Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed changes to the lead

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)

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)

Re: {{diff2|1220517884|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{{snd}}very well explained, so thank you. AlexGallon (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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] {{tq|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] {{tq|meta-analysis showed a markedly higher odds of combustible cigarette use in those who had used e-cigarettes}}.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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)

{{edit semi-protected|Electronic cigarette|answered=yes}}

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 attempt 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)

As I neither smoke nor vape I am confused. The “Further information: CBD cigarette” kind of implies that a CBD cigarette could be an ecig. Can it be clarified here and there whether that is right? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Electronic cigarette|answered=no}}

Change "E-cigarettes entered the European market and the US market in 2006 and 2007.[181]"

to "E-cigarettes entered the European market and the US market in 2006.[https://casaa.org/education/vaping/historical-timeline-of-electronic-cigarettes/#2003-2008]"

The source for citation 181 to the CASAA timeline and the cited original primary source within that page:

which the AUG 2006 entry cites --> https://rulings.cbp.gov/search?term=m85579&collection=ALL&sortBy=RELEVANCE&pageSize=30&page=1

The current citation does not cite any verifiable source for the 2006 claim, while the CASAA version shows it's homework. Policynut (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Electronic cigarette|answered=no}}

Since there isn't a description of an "e-hookah" or "e-shisha" without linking it to BLOW brand, request to change this:

BLOW started selling e-hookahs, an electronic version of the hookah in 2014.[431] The handle of each hose for the e-hookah contains a heating element and a liquid, which produces vapor.[432] Gopal Bhatnagar, based in Toronto, Canada, invented a 3D printed adapter to turn a traditional hookah into an e-hookah.[433] It is used instead of the ceramic bowl that contains shisha tobacco.[434] Rather than the tobacco, users can insert e-cigarettes.[434]

to this:

E-hookahs or e-shishas are electronic alternatives to traditional hookah smoking. Businesses like AIR Global have patented several electronic shisha technologies that focus on harm reduction without compromising on the experience, like OOKA, which, unlike traditional shisha, does not rely on charcoal combustion to heat tobacco and instead uses electronically controlled heat to vaporize specially designed pods containing authentic molasses. This approach eliminates the need for charcoal, resulting in a cleaner experience with reduced harmful emissions.

Similar to other innovations in e-hookah systems—such as BLOW’s electronic hookahs and modular adapters that convert traditional hookahs to vapor-based use, OOKA reimagines the traditional hookah ritual through modern technology. By integrating a pod-based system and intelligent heat regulation, OOKA and similar e-shishas exemplify the shift toward combustion-free alternatives. 5.195.236.34 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Vape|protected=Electronic cigarette}}

:Electronic cigarette → {{no redirect|Vape}} – “Vape” is the common name for this object and has even been the term used in reliable sources such as news articles and you would never hear someone in person refer to this as an “electronic cigarette” or “e-cigarette” so “electronic cigarette” is no longer known as the common name. “Vape” is also an official term for this object and not a slang at all. Articles on wikipedia are named by common names and not official names. Prothe1st (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Status quo or Vaping? (WP:GERUND) My impression is that "vape" is ordinarily a verb. See, for example, Smoking. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Vape is used as a noun to refer to the device. My sense is that this is informal but it does appear in publications alone or as a synonym.[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-vaping-idUSKBN1XW20K/][https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/about.html][https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.16570] This article covers the device and the behavior so naming it after either seems fine. The subject of this article is probably the primary topic for vape and vaping unqualified, though it can refer to cannabis and other drugs. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. I was surprised by the [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=electronic+cigarette%2Ce-cigarette%2Ce-cig%2Cvape%2Cvaping&year_start=2003&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false Ngram] which shows vaping and vape have been more common for a while. Google Scholar since 2021 has 21,100 hits for electronic cigarette; 17,000 for e-cigarette; 16,300 for vaping; and 16,100 for vape. Looking just at publications since 2024, electronic cigarette remains in the lead and only drops to 20,900 (also surprising) while the others have larger drops. Note that many sources use multiple terms so raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I pasted the 426 (!) references from the article in a document and did a text search. I found 142 instances of e-cigarette; 102 of electronic cigarette; 37 of vaping and 23 of vape. Overall, I find electronic cigarette is still the best term. It's not likely to "astonish" and reliable source still favor this term, even if informal usage favors vape. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Electronic cigarette is also more precise/unambiguous. See: Vaporizer (inhalation device). My sense is that nicotine vapes/e-cigs is the primary topic for vape/vaping but that would need to be established if this change is to be considered. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I consider a paragraph in the article to have several problems. I'll discuss the sentences in that paragraph one-by-one to point out these problems:

• "Tobacco harm reduction has been a controversial area of tobacco control."
• :OK. I'm not too sure why reducing harm would need to be controversial, but OK.
• "Health advocates have been slow to support a harm reduction method out of concern that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to sell products that will lower the risks associated with tobacco use."
• :That may be one concern that health advocates have, but probably a more common view of health advocates is that even if it is possible to sell products that reduce the amount of harm involved in using tobacco (or nicotine), it would be better to try to get people to stop using it than to reduce the amount of harm they experience while enabling them (and perhaps encouraging them) to continue (or begin) that harmful practice. Tobacco companies don't necessarily want to harm people{{snd}} they just want to make money. There's also a sort of leap here into the idea that tobacco harm reduction would be something led by tobacco companies, which seems a bit dubious.
• "A large number of smokers want to reduce harm from smoking by using e-cigarettes."
• :OK, except I'm not sure what the definition of "smoking" is here. Is using e-cigarettes an alternative to smoking, or is it a type of smoking?
• "The argument for harm reduction does not take into account the adverse effects of nicotine."
• :This is nonsense and should definitely not be expressed in Wikivoice. We should not be directly stating in Wikivoice that the argument for reducing harm is clearly ignorant and wrong-headed.
• "There cannot be a defensible reason for harm reduction in children who are vaping with a base of nicotine."
• :This is opinionated judgmental nonsense that should not be expressed in Wikivoice. We should not be declaring the opinions of some people as impossible to defend. I'm sure there are some people who think that reducing the harmfulness of vaping for some children is worth considering when stopping them from doing it completely is not feasible. It is probably better than putting these children in prison, for example.
• "Quitting smoking is the most effective strategy to tobacco harm reduction."
• :Again this seems to be straying into advocacy, opinion or policy, and should not be expressed this way in Wikivoice. Quitting smoking is also not really a strategy. It is also not something easy to do or necessarily realistic for everyone.

Fixing all that will take some work, so I'm discussing it here. Some sources are cited in the paragraph to support these sentences. I haven't checked the sources, but I strongly suspect they are either not being accurately characterized or are not representative of a broad consensus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk)