It had to be because they were looking for anything they could use to justify an indoor vaping ban....and found nothing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Provaping verse Antivaping
- Thread starter DeAnna2112
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It had to be because they were looking for anything they could use to justify an indoor vaping ban....and found nothing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well, the CDC took a look at MI/Substance abusers generally. They claim that MI/SA smokers are responsble for most of the market....
Given what I had to contend with just switching to vaping... There's a reason the MI smoke more than many others. I mean, the practically 90 degree turn my smoking took toward 2--3 ppd is proof enough of that. When I was manic, it only got worse... There were times in my life I smoked that next cigarette FOR the health effects, heh, I was like, "Okay, however many more minutes toward death...." I don't think I could possibly have vaped until I got stable and sober. It was still hard.
Here's a bit on Schizophrenia and what nicotine does to the brain:
http://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-...ders/articles/2008/smoking-and-schizophrenia/
I just skimmed it, but it does point to some interesting conclusions.
Personally, I think anyone who is MI and who has chronic pain in their life should be exempt from the negative effects of tobacco, but I sure am glad I can at least vape. One grandma lived to like 95, and had bouts of depression toward the end. She would "go get my treatment(s)" as she called them, which was a regular series of ECT treatments, (they worked). My other grandma died of althzheimers and so far I'm looking like a lot of my genotype came from that side of the pool. So I'm not insanely invested in quitting nicotine if it's neuroprotective for altzheimers. I imagine I'd be a simply dreadful patient, either at home or in a nursing home, don't want my family to go through that. I'm thinking my mom's developing althzheimers but not sure due to her penchant of habitual lying whenever possible... .then denying the lie. She seems pretty competent in other areas, so maybe its that
Either way, neuroprotection is a beautiful thing. And the numbers on Schizophrenia and other MI patients certainly support the idea of self-medicating. Quitting smoking for the MI has been... a thing in public mental health forever.... And various strategies were tried, but I was not part of them. When my boss headed down THAT road, I was like, "Mmm hmmmm mhhm, and I have credibility in this matter HOW?" Heh. She let it go and someone else is teaching the class... Win.
Anna
Given what I had to contend with just switching to vaping... There's a reason the MI smoke more than many others. I mean, the practically 90 degree turn my smoking took toward 2--3 ppd is proof enough of that. When I was manic, it only got worse... There were times in my life I smoked that next cigarette FOR the health effects, heh, I was like, "Okay, however many more minutes toward death...." I don't think I could possibly have vaped until I got stable and sober. It was still hard.
Here's a bit on Schizophrenia and what nicotine does to the brain:
http://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-...ders/articles/2008/smoking-and-schizophrenia/
I just skimmed it, but it does point to some interesting conclusions.
Personally, I think anyone who is MI and who has chronic pain in their life should be exempt from the negative effects of tobacco, but I sure am glad I can at least vape. One grandma lived to like 95, and had bouts of depression toward the end. She would "go get my treatment(s)" as she called them, which was a regular series of ECT treatments, (they worked). My other grandma died of althzheimers and so far I'm looking like a lot of my genotype came from that side of the pool. So I'm not insanely invested in quitting nicotine if it's neuroprotective for altzheimers. I imagine I'd be a simply dreadful patient, either at home or in a nursing home, don't want my family to go through that. I'm thinking my mom's developing althzheimers but not sure due to her penchant of habitual lying whenever possible... .then denying the lie. She seems pretty competent in other areas, so maybe its that
Either way, neuroprotection is a beautiful thing. And the numbers on Schizophrenia and other MI patients certainly support the idea of self-medicating. Quitting smoking for the MI has been... a thing in public mental health forever.... And various strategies were tried, but I was not part of them. When my boss headed down THAT road, I was like, "Mmm hmmmm mhhm, and I have credibility in this matter HOW?" Heh. She let it go and someone else is teaching the class... Win.
Anna
Perhaps Off-Topic. But worth reading none the less.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...co_Control_Plan_for_England_2017-2022__2_.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...co_Control_Plan_for_England_2017-2022__2_.pdf
I agree with you that it would be very nice to test this hypothesis (if it can even be dignified as such) as rigorously as possible. Truth is very hard to come by, and much of what seems intuitively obvious to us, even after careful observation and deep contemplation, can turn out to be very wrong when subjected to deeper scrutiny/better ways of understanding phenomena.
That said, I do not think that renders speculation along these lines useless (as long as it is understood that it is speculative,) for a couple of reasons:
1) (And this goes to why I mentioned schizophrenics, and really to my questions about how we define "health") I do not think that your question ([do] "smoking schizophrenics [do] better in illness and/or requir[e] less medication?") is the only relevant question. You don't define "doing better in illness," but I'd imagine many metrics you could choose here might miss aspects of what I would call "the pleasantness (or lack thereof) of subjective experience."
Some schizophrenics, absent some breakthrough, will never really be able to function well in society, and will always require some degree of assistance (if not occasional restraint.) It is tempting to measure "better in illness" solely by these metrics, as they are to some degree quantifiable. It is my opinion that it would be a mistake to use such as your sole metrics. Even for people whose outcomes, in that sense, are not improved by smoking I think we should ask how much they suffer, in the normal sense of suffering, as a result of their condition. This is difficult to measure (more on that later,) but I think it not inconsequential.
Changes in the amount of medication required are also a bit difficult to quantify, and not necessarily relevant, as it is possible that the optimal amount of other medications would not change, even in the face of improvements orthogonal to the effects of those medications. And of course it is _very_ difficult to know if the amount prescribed is the optimal amount, and there are huge ongoing arguments over this.
2) I think we are unlikely to see a lot of studies seriously exploring the potential health benefits of nicotine, and even more unlikely to see studies exploring benefits that are "purely psychic" benefits. I think the latter term exposes something of a false dichotomy, but I imagine you know what I mean.
3) It's pretty hard to find schizophrenics who don't smoke.. hard enough that I'd suspect a confounding factor.
In the face of these difficulties I will continue to speculate, and to speculatively draw tentative conclusions I know are both tentative and speculative. I will not allow my understanding of the world to be limited to what has been peer-reviewed, but I do hope that I will retain a sense of perspective that keeps me from drawing firm conlusions where I should not.
That said, when I see people self-medicating I assume that they derive some benefit from doing so. They might not derive a _net_ benefit over time, especially when the benefit is short-term, and the cost is long-term, but there must be some benefit, right?
That such a high percentage of schizophrenics smoke suggests to me that the benefit is particularly large for them (though I can think of alternative explanations.) I'm inclined to think (and this is indeed speculative) that the benefit they experience is not entirely different from the benefit that led the rest of us to smoke in the first place. And I am inclined to think that that benefit is not a benefit to be dismissed lightly.
What are we aiming at, when we aim at "improved health?" Greater longevity is one possible benefit, and I'll leave that one alone for the moment. But, that put aside, we aim at a better subjective experience of the world, don't we? We aim at feeling better. There are plenty of treatable conditions with an easy to find physical basis that will make me feel like hell, but won't shorten my life much. They are considered medical conditions.
So, what if using nicotine makes me feel less like hell than not using it does? What if using nicotine eases some of the discomfort that being alive necessarily entails, without dulling the enjoyment it entails? What if the reasons for this are related to the reasons that almost all schizophrenics smoke?
In other words, I'd not be surprised to find that nicotine itself helped with some physically defined syndromes like hypertension and Alzheimers, but I'm also inclined to think that it might, separated from its traditionally disastrous delivery mechanisms, significantly improve almost everyone's subjective experience of wellness. And, absent increases in life-span and mobility, isn't that the end-goal of most of the practice of medicine?
I'd tell everyone to vape if it weren't for the potential for dependence. I'm willing to buy vaping being less addictive than smoking, but that doesn't mean it doesn't lead to dependence.
I remember a study on quitting and how to help the MI (including schizophrenics) quit. That being said it was your typical quitting class, including nicotine replacement. The conclusions were that the MI do no better or worse quitting smoking but they ended it at the same time (free) nicotine replacement was no longer handed out. That's not quitting smoking, and relapse rates were high. Sigh. But, the MI can do it "like everyone else." i've seen schizophrenics switch to e-cigs though and the majority wished they knew about them. On my end (on a locked unit) *I* was able to vape, but clients could not. Half the staff had e-cigs so I had no problem showing them and explaining how they worked and lot of schizophrenics were interested too.... If we'd handed them a MTL device while they were locked up for a bit, with a couple bottles of juices, they would be thrilled to try then especially since their options are to not smoke/accept nicotine patches, whatever.
If BT were willing to consider that option for the mentally ill, they'd be doing them a favor. Or even better, an e-cig they can work with/continue vaping with.
Without TOBACCO but WITH nicotine I found the need to decrease several of my meds due to passing out relentlessly. Smoking makes a bit bite into the newere generation of anti-psychotics one of which I take. i had to cut that med by a third, tobacco and it metabolize along the same pathway(s) and now that I am vaping Quite Differently, well....
Also, some schizophrenics will get a med combination or med that just WORKS and do well, (Clozapine) unfortuntely it's kind of a horrendous soup of side-effects, including death like several ways. You have to get constant labwork to see if your white cells are functioning, and tons of other stuff. Most schizophrenics willing to take it do so only because it may give you a LIFE. But, there are some decent antipsychotics out there.... And yes meds will need adjusted....
Anna
If BT were willing to consider that option for the mentally ill, they'd be doing them a favor. Or even better, an e-cig they can work with/continue vaping with.
Without TOBACCO but WITH nicotine I found the need to decrease several of my meds due to passing out relentlessly. Smoking makes a bit bite into the newere generation of anti-psychotics one of which I take. i had to cut that med by a third, tobacco and it metabolize along the same pathway(s) and now that I am vaping Quite Differently, well....
Also, some schizophrenics will get a med combination or med that just WORKS and do well, (Clozapine) unfortuntely it's kind of a horrendous soup of side-effects, including death like several ways. You have to get constant labwork to see if your white cells are functioning, and tons of other stuff. Most schizophrenics willing to take it do so only because it may give you a LIFE. But, there are some decent antipsychotics out there.... And yes meds will need adjusted....
Anna
I think it might be worth asking why almost all schizophrenics are smokers before telling them they can quit "like everyone else." When I see people self-medicating I assume they derive some benefit from doing so. When I see >90% of people with a certain condition self-medicating with a particular drug I think I'm justified in asking "why is this so?" Forgive me if I think this an important question.
If I'm completely honest I have to say that I find this a bit difficult to parse. I do know what you mean though, I think.
Yeah, and I'm inclined to think that nicotine is often the stable rock in a sea of meds. Depriving people of it through various smoking policies seems cruel and capricious, to me.
Well, I'd like to have a why answer too, I'm not sure one exists. Reserchers are barely scratching the surface, as ot were. A recemt report indicted they had learned somethings bot it was "hardly complete and though useful preliminary data, far from a complete piture, only the first step.
Ann
Ann
Science.
Science works, when one follows the scientific method.
The first part is an idea.
Exploring that idea will or will not be deemed a worthy effort.
That's where funding comes in.
Who will fund it?
What is their agenda?
So you get funding if someone likes what you're trying to prove.
That's a problem right there.
Then there is the design of the study/experiment...
That's where you have to consider the population to be studied.
How to recruit.
Then you have to consider the methods you will employ to produce measurable results.
And the methods you will use to measure those results.
And the methods you will use to analyze those results.
All of these are places where bias can creep in, with or without your knowledge.
But in the end, science is science.
And when you provide ALL of the details of what you have done and how you have done it...
Others trained in the scientific method can review and critique...
And that's when the fun starts.
Rinse and repeat.
That's science.
Science works, when one follows the scientific method.
The first part is an idea.
Exploring that idea will or will not be deemed a worthy effort.
That's where funding comes in.
Who will fund it?
What is their agenda?
So you get funding if someone likes what you're trying to prove.
That's a problem right there.
Then there is the design of the study/experiment...
That's where you have to consider the population to be studied.
How to recruit.
Then you have to consider the methods you will employ to produce measurable results.
And the methods you will use to measure those results.
And the methods you will use to analyze those results.
All of these are places where bias can creep in, with or without your knowledge.
But in the end, science is science.
And when you provide ALL of the details of what you have done and how you have done it...
Others trained in the scientific method can review and critique...
And that's when the fun starts.
Rinse and repeat.
That's science.
And science works best when other researchers can reproduce your results. Folks sometimes miss that one, especially in rapidly advancing areas of research, or with lots of uncertainty as to the proper methods to employ.
For me, that's a biggie. If I can't reproduce a result, how can I possibly trust the data presented?
Deanna one more thought for you the reason the provspe studies as you call them might not say anything bad is in there test they might not have found anything bad. I'm not saying I disagree with you just under their test conditions nothing bad showed up or if something bad did show up could not be repeated. I don't trust and research I read the test results for myself then drawn my own conclusions if they don't show their test results I read their conclusions with a grain of salt.
I agree maybe there is nothing to report...least i don't think so either. I love vaping and feel confident i am practicing a safe practice overall. I still keep my eyes open because i have no doubt there are ways we can make it even safer as things are popping up here and there, but it's fixable so far. Talking about diketones and high temps. I just wish we had better research but vaping is still in it's early stage. See what BT did to some of us, least me, i have a hard time trusting...but i will vape on because as of now i have seen nothing that concerns me.
Harm reduction is getting rid of the tars and carcinogens present in tobacco. Vaping does that. Vape juice is nicotine, flavors, and pg/vg mix.
Nic is the only suspect and it's not much of a risk to the body from what I've read. Flavors are ingested every day in food and drink. Propylene Glycol, along with Polyethylene Glycol is in my over the counter eye drops. It's also in hundreds of things I drink, eat, and rub on my skin. PG is vaporized every day, mixed with medications, and introduced as a fog into the lungs of hospital patients to help their lungs heal.
I've quoted all this several times, but it's worth repeating. The only thing that might be questionable is the nicotine, but whatever replaces tobacco with its tar and all its other dangers is a good thing. Reasonable levels of nic in our vape doesn't kill. It prevents us from using something that does.
Nic is the only suspect and it's not much of a risk to the body from what I've read. Flavors are ingested every day in food and drink. Propylene Glycol, along with Polyethylene Glycol is in my over the counter eye drops. It's also in hundreds of things I drink, eat, and rub on my skin. PG is vaporized every day, mixed with medications, and introduced as a fog into the lungs of hospital patients to help their lungs heal.
I've quoted all this several times, but it's worth repeating. The only thing that might be questionable is the nicotine, but whatever replaces tobacco with its tar and all its other dangers is a good thing. Reasonable levels of nic in our vape doesn't kill. It prevents us from using something that does.
Last edited:
I was just sitting here thinking about some things. Everyone talks about long term problems but I feel we have better good data right now. Most people on here report vast improvements in health, now this could be because of quitting smoking but if vaping was doing harm I think your health would not get better as fast as some are reporting. Not saying some other health problem won't show up but if vaping was bad for your lungs, then already damaged lungs wouldn't get better. The same thing can be said for anything that smoking affects you can't do something bad to a damaged body and expect it to heal so in my opinion I don't believe they are ever going to find vaping is bad for you related to smoking health problems.
I like that idea, medleypat, and it is being increasingly supported that vaping is better for lung health. There is the issue of nicotine remaining, with some studies reporting more risk than others, and there's also been health benefits shown for nicotine itself. But, it's very hard to isolate, as since I was smoking 2.5 ppd, even if vaping were only half that harmful (which I'm not saying, agglomerated, folks seem to be saying it's a huge reduction of risk) I think I would have noted improvements, because my smoking was so out of control. With that said, I wouldn't be vaping if I didn't think it had health benefits I could tangibly notice. Also, and this is a big one, vaping is really about harm *reduction* for me, not harm *elimination*. I accept that vaping could be bad for my cardiovascular system. How bad? We aren't going to know for sure until long-term data arrives.... The same kind of time frame that was needed for cigarettes to show harm, type of long term.
In the short term, I can certainly say that vaping stopped me from smoking, and if I keel over dead from vaping at some point due to nicotine use, I can accept that risk, compared to the KNOWN and SEVERE risks of smoking, which pretty much ruined any quality of life I had in the last 18 months of smoking. IF vaping had not been available, however, I am *fairly* certain that I wouldn't have been successful with any other method, I tried most of them...
Anna
In the short term, I can certainly say that vaping stopped me from smoking, and if I keel over dead from vaping at some point due to nicotine use, I can accept that risk, compared to the KNOWN and SEVERE risks of smoking, which pretty much ruined any quality of life I had in the last 18 months of smoking. IF vaping had not been available, however, I am *fairly* certain that I wouldn't have been successful with any other method, I tried most of them...
Anna
But you would agree that there is a Substantial Difference between Ingesting Flavoring and Artificial Sweeteners in Foods/Drinks than heating them and then putting them Directly into your Lungs. Especially at the Amounts that some people do per day.
Right?
- Status
Similar threads
