In conjunction with Dr. Eissenberg, Etter carried out a study looking at surveys of vapers (e-cig users, including those using nicotine-containing and non-nicotine e-cigs), ex-smokers now vaping, and ex-smokers now using nicotine gum (but no e-cigs). They were assessing nicotine dependence. They carried out a parallel study looking at dual fuellers (smokers who also vape) and compared them to smokers who do not vape.
The pair of researchers concluded that although vapers were dependent on the nicotine within electronic cigarettes, the addiction was far less than with traditional cigarettes. In fact, they declared the level of addiction was on par or less than that experienced when using nicotine gum...that is barely addictive.
If you are unaware of Professor Etter it is worth looking at his slides and watching his informative video from 2013:
Meanwhile Farsalinos, Romagna, Tsiapras, Kyrzopoulos and Voudris’s study titled “Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use” is highly topical – given the recent pseudoscience being bandied about by anti-vapers.
Looking at 19,441 subjects: 7,789 reported no side effects to vaping and 7,520 reported dry mouths being the worst side effect they experience. Only 631 respondents claimed their side effects didn’t go away with time – just 3% of vapers.
The overwhelming majority of people reported that their physical well being was improved after moving to vaping. Their sense of smell improved, they were more aware of flavours, sense of smell improved, breathing got easier and appetite remained the same or improved. People’s sexual performance, mood, memory and sleep quality was as before or got better. Subject’s endurance was reported as better by over 70% of respondents.
Regarding current medical conditions: improvements were noted for people suffering from diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, thyroid diseases, Coronary artery problems, asthma and COPD.
The team concluded: “in this large sample of dedicated EC users, it seems that ECs are used as long-term substitutes to smoking. They can be effective even in subjects who are highly dependent on smoking and are heavy smokers. Mild temporary side effects and significant benefits are reported by this population. Motivation for using ECs comes from their expected less harmful potential compared to smoking. The results should however be interpreted with caution considering the convenience sample of dedicated users usually participating in such surveys. More interventional and population studies are needed, which should take into consideration that every user has different preferences in terms of products choice, in order to further evaluate the effects of EC use at a population level.”