For several years now, there has been an ongoing public debate focused on the differences between vaping and smoking, and whether one is superior to the other. That argument has been complicated by confusing media reports, unsubstantiated allegations of potential vaping risks, and proclamations by government officials who have been increasingly frustrated by their inability to access a larger slice of the revenue the new vaping industry generates each year. Consumers, however, deserve a more objective overview of the subject, free from the hype and dissemination. So, when it comes the vaping versus smoking debate, is there a clear cut winner?
You may hear media types and government officials railing about how they believe vaping to be perhaps more dangerous than tobacco products. But consider this: one of the most lethal characteristics of tobacco cigarettes is the fact that they contain tar. That tar consists of a variety of chemicals – carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, for example that enter the body and settle into the lungs. There, the substance kills lung cells and causes other damage over time. Tar can be a contributing factor in the development of emphysema, lung cancer, and other bodily ailments.
Vaping produces no tar. None. That is just one reason why studies like those conducted by Public Health England last August have demonstrated that vaping is as much as 95% safer than combustible cigarettes. And while some might scoff at studies like that, or question the source of the researcher’s funding, the fact is that the tobacco lobby had nothing to do with that study. Instead, it was funded by the UK’s own Department of Health, and clearly contended that vaping is much safer than smoking.
The simple fact is that vaping is used to quit smoking and according to the experts it’s the most sensible option, so any debate against electronic cigarettes is based on the fact that governments around the world are losing money, and they are not happy.
Most people are already aware of the fact that traditional cigarettes used in smoking contain hundreds of chemicals, many of which are documented to be unhealthy for human consumption. That clear fact has been latched onto by many vaping critics, who have insisted that vaping must involve similar levels of harmful substances. They have no evidence to that effect, of course, but their agenda is obviously more important to them than anything the facts might suggest.
And what do those facts suggest? Well, the fact is that there are four ingredients used in every e-juice recipe. Those ingredients include vegetable glycerin (VG) and/or propylene glycol (PG) – each of which can serve as the base for any juice mixture, some type of food-grade additive used for flavor, and nicotine. None of those four substances have ever been shown to be cancer-causing agents. None of them have ever been demonstrated to be harmful when inhaled as vapor. The most that anyone can say about any of these ingredients is that some people might be allergic to propylene glycol, and nicotine could be addictive.
Meanwhile, tobacco smoke contains carcinogens that cause cancer, damages your respiratory system, can lead to heart complications, and could even kill you. None of those dangers are present with vaping. As a result, vaping is superior to smoking when it comes to the potential for inhaling harmful chemicals.
Finally, there is the issue of cost. While official studies haven’t really focused on whether there is any difference in the financial costs associated with smoking and vaping, that may simply be due to the fact that the answer is so obvious. For an average smoker who uses a pack of cigarettes each day, the cost savings realized by switching to the relatively expensive disposable e-cigarettes could amount to more than $1,200 a year. Serious vapers can actually get their overall vaping cost down to less than $700 a year, which is substantially lower than the more than $2,500 the average smoker ends up paying annually.
That is a clear advantage for vaping enthusiasts, as they can save between $1,200 and $2,000 a year simply by choosing to vape rather than smoking. And for those who use vaping as a smoking cessation option, those tremendous cost savings will increase even more once former smokers eventually reach the point where they have ended their vaping habit as well.
Obviously, the debate will no doubt continue for some time. Many of the interests standing in opposition to the vaping industry have their own agendas to pursue, and that has made them resistant even to the most clearly presented facts and scientific evidence. Still, even this cursory examination of vaping versus smoking reveals that vaping is clearly a safer and superior option.