What is Vape Exactly?
Re: “We Still Don’t Know How Safe Vaping Is” published Sept. 5, 2019
New York Times’ Editorial Board’s recent post on vaping argues against the use of e-cigarettes due to how little we know of them. There has been an outbreak of a vape-related illness that has only recently been discovered, and because of this, we have yet to find a cure. Due to how little we know of vaping products, the editor proclaims it must have something to do with the long-term effects of chemicals found in regular e-cigarettes. However, the editor also states that e-cigarettes have been around for longer than a decade, so how has this illness affected mostly teenagers and only very few adults? If the long-term effects of vaping were the cause of this illness, adults who have used vapes for many years as an alternative to smoking regular cigarettes would be the sickness’s main target.
400+ known cases of the illness due to vaping are known, and 3 deaths have been claimed. Many diagnosed have been young adults. As a teenager who worries about her fellow peers who could be at risk, I find it extremely important that we should look further into what is occurring, but it should be noted that what the editor failed to expand on was the marijuana based ingredients found in vapes of those who had fallen ill. Studies have shown that 36% of those who had fallen ill admitted to using only THC when vaping. 46% used both THC and nicotine, and only 17% stated to supposedly only be using nicotine. Many of those who were found ill were also found within states that criminalized the use of marijuana. This increases the chances that the products that have been used by those who have fallen ill were bought from places similar to or from the black market. Products in places as such are possibly homemade and can be considered to be extremely dangerous. It is the most likely cause of the illness.
I agree that there is still much we should learn about e-cigarettes, but the ingredients in normal vape cigarettes are not the cause of the illness. A ban on flavored e-cigarettes is extremely dangerous and should not be an “understandable” action towards fighting this epidemic. This increases the likelihood of many more turning towards the black market to obtain their products and can lead many others who used vapes as an alternative to smoking cigarettes to go back to cigarettes, a product that continues to take the lives of thousands each year.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
We were well on our way to an excellent post here, Daniela. You were receptive and responsive to feedback, and your second draft was much better than your first. It’s the only item you’ve actually called “for Portfolio,” so I’ll grade it as such. It needed another round of revisions at least but was going well.
LikeLike
I see no evidence that this claim of yours is true, Migz, and without it, your argument falls apart. The editors, as far as I can tell, don’t try to explain the cause(s) of illness but only name some possibilities that have been offered by others.
There’s an equally likely possibility that the recent deaths and hospitalizations result NOT from long-term use of traditional brand-name devices and flavors BUT INSTEAD from the illicit and candy-flavored products purchased on the black market (in other words, the kind underage teens favor).
The editors don’t come down hard on either side because they know they can’t. The evidence isn’t sufficient to draw such conclusions.
You do your best to draw conclusions in your second paragraph. Here, you’re on much firmer ground, working out what you can from the numbers that are available. That’s a worthy contribution to the conversation (and it doesn’t require you to mis-characterize position of the editors).
As for your conclusion, it’s quite bold. And probably not enough by itself, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Banning the flavored products will surely help the underground market thrive for kids who still demand the goods. But permitting their sale still won’t make them available to the underage youth who can’t legally buy them. If you have a solution that prevents 14-year-olds from smoking cigarettes because they can’t get legal e-cigs, I’d like to hear it.
You’re well on your way to a very coherent argument here, Migz, but you’ll have to be fair to the editors before we take your own position seriously.
Did that help?
LikeLike
May I receive an in-depth reaction to my argument and structure as feedback?
LikeLike
Not this moment, Migz, but I do want to acknowledge that I received your request so you don’t think it got lost in the ether.
LikeLiked by 1 person