences, but without simplifying the underlying thoughts), and I'd also welcome proposals to replace poor sources with meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in medical journals. I do expect you'll be able to find places where previous editors have been unduly skeptical about e-cigarettes, and I do hope to work with you to fix them.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say it's _the_ cause. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation, and in my view the BMJ source is clearly claiming the latter and not the former, so there doesn't seem to be much possibility of us agreeing about this.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are implying causation, when there is only correlation. A "gateway" must in itself be the cause, but as we all know, people do not start smoking because they start smoking. The evidence is unclear, and that is clear. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I read the source very differently. It says: [Aladeokin and Haighton's UK-based]
Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.
Suggest changing this to:
There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will try a traditional cigarette at least once in their life
See talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. I'll reply in the other section you started, explaining why.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Health and fitness articles
- Low-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Low-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- B-Class pharmacology articles
- Low-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review