Electronic cigarettes are sometimes marketed as an effective way for smokers to quit regular cigarettes. But new UCSF analysis of previous research finds that adults who vape are actually 28 percent less likely to quit smoking. Forum talks with one of the authors of the report and with the president of the American Vaping Association who disputes the findings.

Stanton Glantz, professor, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine
Gregory Conley, president, American Vaping Association, an advocacy group for e-cigarettes


    e-cigarettes are another fraud and crime committed on the American people and people of the World by the tobacco companies ,research shows that not only it does not reduce great number of addictions ,that it may at least as harmful as ordinary cigarettes.

    • Rob Heyes

      The tobacco industry is very late to the game, and lying about the harm isn’t particularly clever.

  • Ross

    I fail to the see relevance of this discussion. Many people dont use E-Cigarettes to try to quit smoking so why would they lead to people stopping smoking. Seems like a chance to complain about e-cigarettes. I guess I dont understand the premise.

  • SurrenderDorothy

    Ross, one reason is the recent Alameda ruling where e-cigarettes were not included in bans on public smoking “because people use them to quit smoking, so we don’t want to discourage that”.

    • Ross

      interesting. Are there studies on E-cigarette 2nd hand smoke. Ill admit i don’t know much about them.

      • Rob Heyes

        There’s no smoke, it’s vapour – but yes, there are studies – most of them don’t find any detectable levels of anything dangerous. Mind you pretty the same applies to first-hand vapour.

        • Ben

          It’s not really vapor either since the e-liquids never evaporate into a gas state but rather are only suspended in the air as an aerosol. So they are closer to particulate matter (like dust in the air) than a vapor.

  • Bill_Woods

    It was probably a mistake to adopt the name “e-cigarette” It … tars them with the same reputation as cigarettes, despite the advantages, e.g. no second-hand smoke, no carcinogens.

    • Ross

      If there is no second hand smoke why do ppl want to ban them?

    • SurrenderDorothy

      Actually, they do release some carcinogens, according to this recent study posted on npr.org: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/21/378663944/e-cigarettes-can-churn-out-high-levels-of-formaldehyde.

      • SurrenderDorothy

        But the main reason I hate them is they stink! The smell is just as bothersome as real cigarettes. I realize this is not a legal argument, like secondhand smoke. But if vapers somehow imagine that they are not pissing off everyone around them who is bothered by cigarette smoke, they are mistaken.

        • Ross

          huh, ive never smelled anything from one

          • SurrenderDorothy

            I believe you, but I certainly have. Perhaps they were smoking them differently.

        • Justin_a_lyesse

          I guess you must find the smell of vanilla ice cream and strawberries offensive. Or maybe Belgian waffles and mango is what disgusts you. Peaches and Cream? Just as bothersome as real cigarettes, huh? Maybe you should get your olfactory senses checked.

        • repace

          Make no mistake. Ecigs emit volatile organic compounds plus ultrafine particles and are uncontrolled substances, plus nicotine, none of which is safe for inhalation. The stink is the volatile organic chemicals. They all get absorbed either directly by the Vaper, or indirectly by the secondhand vaper. It’s not a regulated product, and many are products of some fly-by-night manufacturers in some polluted industrial city in China. Safe for human consumption?

    • SurrenderDorothy

      cute pun.

  • Robert Thomas

    How much more dangerous is e-cigarette vapor inhalation than is inhalation of the combustion products of medicinal cannabis?

    • Rob Heyes

      Since it doesn’t involve combustion it’s guaranteed to be vastly safer than medicinal cannabis.

  • Robert Thomas

    Professor Glantz’s arguments would be more persuasive if he weren’t also KQED’s go-to ideologue on the subject.

    • SurrenderDorothy

      Perhaps. Mr. Conley’s comments would be more persuasive if he didn’t keep using such unscientific terms as “people are lining up to” and “coming out of the woodwork”, instead of actual data.

  • JustJunkMail

    Stanton Glantz’s $400,000 funding from Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson’s private foundation RWJF http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/01/stanton-glantzs-400000-funding-from.html

  • Ralph

    Smoking is disgusting. Vaping isn’t less offensive really. Vaping is probably like sugar-free sweets. The addict is still spending and consuming. Still hooked and paying.

    • charlie

      Smoking a carton a week cost me $3,000 a year. I switched to vaping 15 months ago and mix my own e liquid at home. The cost for a year supply of that is $30 (thirty dollars). The money saved puts food on family tables and help put kids through college. You don’t need to thoughtlessly discouraging people from doing better for themselves and their families.

    • Rob Heyes

      Even if that were true, they’re at least 95% less harmful (although most of us know that the 95% is a vast underestimate), so it’s still a win for the former smoker.

  • bakerb

    What experts think of Glantz’ meta-analysis https://t.co/ClxOLDsNHX

  • Carol Denney

    Dr. Glantz’s expertise … is being held against him? E-cigarette proponents might want to make room for the man who literally wrote the textbook (or two) on how to parse and conduct studies in the discussion. I’m personally thankful KQED included someone who can speak with authority about the current science rather than shell out pointless anecdotal stories.

    • Rob Heyes

      He wrote the book on how to pay his mortgage.

  • Mjhmjh

    Whether Professor Glantz is right or not, his pomposity and superior attitude in dismissing the criticisms of his analysis by other medical experts (“silly”, “stupid” etc.) indicate defensiveness and incline me (a lifelong non-smoker) to think that his conclusions may be less valid than he asserts.

  • Agnes Villalpando

    There are numerous means to give up cigarette smoking, although nothing did for me personally, however, if you want to it is possible to. Begin by calling the quit line, not only will you’ll get somebody to coach you, they send you the patch for free. If you are huge cigarette smoker, be aware that a lot of studies have shown that cold turkey or using just the area fails – your human body is accustomed too much nicotine.

    It is possible to explore google for QUIT SMOKING PROGRAM CHARLES JACKSON to get the guide which we utilized to help with quitting smoking.

    You definitely put a brand new spin on a topic which has been written about for ages. Great stuff, just excellent!

    • Kiley Ann Davis

      Has anyone tried listening subliminal audios?
      Because I’m interested in finding out how they can help to quit smoking. I’d like to get CDs from sprudio.net again! They are great! Also the owner, Elena is very personable and understanding, and also answers questions. They also have free subliminal! Even better! What are your thoughts?


  • Annette H

    I want to see a study on how NRTs affect quitting rates cause having tried all of them I completely lacked any confidence in my ability to quit smoking. I bought an ecig thingy to keep in the cupboard for times when I couldn’t smoke and realised that I could actually quit smoking. That was a year ago and now I’m an exsmoker and totally delighted.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor