Do you have energy to defend your VP?

[jpargana]

Smoke/alcohol may be what was killing us. But nicotine isn't exactly good for us either. It has negative health effects as well.

It surely does; I'm not naive to the point of thinking that is 100% safe (and I think it's wrong to tell people 'Oh, it's only water vapour'... when you are caught in a lie, anyone will wonder what else you may be lying about...) I think safer is the keyword here. Are smokers dying from nicotine-specific problems more than they are dying from cancer ?

All that matters is: are we healthier? I would say yes.

Absolutely yes!! I can feel it!

Will be stay healthier? WE DON'T KNOW. no one knows. vaping is new.

Will we stay healthier if we keep smoking? tobacco is old, and we all know the answer to that... you see, if we keep calling ourselves smokers, people will react to an e-cig the same way they already react to a cigarette. I think the worst misinformation we can give misinformed people is this: 'An e-cig is nothing more than a fancy, hight-tech cancer stick'. That is by far the worst thing we can do to ourselves, if we want to see the e-cig widely accepted - or at least, not with so much the bad reputation that tobacco cigarettes deserve - and rightly so.

Either way, I haven't bought a pack of smokes in two months and that, in and of itself is saying something.

Congratulations, my friend... If you are already 2 months into it, you problably will never resort to analogs again!

(And, I do not want to tease you or anything, but it may well be saying something... that maybe you can, I dunno, IMHO, be called an ex-smoker...)

 

[D4rk50ul]

That is actually what my doctor told me and ill personally believe that before anything else. I'm sorry if u disagree but actually look at the facts. They're looking at using nicotine in drugs to help with parkinson's Alzheimers and several other ailments.... check it it's true I believe my doctor before i believe anything anyone here has to say.

I do NOT disagree with the fact that it's perfectly safe CAFFEINE is not perfectly safe... BUT MY statement was infact accurate
Nicotine and addiction. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)
The effects of nicotine itself are similar to that other popular drug, caffeine. See our (nicotine reading list.) There is no evidence that nicotine causes any substantial risk for cancer, and the research shows that the risk for cardiovascular disease is minimal. The confusion about nicotine comes from anti-smoking activists talking about nicotine and smoking as if they were the same. While it is true that people smoke mostly because of nicotine; nicotine users die mostly because of the smoke.

Neither nicotine nor coffee are completely benign (in particular, both cause a short-term increase in your blood pressure and pulse rate when you use them, which could affect your health). A lot of evidence shows that coffee drinking causes very little health risk. Studying nicotine is a bit harder, because most nicotine users smoke, and the smoking is quite bad for you. But there is some good evidence: If nicotine were very bad for you then smokeless tobacco, which provides nicotine, would be very bad for you. As we've shown elsewhere, that is not the case.

Though nicotine is relatively safe for most individuals, it may have a negative effect on fetal development and as such should be avoided during pregnancy.

There is no evidence either way because the studies were always conducted on users of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. The truth is EVERYONE is scrambling to figure out what nicotine does now that there is more ways to introduce it into your body. I just read about 20 different reports and all of them are based on theory, not fact.

Also keep in mind that when using something to treat a terminal illness, the treatment itself is usually not without risks. Even then it's not proven yet, its in a pre-clinical state and is still based on preliminary tests and theory.

The fact is NO ONE knows for sure and claiming to be knowledgeable about it because we can read websites is ludicrous.

Here's a few things I think we are safe to say because of this forum and the information found on it.

1. Using a PV is safer than smoking a traditional cigarette, mainly because e-juice contains far less chemicals and is not ignited.

2. Many people have quit with little problem using a PV and report feeling much healthier

3. I quit or reduced my intake of traditional cigarettes by using this device, and I feel _____ since using it

Those to me are KNOWN facts about this method of nicotine delivery, not a theory or speculation. I think honesty and realistic statements are the best thing we can offer newcomers. It's better than the alternative and for me and many others that I know that is all that matters.

 

[DC2]

This is not accurate and a very troubling comment.

Why do you say that comment is not accurate?
I was under the impression that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine as well.


EDIT: Nevermind, I just read your previous reply.
EDIT: But I must say, that is not just "some website"

From the website...

This website was developed and maintained by the University of Alberta Medical School's Department of Public Health Sciences and then the University of Alberta School of Public Health from the time of its creation in 2006 until the last researcher working on tobacco harm reduction left the university in 2010. It is now owned and maintained by Dr. Carl V. Phillips's independent research institute (read more about us)

Would you be willing to say this?
To the best of our current knowledge nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine.

 

[HeatherC]

There is no evidence either way because the studies were always conducted on users of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. The truth is EVERYONE is scrambling to figure out what nicotine does now that there is more ways to introduce it into your body. I just read about 20 different reports and all of them are based on theory, not fact.

Also keep in mind that when using something to treat a terminal illness, the treatment itself is usually not without risks. Even then it's not proven yet, its in a pre-clinical state and is still based on preliminary tests and theory.

The fact is NO ONE knows for sure and claiming to be knowledgeable about it because we can read websites is ludicrous.

Here's a few things I think we are safe to say because of this forum and the information found on it.

1. Using a PV is safer than smoking a traditional cigarette, mainly because e-juice contains far less chemicals and is not ignited.

2. Many people have quit with little problem using a PV and report feeling much healthier

3. I quit or reduced my intake of traditional cigarettes by using this device, and I feel _____ since using it

Those to me are KNOWN facts about this method of nicotine delivery, not a theory or speculation. I think honesty and realistic statements are the best thing we can offer newcomers. It's better than the alternative and for me and many others that I know that is all that matters.

Actually the assessment came from my doctor. NOT from reading the website. My main point and in defending my use of ecigs and NOT smoking anymore is that my lungs feel better... My heart isn't racing to 157 BPM resting and these are positive signs I think... and so does my doctor.

 

[~Shado~]

As long as the term ecig is still used...it will continue to be a big battle to educate others.

The term PV should always and only be used. Since that is factually what it is...a 'Personal Vaporizer'....not a public or mass gathering vaporizer....

My box mods in NO way resembles a cig!!!!
Neither do my eGo's, Tornado's, T Rex, etc.....
My Magma, Volcano, Joye...somewhat resemble a cig....have yet to see any cig that is Glossy, Silver, Black, with blue LED lights......

Simple definition to others questioning me....it is a battery, a heating element, and glycerin which may contain nic, may not.....same equipment used in the vaporizer you use at home when the children are sick, just on a smaller personal scale.
Similar gear is used at concerts, shows, etc....to produce FOG for your entertainment.

As far as having nicotine and therefore falls suit to vaping outdoors....BS...if someone were to use the patch, gum, etc....by law do they have to go outdoors? How the heck would any work get done?
If there is 0 nic...then what?

Ignorance is not always bliss. Uneducated is far worse!!!

Call it what you want....if you feel smoking is correct term and want to keep adding problems to what the rest of us are trying to achieve....shame on you.

I "Vape"....period!!! There is no smoke in what I inhale or exhale.
Dry solids, organics burn and smoke....liquids only vaporize and turn gaseous.....science 101.

My ....

 

[jpargana]

OK, I realize now that the 'alchool-free' beer I gave before was maybe a poor example in this respect: the addictive substance is the very same that ruins the alchoolic's health. But suppose for a moment that we live in a 'parallel world', where it has been discovered that the coffe essential oils were very carcinogenic, and that caffeine by itself was pretty harmless, by comparison with those oils. In this kind of world, decaf expresso would never have been around (What would be the point anyway? Would you buy a new brand of nicotine-free tobaco cigarettes? Getting all the tar and chemicals, without getting your nicotine fix?). On the other hand, there would be, almost for certain, other kinds of caffeined drinks (Red Bull, NRG, whatever...). Now, if I walk into a bar an ask for an expresso, I expect to be given an expresso, not a can of Red Bull, just because 'there's also caffeine in there'. Clearly, these are very diferent drinks. And if these essential oils were indeed carcinogenic, you could no be accused of 'ruining your health by drinking coffe' while drinking Red Bull... why, there's no coffe in there, no 'carcinogecic' oils... just caffeine mixed with something else. But, If people in general did not know about this new drink, and you kept telling them that you're still drinking the same old dangerous coffe, people would start to believe that both drinks were essentially equal. They would believe your misinformation, because you're the (ex-)coffe drinker, so you should know about it, right? You're the expert... and sooner or later, the 'anti-coffe' people would want to ban caffeine drinks along with the dangerous coffe, because you - the expert - would have given them the false impression that those things are just the same.
I restate what I said earlier on another post: by calling ourselves smokers (even though we no longer inhale the main cause of lung cancer - tobacco smoke - hence, smoker), we will be giving misinformed people the idea that the e-cig is just a fancy, high-tech cancer stick. Ironically, that bad misinformation is given by us, the experts, so people will readily believe it... how, please tell me, will that repeated lie help us in the future??
Just my 2 cents...

 

[HeatherC]

OK, I realize now that the 'alchool-free' beer I gave before was maybe a poor example in this respect: the addictive substance is the very same that ruins the alchoolic's health. But suppose for a moment that we live in a 'parallel world', where it has been discovered that the coffe essential oils were very carcinogenic, and that caffeine by itself was pretty harmless, by comparison with those oils. In this kind of world, decaf expresso would never have been around (What would be the point anyway? Would you buy a new brand of nicotine-free tobaco cigarettes? Getting all the tar and chemicals, without getting your nicotine fix?). On the other hand, there would be, almost for certain, other kinds of caffeined drinks (Red Bull, NRG, whatever...). Now, if I walk into a bar an ask for an expresso, I expect to be given an expresso, not a can of Red Bull, just because 'there's also caffeine in there'. Clearly, these are very diferent drinks. And if these essential oils were indeed carcinogenic, you could no be accused of 'ruining your health by drinking coffe' while drinking Red Bull... why, there's no coffe in there, no 'carcinogecic' oils... just caffeine mixed with something else. But, If people in general did not know about this new drink, and you kept telling them that you're still drinking the same old dangerous coffe, people would start to believe that both drinks were essentially equal. They would believe your misinformation, because you're the (ex-)coffe drinker, so you should know about it, right? You're the expert... and sooner or later, the 'anti-coffe' people would want to ban caffeine drinks along with the dangerous coffe, because you - the expert - would have given them the false impression that those things are just the same.
I restate what I said earlier on another post: by calling ourselves smokers (even though we no longer inhale the main cause of lung cancer - tobacco smoke - hence, smoker), we will be giving misinformed people the idea that the e-cig is just a fancy, high-tech cancer stick. Ironically, that bad misinformation is given by us, the experts, so people will readily believe it... how, please tell me, will that repeated lie help us in the future??
Just my 2 cents...

++++++100000% and if I wasn't afraid I'd get in trouble I'd put more 0s in that... too true!!

 

[Kobudo]

If it helps you to feel like you're smoking, fine. I am a non-smoker. You contradict yourself when you say "I am still a smoker, but it is vapor."
That IS the entire point of switching. NO SMOKE, therefore, not a smoker.

Exactly. Way I see it, if I am "smoking" with my PV, there is something seriously wrong with the device.

 

[Kobudo]

Would you be willing to say this?
To the best of our current knowledge nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine.

Based on research involving dissolvables, patches, gum, lozenges, and snuff, I would have to say I am willing to accept that more research can be done, but it has almost been researched to concrete evidence -- which is the best the scientific method can ever technically do for us anyway.

 

[Bru]

Vaping is NOT smoking..
When you have a sick child and go to the doc and they say
( Place a Vaporizer in the room ) they are NOT telling you to go fill a childs room with SMOKE
Ecigs or PV are the same just portable They are Vaporizers
There for anyone who uses them is Not a Smoker unless You also happen to SMOKE as in set on Fire the end of a object filled with Tabbaco and inhale the smoke coming from the burning

 

[CaptJay]

I liked Saintcruiser's definition of 'recovering smoker' - that makes sense to me and I'm a person who sees themselves as a vapor and NOT a current smoker btw. Alcoholics call their additction an illness, and the medical profession agrees it seems, but smokers apparently are just weak willed or stupid..(according to society not my personal view). Alcoholics however see their illness as something that stays with them even after they have 12-stepped their way out of using their 'poison'; I can see how smokers would feel the same way, and therefore 'recovering smoker' seems fitting

 

[Hard31337]

Not only do they call their addiction an illness, they have the nerve to call it a disease. If it's a disease, it's a self created disease, a disease they gave to themselves. It's more like they decided to go around saying "I have a disease with alcohol", instead of simply owning up and admitting they drank too much, got addicted, and now can't stop. Same as smoking to me.

I liked Saintcruiser's definition of 'recovering smoker' - that makes sense to me and I'm a person who sees themselves as a vapor and NOT a current smoker btw. Alcoholics call their additction an illness, and the medical profession agrees it seems, but smokers apparently are just weak willed or stupid..(according to society not my personal view). Alcoholics however see their illness as something that stays with them even after they have 12-stepped their way out of using their 'poison'; I can see how smokers would feel the same way, and therefore 'recovering smoker' seems fitting

 

[AmyLynne]

That is something I've never figured out why either. Why aren't smoker's considered having a disease like alcoholics? Even most illicit drug user's aren't considered having a disease. I do believe people are more prone to certain addictive behaviors so I could see having a general addictive 'disease'

Not only do they call their addiction an illness, they have the nerve to call it a disease. If it's a disease, it's a self created disease, a disease they gave to themselves. It's more like they decided to go around saying "I have a disease with alcohol", instead of simply owning up and admitting they drank too much, got addicted, and now can't stop. Same as smoking to me.

 

[Hard31337]

They should just stop giving people crutches to use verbally and just call it what it is, addiction. No one makes you take that first drink, or that first smoke. You choose to do something and you live with the consequences. I do not have a disease, I started smoking cigarettes, got addicted, and couldn't stop. That is, until vaping. I have not had a cigarette in 13 days now. I didn't cure a disease, because no disease ever existed to cure.

That is something I've never figured out why either. Why aren't smoker's considered having a disease like alcoholics? Even most illicit drug user's aren't considered having a disease. I do believe people are more prone to certain addictive behaviors so I could see having a general addictive 'disease'