Discouraging Nonsmokers from Vaping

[MrKai]

Anyone encouraging non-smokers to take up vaping for any reason at this stage of the game is destructive.

Seriously. "Politics" and "freedoms" aside...it is the EXACT kind of thing that you do when you want to be sure you lose a fight.

It has nothing to do with "freedom of adults to blah blah"...or "relatively harmless"...or any of the myriad quasi-revolutionary or pure fantasy views.

The idea is to play to win...to use the weaknesses of the enemy against them...and in this game, I would say that folks here were *well played*.

More than a couple people said "smells like a troll" and all I will say is...do NOT be surprised if this thread come back to haunt in a sensationalist PR about "e-cigarette peddlers and addicts wish to get more people hooked...just like Big tobacco"...because it is right here in "black and white".

And when that argument begins, it will be un-winnable. Parallels will be drawn that put us on the defensive end of the argument...just wrong on so many levels, strategically.

It is like I have to tell a friend of mine: Every fight isn't a battle; every war isn't Armageddon and every issue does not need to have a political agenda.
The point is to win. Every move must be towards that end.

This position, this "everyone should do it" position, is not a winning move.

 

[Thulium]

I must confess that I am troubled by the myriad of posts on the forum regarding the benefits of nicotine via the PV as a mood smoother, thought clarifier, energy boosting, anxiety reducing, weight loss accelerator, and COPD/Emphysema panacea.

Why? If slowly breathing flavored vapor gives you any of these effects, is there a strong reason why anyone shouldn't use them?

If: The host of mental illness studies are true and the sufferers are "self-medicating"...

If alcohol in moderation actually improves your health...

Then: There are a host of individuals that require help in daily functioning using these products...

Then there are many people who could benefit from alcohol use in moderation.

Rather than: Individuals exercising free choice in recreation by simply using a perceived healthier smoking alternative.

Rather than individuals exercising free choice in recreation by simply using alcohol in moderation rather than to excess.

Health claims of smoking cessation got the PV in trouble...how will these new health claims play out in the general public without someone alledging "unfounded" remains to be seen.

Health claims that alcohol used in moderation are the exuses that many alcoholics use to justify their destructive lifestyle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true that anything in moderation can have health benefits that can be overshadowed by the hazards of abuse.

Likewise, there are plenty of doctors who can tell you the benefits of nicotine usage. It's only in the last few decades as cancer is now better understood and so often linked to tobacco products that efforts to demonize smoking have began in earnest.

But groups like ASH have lost the plot. Out of care and concern for people who were unable or unwilling to stop smoking when the health hazards of tobacco were uncovered, anti-smoking groups were acting in kindness trying to discourage smoking by attempting to show how distasteful smoking can be. However, when ASH forgot that it is smoke that is the enemy, not tobacco and certainly not nicotine (you know nicotine? its the active ingredient in medicines) and not the act of looking cool as visible air makes an artful exit from your body. So when you can extract the benefits of nicotine without the hazards of smoke, as long as you are mindful of the potential hazards (if any), everyone should have the right to make an informed choice. Likewise, if you can have the enjoyment of breathing flavored visible mist without the dangers from combustion smoke--the rewards can outweigh the risks, even from people who are not getting the "benefit" of aid smoking cessation.

It is a slippery slope....

It is also a slippery slope to say that e-cigarettes are only for people who are already addicted to smoking or nicotine, because that means that the ONLY intended use for e-cigarettes is smoking cessation and therefore they are a medical device like the FDA is arguing.

E-cigarettes are for ANYONE who would like a safer and more effective smoking replacement: And that includes people who would not or have not smoked before. You don't have to be a nicotine addict to want an activity that replaces the enjoyment of smoking.

 

[ladyraj]

You're trying to politicize the issue, and goes to show just how the anti-tobacco activist have been successful in demonizing all nicotine use. You have to think out-side the box a bit. I'll post it again reduced harm tobacco web site

The fact is that nicotine does have benefits for many people. For those of us that use nicotine for therapeutic reasons politics is secondary. If you're going to limit yourself to what ASH may or may not approve of you have already lost the battle.

You missed my point. I apologize let me clarify:

Nicotine is already politcized. I've been lobbying FOR the harm reduction theory for years. I am a smoker and vaporer. I could care less what ASH approves/disapproves of except for the fact that whatever their lobby arguments are...I have to disprove. Thus I check the website daily for the latest to debunk. Will any ANTI or alphabet group not be incensed to read the medical cure-all touted by e-cigs sellers/users is nicotine?

Of course there are benefits to nicotine but as the saying goes...the dose decides the poison. On this very forum are allegations that vaporers have overdosed on nicotine....groups have bought into that and it has since been fought long and hard.

This bears repeating: Our e-cigs are in danger because of health claims made by suppliers. Shall we now add more fodder for the funeral pyre?

In closing I'll leave you with this post by a member:

"Not a Smoker, but new to vaping!"
Hey everyone! I just wanted to stop by and say HI formally! I just thought a few people might find it interesting that i am not a tobacco addict like most who start vaping are. I do however smoke when i go out drinking or during social events but I've never really felt the cravings for a smoke like everyone else does. I do however enjoy smoking socially and when i heard about vaping i went into research mode!

I recently ordered my joye 510 and it should be arriving today or tomorrow! I am kind of interested in discovering if i start to feel cravings with vaping. I started off with low/med lvls of juice though i did consider starting with the highest i could find just to see if it would cause nic cravings but to be honest only part of this is in the name of scientific discovery! The other part is just me having a safe thing to smoke without nicotine in it when i go out drinking! I will be posting my findings on nic cavings here in the nicotine forums so if your interested keep an eye out there.

See you guys around
-Lucid

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...279-not-smoker-but-new-vaping.html#post662254

I don't know about you but I have varied emotions when confronted with a post such as this...and aiding experimentation is not one of them.

 

[Thulium]

Anyone encouraging non-smokers to take up vaping for any reason at this stage of the game is destructive.

Kai, I do respect you so I hope you'll excuse my playing "Devil's Thadvocate" here.

Seriously. "Politics" and "freedoms" aside...it is the EXACT kind of thing that you do when you want to be sure you lose a fight.

It has nothing to do with "freedom of adults to blah blah"...or "relatively harmless"...or any of the myriad quasi-revolutionary or pure fantasy views.

The idea is to play to win...to use the weaknesses of the enemy against them...and in this game, I would say that folks here were *well played*.

This is a fantastic point. Sometimes when you have an ignorant enemy the best strategic move is to meet them at their level.

However, I have an alternate view: Instead of bowing to the AsSHats, lets educate them. Rather than giving into the claim that e-cigarettes are only for medical purposes, lets stick to our guns and say that every person has the right to choose a safer and more effective smoking replacement.

You don't have to be a smoker to enjoy jelly beans, but you do have the choice to replace smoking with jelly beans if that is safer and more effective for you.

You don't have to have something stuck in your teeth to use a toothpick, but you do have the choice to chew on a toothpick to ease your cravings for a cigarette.

You don't have to use nicotine to enjoy flavored vapor from an e-cigarette, but you do have the choice to use safer vapor and nicotine to make it a more effective smoking replacement.

More than a couple people said "smells like a troll" and all I will say is...do NOT be surprised if this thread come back to haunt in a sensationalist PR about "e-cigarette peddlers and addicts wish to get more people hooked...just like Big Tobacco"...because it is right here in "black and white".

True, so its important that we get it right.

And when that argument begins, it will be un-winnable. Parallels will be drawn that put us on the defensive end of the argument...just wrong on so many levels, strategically.

Not if we maintain the moral high ground and remain consistent. "er...uh..yes it does help you quit smoking...er...it's not a medical device...but...er..yeah...only people who need it for medical reasons should use it...but..er...its a tobacco product...but..er...no, there's not really any tobacco in it....but yes it functions like a tobacco product....but no we don't want to be stuck using it in smoking areas...."

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. Instead, lets have the winning argument in our back pocket. Let the FDA come into this thread and see the TRUTH:

When you use an e-cigarette you are not smoking, therefore they can be used with nicotine as a smoking cessation aid.
E-cigarettes can be used without nicotine to their full and intended use.
E-cigarettes can be used with or without nicotine by people who have never smoked cigarettes because you don't have to be a smoker to enjoy flavored vapor.
The potential benefits of nicotine use are NOT limited to treating nicotine addiction, therefore nicotine addicts are not the only people who will choose to use it.

It is like I have to tell a friend of mine: Every fight isn't a battle; every war isn't Armageddon and every issue does not need to have a political agenda.
The point is to win. Every move must be towards that end.

This position, this "everyone should do it" position, is not a winning move.

Who is saying that everyone should do it??? There's a big difference between "anyone" and "everyone".

My position is not that "everyone should do it", my position is that "everyone should be allowed to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements" because anyone--not just nicotine addicts--can enjoy the benefits of flavored vapor. Many people--not just nicotine addicts--can enjoy the benefits of nicotine enough to justify the minimized risks*.


*There are still risks involved with any nicotine usage as follows:
1. Potential for addiction: Minimized by the lack of MAOI inhibitors.
2. Potential for overdose: Minimized by reasonable safety precautions.
3. Potential carcinogens: Minimized by reducing TSNA's where possible.

 

[ladyraj]

Thulium, respectfully, I will debate the benefits of nicotine without the obsfucation of alcohol because it has it's own merits. It is the method of delivery the alphabet groups are declaring "untested" and "unproven". What is our reply to these allegations...well, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. This is sufficient to lobby groups to rethink the anti-nicotine via PV stance but does nothing to demonstrate scientific credibility. The anecdotal evidence is the beginning hypothesis and nicotine studies are the historical background. Thus we are in the beginning phase of this thing.

All adults are free to suck whatever they want from a tube, I exercise that choice regularly. I enjoy benefits from my experience. If others want to start this novel endeavor...let them buy it and we'll help the individual with any problems. But I reserve the right to inquire why any yahoo would want the expense and the finicky gear to begin sucking stuff thru a tube before a purchase. Let them buy one via the search function from the myriad of outlets and threads on the internet and not make me a part of the decision. Yea or Nay. It's the nature of my past employment as a psychotherapist. We always wonder why.

To all: CASAA needs your votes...VocaleK, Thulium, Mr Kai, and myself are nominees and there are a bunch of really great people waiting to serve on the board!

 

[ladyraj]

Thulium...TRUTH has been copyrighted by the Legacy Foundation for their campaign.

The FDA will not come to this forum except as individuals out of curiosity, not scientific information.

The FDA found nicotine in 0-nic cartridges.

ASH USA's stance on the e-cig is rabid:
4dangers

 

[Thulium]

Thulium, respectfully, I will debate the benefits of nicotine without the obsfucation of alcohol because it has it's own merits. It is the method of delivery the alphabet groups are declaring "untested" and "unproven". What is our reply to these allegations...well, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. This is sufficient to lobby groups to rethink the anti-nicotine via PV stance but does nothing to demonstrate scientific credibility. The anecdotal evidence is the beginning hypothesis and nicotine studies are the historical background. Thus we are in the beginning phase of this thing.

ladyraj, you are right. I used alcohol as an example because it is a substance where the risks and benefits are well documented. The benefits of tobacco and nicotine enjoyment are also documented, but they have been drowned by the anti-smoking furor of the past few decades.

The point is that anti-smoking groups are scared of e-cigarettes because they are forgetting what it is they are really fighting and we are taking away their scare tactics. Its not going to work to show people coughing up bits of blackened lung if there is an option that doesn't fill your lungs with carbon. They're scared of us trying to sell to kids because they can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't. (For the record, "its not legal" is good enough reason for me...but its about the only reason I got left.)

All adults are free to suck whatever they want from a tube, I exercise that choice regularly. I enjoy benefits from my experience. If others want to start this novel endeavor...let them buy it and we'll help the individual with any problems. But I reserve the right to inquire why any yahoo would want the expense and the finicky gear to begin sucking stuff thru a tube before a purchase. Let them buy one via the search function from the myriad of outlets and threads on the internet and not make me a part of the decision. Yea or Nay. It's the nature of my past employment as a psychotherapist. We always wonder why.

You can reserve the right to inquire, but I can give you the answer right now: People like to breath colored and/or flavored air.

Generally, my recommendation to anyone would be to use less nicotine rather than more whenever possible if for no other reason than to cut down on TSNA. However, there are documented benefits from nicotine use and the right to choose products containing nicotine is and should be protected.

To all: CASAA needs your votes...VocaleK, Thulium, Mr Kai, and myself are nominees and there are a bunch of really great people waiting to serve on the board!

Thanks, ladyraj! I voted for you, VocaleK, and Mr Kai also. Good luck to all the nominees!

 

[Thulium]

Thulium...TRUTH has been copyrighted by the Legacy Foundation for their campaign.

Oops. My bad. I forgot.

The FDA will not come to this forum except as individuals out of curiosity, not scientific information.

No kidding. They can't even pull scientific information out of their own scientific studies.

The FDA found tobacco specific carcinogens and nicotine in 0-nic cartridges.

Correction: FDA found trace amounts of TSNAs in cartridges that contained nicotine. One cartridge labeled as "0-nic" actually had nicotine, but it is unclear from the study if the sample was tainted, the experiment was flawed, or if a true indicator of quality control was at issue.

The only legitimate conclusion that can be made from these data is that further testing is needed.

ASH USA's stance on the e-cig is rabid:
4dangers

Yeah. I'm not a fan of the ASH-holes either. But that was my point: They started as people genuinely concerned about the health of loved ones, but they got so angry at the world for their loss that they forgot what they're really fighting: the dangers of smoke. The name of their organization is "Action on Smoking and Health"--which would have been the name for CASAA if they hadn't already taken it. ...For that matter, we wouldn't need to form CASAA if ASH had simply done what they set out to do.

Instead, we are left to take Action on Smoking and Health by defending the right to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements from the ignorance of organizations like ASH. Seriously, shouldn't it be Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and anti-smoking organizations that are pushing e-cigarettes as a safer and more effective replacement for smoking?!? It's like the electric companies, manufacturers, and environmental protection agencies trying to eliminate the electric car! ...but since that happened too, I guess we shouldn't be surprised anymore.

 

[Stubby]

Of course there are benefits to nicotine but as the saying goes...the dose decides the poison. On this very forum are allegations that vaporers have overdosed on nicotine....groups have bought into that and it has since been fought long and hard.

This bears repeating: Our e-cigs are in danger because of health claims made by suppliers. Shall we now add more fodder for the funeral pyre?

.

First off, I appreciate you long efforts in regard to reduced harm. Much needed and appreciated.

I do understand what you're saying. No one is advocating that suppliers advertise the positive effects of nicotine as that truly would be political suicidal (although true from a science point of view). The unfounded claims made by suppliers was a hugh mistake, and should never have been done. China pushed e-cigs on the market prematurely, with a complete disregard for US regulations, and quick buck suppliers jumped on the band-wagon. The whole introduction of e-cigs was a tragic comedy of errors. Lets hope the price isn't to high.

I had assumed the discussion had moved on a bit. The fact is nicotine does have a positive effect for many people. It's unfortunate that this isn't widely known. There is a movement a-foot to start giving quit-smoking drugs to mentally ill people to try and get them to quit smoking. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides the negative effects of the drugs, without their nicotine things will likely get very bad for these people. If these issues can't be openly discussed on the forum it would greatly degrade it.

 

[ladyraj]

Good points Stubby!

 

[trs-80]

The fact is nicotine does have a positive effect for many people. It's unfortunate that this isn't widely known. There is a movement a-foot to start giving quit-smoking drugs to mentally ill people to try and get them to quit smoking. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides the negative effects of the drugs, without their nicotine things will likely get very bad for these people. If these issues can't be openly discussed on the forum it would greatly degrade it.

Ritalin Sucks

 

[trs-80]

ps : the gateway thing-bs. being hooked on cigs in elem school The idea of "real" drugs scared the hell out of me. Too bad they didn't have less lethal smokes back then. If "they" are adults it is there business though I discourage it. If hyper etc maybe we should say see your doc for advice on alternatives to ritalin (or whatever) .

 

[hifistud]

If someone is considering taking their first drag of an e-cig, their first cup of espresso, their first shot of scotch - ought not the advice to be the same?

Why should the e-cig be singled out from the booze and the caffeine? They are each as bad as the other/good as the other depending on usage.

In each case the answer to the question "WHY?" can be:

I like the flavour
I like the effect
I like looking "cool" (matter of opinion, but hey!)
I just want to try it
My friends all do it.

In no case is the substance being imbibed completely benign - indeed, their effects are all pretty much on the same level at similar levels of usage, and each is habit forming, and has withdrawal symptoms.

So, go on - why single e-cigs out?

Yet again, e-cig usage is being conflated with smoking tobacco - and it patently is NOT the same - indeed, it's an entirely different beast, as we know. There is no point in running scared of ASH or any other organisation - and there is no point in buying into their hysteria over a cylindrical object being sucked upon and visually smoke-like substance being exhaled.

As I said before, do we advise non-drinkers not to start drinking alcohol-free but beery tastng beverages? We do not.

Do we advise non coffee-drinkers to not even drink decaff?? We do not

So why do some folks think we should advise non-smokers not even to use nicotine-free carts on e-cigs?

It makes no sense.

 

[hxj]

If we'd all gotten our nicotine fixes from a beverage - let's call it cottee - in the same way as we get caffeine fixes from coffee, then nicotine usage would be as socially acceptable as a drinking coffee. After all, no-one ever advises against someone having a beer, or a non-drinker having a Kaliber (UK non-alcoholic beer) in case they become hooked on the taste, can't get it, and then buy a proper beer.

This is actually a really good point. I vape exclusively zero-nic liquids, the only beer I drink is Kaliber, the only coffee I drink is decaf. Nobody tells me that drinking decaf is going to lead me back to my caffeine habit days (32 oz travel mugs full of espresso, bowls of Vivarin on the table). And there's even a small amount of caffeine in decaf coffee, just as there's a negligible amount of alcohol in Kaliber-- but zero-nic liquids made without tobacco derivatives are truly ZERO-nic, unless mislabeled.

Really, the only reason I would recommend a non-smoker not to start vaping zero-nic liquids is because of the potential short- and long-term health effects, say from PG sensitivity (which I have, and how) or the unknown effects of inhaling various flavourings. Well, and the cost. I certainly wouldn't be concerned that it would start them down the road to cigarette use-- that just strikes me as unfathomable. Why switch to something more expensive, worse for you, and awful-tasting?

 

[tmbrown327]

Those analogies are different due to the nature of addiction. Nicotine is generally regarded as addictive, not merely habit forming. Caffeine and alcohol can be abused and brought to the same end result, but, as far as I know, they are not generally regarded as an addictive substance.

The other point, made previously, is we are at the beginning of this practice. If we (as a vaping community) can be pointed to and shown to be encouraging non-smokers to go ahead and possibly develop a dependency on nicotine (like most of us previous smokers did), then we could be said to be pushers (true or not, perception is what perception is).

If and when it becomes recognized that this is a generally benign addiction, then we could safely provide information to those people without harming the progress of this practice. As it is now, we don't need any more downside to the already overwhelming resistance to what we know (logically) is a better alternative to smoking.

 

[Vocalek]

The other point, made previously, is we are at the beginning of this practice. If we (as a vaping community) can be pointed to and shown to be encouraging non-smokers to go ahead and possibly develop a dependency on nicotine (like most of us previous smokers did), then we could be said to be pushers (true or not, perception is what perception is).

There is a world of difference between actively encouraging some action versus refraining from discouraging that action.

There is a middle ground, and that's where I suggest we go. It's called taking a neutral stance. This stance involves being willing to set aside our fears and keep all our transactions on a factual, adult-to-adult basis.

I think we can safely assume that 99.999% of visitors to our forum have heard that nicotine is addictive and that tobacco smoking has a lot of negative effects on health. So there is really no need to say, in effect, "Why the heck do you want to become addicted?"

On the other hand, that same visitor may be under the mistaken impression that inhaling PG or VG is absolutely safe. It is not unreasonable to politely point out that there might be potential risks (we just don't know) and that this potential for risk needs to be weighed against any benefits they hope to obtain.

 

[ladyraj]

RJR meet Glaxo to make new improved "acceptable" means of feeding those nicotinic receptors:

LONDON (Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK.L) aims to harness the positive effects of nicotine through a drug development alliance potentially worth more than $1.5 billion with U.S. biotech firm Targacept Inc. (TRGT.O).

Shares in Targacept, which was spun out of the research arm of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco in 2000, jumped 14 percent to $10.25 in early trade on the Nasdaq on Friday after the two companies unveiled the deal.

Glaxo, Targacept sign $1.5 bln nicotine drug deal | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

For more info:

Targacept: Targeting Neuronal Nicotinic Receptors NNRs

 

[Vocalek]

"...the key to their successful development as drugs is making them highly specific, so they do not cause unwanted side effects."

Also, if they are specific enough, we will need a different Rx for the nicotine-based drug that effectively treats our anxiety, and the one that treats our ADD, and the one that prevents the Lewy Bodies from building up in our brain (Parkinson's), etc. etc., at a cost of $300+ per month, per drug.

Buy a plot of land and start growing your own tobacco.

 

[Vocalek]

Just found this list of conditions/planned solutions in the "pipeline":

Targacept: Biopharmaceutical Company - Product Pipeline

I rest my case.

 

[hifistud]

Those analogies are different due to the nature of addiction. Nicotine is generally regarded as addictive, not merely habit forming. Caffeine and alcohol can be abused and brought to the same end result, but, as far as I know, they are not generally regarded as an addictive substance.

As far as I'm aware, any substance which, when habitually used, and then abstained completely from generates withdrawal symptoms is generally recognised as being addictive - and I think I'm safe in saying that applies to both caffeine and alcohol.

The other point, made previously, is we are at the beginning of this practice. If we (as a vaping community) can be pointed to and shown to be encouraging non-smokers to go ahead and possibly develop a dependency on nicotine (like most of us previous smokers did), then we could be said to be pushers (true or not, perception is what perception is).

I don't think anyone has suggested that our hypothetical never-smokers use a nicotine bearing juice.

If and when it becomes recognized that this is a generally benign addiction, then we could safely provide information to those people without harming the progress of this practice. As it is now, we don't need any more downside to the already overwhelming resistance to what we know (logically) is a better alternative to smoking.

There is already research evidence to suggest that nicotine alone is far less addictive than nicotine-bearing tobacco smoke, and, as we see, research into therapeutic uses of nicotine in certain syndromes. I'd suggest that puts nicotine ahead of the pack vis a vis caffeine and alcohol.

All that aside, though, if my (hypothetical) offspring were to approach me and say "Dad, I'm thinking of starting smoking", I'd be GIVING them a 901 and some zero nic carts PDQ - and getting them studded in sequins with sky blue pink LEDs and gold plated mouthpieces. Anything to keep 'em off cancer sticks.