Ecig User Survey: Please follow instructions before taking!!

[Stubby]

I wasn't saying that was a bad thing at all otd. As a matter of fact it's a good thing that you guys try to help that way.

Just the way Stubby chose to add in the
made the statement come across more as a slight than a concern

Which could be the way he meant it or could be just the way I was reading it. Thus why text is a bad form of communication due to the lack of inflection.

Either way I'll stick with my choices and if others go down the smokeless road more power to em

Actually it is a slight, but a constructive one. The fact that so many people would go back to smoking if the PV is banned shows a general... lack of knowledge... of what harm reduction is about and other harm reduction products available outside the PV only approach.

The PV or cigarette only approach is only marginally better then the quit or die approach.

 

[olderthandirt]

Actually it is a slight, but a constructive one. ...

 

[Thyestean]

Actually it is a slight, but a constructive one. The fact that so many people would go back to smoking if the PV is banned shows a general... lack of knowledge... of what harm reduction is about and other harm reduction products available outside the PV only approach.

The PV or cigarette only approach is only marginally better then the quit or die approach.

as I thought.

But that is only true if it is actually a decision based on a lack of knowledge rather than a decision based on personal choice.

My decision is clearly stated in an earlier post and is basically summed up by the statement... Cigarettes killing me never has been a concern for me, we all die of something. My addiction though isn't to nicotine it is to the feel of smoking and none of the smokeless alternatives can provide that. So therefore the slight is off base for anyone who feels the same way and in itself then shows a lack of knowledge toward, or disregard for, other peoples needs/wants.

buttttttttt...... that's all off-topic for this particular thread. So my apologies kristin

 

[Stubby]

as I thought.

But that is only true if it is actually a decision based on a lack of knowledge rather than a decision based on personal choice.

My decision is clearly stated in an earlier post and is basically summed up by the statement... Cigarettes killing me never has been a concern for me, we all die of something. My addiction though isn't to nicotine it is to the feel of smoking and none of the smokeless alternatives can provide that. So therefore the slight is off base for anyone who feels the same way and in itself then shows a lack of knowledge toward, or disregard for, other peoples needs/wants.

buttttttttt...... that's all off-topic for this particular thread. So my apologies kristin

It's not at all off topic. What brought up the subject is the high percentage of people from the poll who would go back to smoking if PV's are banned. The fact that you don't care if cigarettes kill you is your business, but it has no place in a discussion on harm reduction. I certainly wouldn't advocate your point of view as a positive roll model for others who have some interest in their health and well being.

 

[kristin]

Kristin!!!
How long do you anticipate this poll running and where do plan on posting the results?

I would like to get close to 1,000 responses.

The results are right there for everyone to see!

This will be a great rebuttal resource for us, when it's alleged that ecigs are attracting teens and college kids, that adults don't like fruity or candy flavors, that ecigs attract non-smokers, that smokers will use NRTs if they don't have ecigs....all sorts of arguments are dispelled, the proof is right here!

 

[kristin]

Look at the number of users who have vaped less than 6 months. That means they all started vaping AFTER the FDA report came out!

Maybe shows that smokers care more about their well-being than the FDA?

 

[Thyestean]

It's not at all off topic. What brought up the subject is the high percentage of people from the poll who would go back to smoking if PV's are banned. The fact that you don't care if cigarettes kill you is your business, but it has no place in a discussion on harm reduction. I certainly wouldn't advocate your point of view as a positive roll model for others who have some interest in their health and well being.

The discussion wasn't about harm reduction the discussion was about the results of the poll. The fact that you said, in other words, anyone who would go back to cigarettes must be ignorant is what made my point of view relevant to the discussion. And I wouldn't advocate my view as a good role model for others either but that doesn't change the fact that my decision doesn't mean I am ignorant of my options.

I would like to get close to 1,000 responses.

The results are right there for everyone to see!

This will be a great rebuttal resource for us, when it's alleged that ecigs are attracting teens and college kids, that adults don't like fruity or candy flavors, that ecigs attract non-smokers, that smokers will use NRTs if they don't have ecigs....all sorts of arguments are dispelled, the proof is right here!

kudos to that.

 

[wezzie]

Please change #4. I have totally quit smoking. Sorry, home with a head cold.

Thank you.

 

[SpottedPony]

Look at the number of users who have vaped less than 6 months. That means they all started vaping AFTER the FDA report came out!

Maybe shows that smokers care more about their well-being than the FDA?

Maybe it shows e-cig users tend to be literate..own a computer..and located the "cited" FDA study. The "study" (using the word loosely, here) is not only extremely poorly done - it does not appear to have gone through any peer review - at all. This is extremely uncommon in the "civilian" scientific community...but it appears to be accepted and common practice for government entities such as the FDA..they are above all of that scientific protocol stuff, I guess. Hence, the FDA can simply publish "something" they call a "study" or an "evaluation"...make it appear all "science-y" - and cite their own document!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHOA! The only reasonable "conclusion" that came out of their "study" was that further research needed to be done in order to make a meaningful "evaluation". Money, money, money....and the FDA is going to ask for funding to do this to the tune of how much???? THATS WHAT THE RESULT REALLY IS. If they do not have jurisdiction....they do not have a reason to ask for funding. If the tax payer really wants to pay for garbage...why not pay me? I can produce garbage as well as the FDA...wrap it up in the best of wrapping paper and call it an expensive gift to the people. And if I ain't to good at wrapping..I will hire a contractor with the LOADS of money I was paid for my garbage - right in keeping w the government agency way.

 

[kristin]

Bumping - need more people to answer!

 

[cddz]

Awe, I can't do polls!

 

[JKBonin]

Me too. I'd go black market for my pv supplies before I'd go back to analogs.

I would too, but there's no option for that. Albeit for obvious reasons.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Since this is poll is for research, I am going to sticky it for Kristin's project that she is working on.


Sun

 

[JKBonin]

Added this thread to nu-vapor.

Hope it helps.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Thanks JK, I have also added a banner with a link in the Polls Forum.


Sun

 

[Deschain]

Voted (all seven questions answered).


.

 

[kristin]

Wow! Thanks Sun (and JK)!!

 

[kristin]

I don't get why so many people miss answering question #2? Is it confusing somehow??

 

[Heracleum]

Is this poll valid only for US or UK citizens?

Because you know, using expressions like "quit cold turkey"... "NRT"... it doesn't ease the comprehension.
My first thought reading the cold-turkey thing was.. "hey I am vegetarian!"

(I had to search a bit, BTW now it's all clear I guess )

 

[Sign-Man]

If ecigs are banned the tobacco experience will never be the same.

Also, no more out of pocket funds will be spent for tobacco, taxes or pharmaceutical alternatives.

There's simply no going back.

.