ECO - Organization Charter: Administration

[gr8dane]

After thinking about all of this I don't know why it's necessary to discuss any other tobacco alternatives.

Personally, I don't care doodly-squat about any alternatives other than the e-cig. BUT...I also don't believe that we can have tunnel vision and fight for acceptance of the e-cig in isolation. I think the acceptance needs to be won at a higher level, i.e. harm reduction alternatives. Until we get that general concept across, the e-cig part will stay in turmoil. JMO

 

[Webby]

Everyone,

Keep in mind, any efforts will be chosen by a consensus of the users – in short, we will pick our own battles. I don’t think it’s any great secret that our resources will be expended overwhelmingly for the advancement of e-cigs. Even if we were to allow NRTs, their numbers would never be enough to outvote the e-cig users in any vote.

NRTs are 1) already approved for use; 2) supported by Big Pharm already; and 3) hardly under fire as an “endangered species” which is the top criteria for warranting any action from us anyway.

That said, it wouldn’t be any great effort to exclude them altogether (for the above reasons if none other) from the group by adding a few words to the mission statement and bylaws. I’m not advocating for or against including any other alternatives to tobacco. I’m just pointing out that to the general public, it might show we have an open mind and aren’t just a pro e-cig group. The fact that we allow discussion of other forms of alternatives may help us to win over some people who would be able to see us as what we are – a group that is willing to try new alternatives to cigarettes and support the ones that work.

Think about it, if we weren’t willing to try “smoking alternatives” none of us would have ever tried electronic cigarettes in the first place!

 

[dperino]

I am an addict, just because nicotine is my drug of choice, does not mean i am any different than the alcholic, herion addict, or crack-head.
So i have quit smoking tobacco, and use an electronic cigarette to supply my nicotine addiction. safer, reduced harm? i cannot make these claims or support them, i believe there is much more research to be done before these claims can be made. vaping is a new technology, there is still much to be learned.
i have tried everything known to man , to beat nicotine addiction, nothing has worked. my goal? to slowly lower my nicotine intake until zero. once i get there the electronic cigarette is done. i will vape no more. Why would i?
the debate of not including other NRT and Pharma, just seems flawed to me.

i'm sorry motorcity but you're comparison of nicotine to various other addictions is wrong. the statement about harm reduction works in the other way as well, you can't say that it isn't.

i don't know of any nicotine "fiend" who's addiction has led them to kill, rob, lose their homes or children or prostitute themselves. also, when using said substance is your reality altered to the extent of distortion, do you hallucinate, are you completely lethargic? do you go to run-down homes filled with rats and people crawling all over themselves to get a hit from a crusty pipe? do you convulse during withdrawal, or get delirium tremons?

nicotine addiction is oh so different

as to harm reduction. there are many individuals who manufacture said substance called ejuice who can provide you with every substance placed into their product. they have third-party documentation attesting to the purity.

where you have a valid point is that putting anything into one's respitory system is risky, HOWEVER, cigarette manufacturers cannot provide you with the same list of substances added to cigarettes because they don't know them all. they haven't a clue. but, what is known is that there are thousands of substances in cigarettes. how many are in ejuice? this is the first basis for harm reduction.

the second, and bearing in mind the point on ingesting, is the tar factor. 95% of the carcinogenic effects from cigarette smoking are delivered through the tar. the stuff that sticks to your internals. look at the different processes delivering your addictive substance and if you believe each are on par with one another then i suggest you research the subject.

harm reduction isn't just about health related issues. there are social considerations as well such as what i listed above concerning getting your drug of choice. let's also look at harm reduction in terms of lost productivity at work. there are people on this forum reporting that they no longer have to go outside when at work. they can stay at their desks, do their jobs and vape away. which also brings us back to the health related stuff because you no longer are exposed to inclimate weather, especailly during winter.

your nicotine addiction, as you so put it, is nothing like other addictions. so repeat after me, you are not like a crack addict, you are not like a huffer, you are not like a .... head.

 

[Thulium]

We could garner a tremendous amount of press and open a lot of media doors by not playing the e-cig card quite so heavily. On the other hand, we don't want to mislead the public if we aren't prepared to open up our efforts to ALL forms of tobacco alternatives.

Count me as one in favor of a light hand on the e-cig for a couple reasons:
1. The term e-cigarette itself mostly refers to a specific design of personal vaporizer, and I think we should equally endorse the e-pipe, the e-cigar, the screwdriver, and I think we should also include (at least for comparative purposes) high temp vaporizers.
2. I think that it is important that we come together as the voice of reason. We aren't a bunch of wacko gadget enthusiasts or corporate profit-hunters, we are a thinking people who believe that consumers not only have a right to vape, but that anything that reduces the amount of noxious chemicals in the air is commendable and should be perhaps encouraged rather than easily dismissed or banned outright.
3. If somehow something else comes along down the road that works better than e-cigarettes, our mission should remain consistent.

To be very clear, I am in no way suggesting that we mislead the public at all. On the contrary, I'm saying that our approach should be that personal vaporizers are a valid alternative and inasmuch as they are shown to be a beneficial alternative, we will support them because it fulfills our mission. That approach is better than starting with a pro-PV agenda and then coming back with "alleged" benefits being claimed by an admittedly biased group. ...if you follow my meaning...

Our ideals need to be bigger than the product itself--so much so, in fact, that we should be willing to abandon the product if it were proven to be in conflict with our stated ideals.

 

[dperino]

Keep in mind, any efforts will be chosen by a consensus of the users – in short, we will pick our own battles. I don’t think it’s any great secret that our resources will be expended overwhelmingly for the advancement of e-cigs. Even if we were to allow NRTs, their numbers would never be enough to outvote the e-cig users in any vote.

NRTs are 1) already approved for use; 2) supported by Big Pharm already; and 3) hardly under fire as an “endangered species” which is the top criteria for warranting any action from us anyway.

I'm not sure I understand your points here. I thought the effort wasn't to do battle against NRTs, just not to include them, and for me the same would apply to other tobacco alternatives. PVs are not as established in the market place, at least not here in the US, the effort needs to be fundamentally focused on the PV, ejuice and pertinent issues that further the cause.

That said, it wouldn’t be any great effort to exclude them altogether (for the above reasons if none other) from the group by adding a few words to the mission statement and bylaws. I’m not advocating for or against including any other alternatives to tobacco. I’m just pointing out that to the general public, it might show we have an open mind and aren’t just a pro e-cig group. The fact that we allow discussion of other forms of alternatives may help us to win over some people who would be able to see us as what we are – a group that is willing to try new alternatives to cigarettes and support the ones that work.

Being pro PV is not the same as being against other tobacco alternatives. If one is interested in Snus instead of PVs then provide a link for them to go to a site that provides better information on the topic. Articulate that the association does have an open mind but that the situation is so dire at the moment that all attention is on the potential demise of the PV.

Think about it, if we weren’t willing to try “smoking alternatives” none of us would have ever tried electronic cigarettes in the first place!

Again, there are far more important considerations. Refer interested others to other information resources that are already established and can do a far better job providing the information. Thanks.

 

[Thulium]

re my last post, obviously I agree with madman, yvilla, webtaxman....reduced harm alternatives - yes; NRTs - no

I didn't really mean to spark this kind of debate. I included the phrase Nicotine Replacement Therapies not specifically referencing Nicorette and Nicoderm, but speaking in general of products that provide alternate nicotine delivery methods or even substitute products like chewing bubble gum or eating jelly beans or whatever it is that helps someone smoke less or not at all.

I specifically mean our focus to be on personal vaporizers and e-cigs, but taken in a larger view: If eating jelly beans or chewing on pencil erasers, or taking vitamin substitute, or using a nicotine polacrilex product, or using some medication, or using something like snus or strips...or vaping with an e-cigarette...helps someone smoke less then we should support that consumers right to choose that. As a group of people who have had success with e-cigarettes, we believe that this particular product has benefits not offered by other methods (more effective) so we actually promote its use rather than simply condone it as a lesser of evils.

 

[Thulium]

i don't know of any nicotine "fiend" who's addiction has led them to kill, rob, lose their homes or children or prostitute themselves. also, when using said substance is your reality altered to the extent of distortion, do you hallucinate, are you completely lethargic? do you go to run-down homes filled with rats and people crawling all over themselves to get a hit from a crusty pipe? do you convulse during withdrawal, or get delirium tremons?

Your point is invalid. Just because I don't know of any caffeine addicts who has killed, robbed, lost their homes or children or turned to prostitution because they haven't had their morning cuppa...doesn't mean it hasn't happened and it certainly doesn't mean the addiction is any less real.

nicotine addiction is oh so different

No, it's not "oh so different" its just different. Every addiction is different, but every addiction is still an addiction. Dealing with a sex addiction is quite different than dealing with a .... addiction, which is different than dealing with a caffeine addiction, which is different than dealing with a ....... addiction, which is different than dealing with a food addiction/eating disorder, which is different than dealing with a prescription painkiller addiction, which is different...well, you get the point. Every person is different and ever addiction has things in common with other addictions and has things that are unique to that particular type.

We are focused here on methods of coping or eliminating a nicotine addiction...but more than that we are focused on reducing or eliminating smoke, whether or not we smoke because of a nicotine addiction or an addiction to some other element of smoking.

your nicotine addiction, as you so put it, is nothing like other addictions. so repeat after me, you are not like a crack addict, you are not like a huffer, you are not like a .... head.

That's just wrong. Nicotine addiction is different than any other addiction because every addiction is different than every other...but nicotine addiction can be has hard to break as a crack addict, it is as deadly (or moreso) as being a huffer, it is as unappealing socially to stink of smoke and have yellow teeth and pollute the air around with second-hand smoke as being a .... head. So actually nicotine addiction is like other addictions in some ways and it is unique in other ways. Its not a big deal, no need to get in a twist about it, really.

 

[dperino]

Count me as one in favor of a light hand on the e-cig for a couple reasons:
1. The term e-cigarette itself mostly refers to a specific design of personal vaporizer, and I think we should equally endorse the e-pipe, the e-cigar, the screwdriver, and I think we should also include (at least for comparative purposes) high temp vaporizers.
2. I think that it is important that we come together as the voice of reason. We aren't a bunch of wacko gadget enthusiasts or corporate profit-hunters, we are a thinking people who believe that consumers not only have a right to vape, but that anything that reduces the amount of noxious chemicals in the air is commendable and should be perhaps encouraged rather than easily dismissed or banned outright.
3. If somehow something else comes along down the road that works better than e-cigarettes, our mission should remain consistent.

To be very clear, I am in no way suggesting that we mislead the public at all. On the contrary, I'm saying that our approach should be that personal vaporizers are a valid alternative and inasmuch as they are shown to be a beneficial alternative, we will support them because it fulfills our mission. That approach is better than starting with a pro-PV agenda and then coming back with "alleged" benefits being claimed by an admittedly biased group. ...if you follow my meaning...

Our ideals need to be bigger than the product itself--so much so, in fact, that we should be willing to abandon the product if it were proven to be in conflict with our stated ideals.

So then, the association isn't just about the PV? That would be far too altruistic and distills the original intent. A broader scope serves no useful purpose in the short term and where has anyone stated that bogus claims are going to be made? Various scientists and medical professionals acknowledge that PV's are far safer.

I'm not sure why it would be a negative to be pro-PV, as if there is something inherently wrong or bad with such a position. If you strongly believe in the product as a safer mechanism that introduces nicotine into one's system then what is there to be ashamed of?

And as far as ideals. There is far more than just the PV to consider. Like how the government has used disinformation and manipulation. Nonprofit organizations being underwritten by corporate entities for the purpose of market manipulation. A media who promotes and promulgates this disinformation and manipulation. No, there's nothing to be concerned about here.

Again, the PV was singled out because it was a relatively innocuous device that is now seen as a potential threat to the profits and market shares of big pharma and big tobacco. What each do in terms of market manipulation(s) is despicable. But, I agree that whomever wishes to be involved in this effort would need to elevate the argument. Thanks.

 

[Vocalek]

Unfortunately Big Pharma co-opted the terminology "nicotine replacement therapy." It is an inaccurate name because they have no intention of actually REPLACING the amount of nicotine we were getting from tobacco cigarettes.

A more accurate name for their products would be "nicotine weaning therapy." But what's done is done.

We actually have the worlds first TRUE nicotine replacement therapy, but somebody else done grabbed the name.

Another accurate name for what we have would be nicotine maintenance therapy.

Personally, I think the existing NRTs might have done the job for a lot more of us if they had been made with adequate potency and encouraged for long-term use.

 

[Thulium]

Unfortunately Big Pharma co-opted the terminology "nicotine replacement therapy." It is an inaccurate name because they have no intention of actually REPLACING the amount of nicotine we were getting from tobacco cigarettes.

A more accurate name for their products would be "nicotine weaning therapy." But what's done is done.

We actually have the worlds first TRUE nicotine replacement therapy, but somebody else done grabbed the name.

Another accurate name for what we have would be nicotine maintenance therapy.

Personally, I think the existing NRTs might have done the job for a lot more of us if they had been made with adequate potency and encouraged for long-term use.

I think you and I are on the same page regarding the term NRT. I used it in the sense that e-cigarettes are the truest smoking replacement, and maybe "Smoking Replacement" is the term we should adopt.

As far as why other NRTs are ineffective, I have a different theory. In my experience, I could get plenty of nicotine from the patch or gum or lozenge--that aspect worked. What didn't work was the fact that the patch irritated my skin, the gum was gross, the lozenge wasn't much better...and none of them addressed my desire for the ritualistic elements of smoking--I still craved the "throat hit", I still craved the social aspect, I still wanted to make rings, I still wanted something to hold in my hand while driving, I still wanted that extra "kick" in the morning or after a meal, etc. E-cigarettes address all those cravings--I could care less about the nicotine, really.

As far as I'm concerned, an e-cigarette with zero nicotine would do more to help me quit smoking than any nicotine polacrilex product.

And as for this being "bigger" than just e-cigarettes? Let me give you this actual possible outcome:

Scenario 1:What if it testing shows that e-cigarettes are counterproductive at helping people break the nicotine addiction? What if the naysayers are right and nicotine itself poses a substantial health risk and the use of e-cigarettes actually makes it worse? Wouldn't we still support the consumers right to use e-cigarettes if they're only slightly less dangerous than smoking?
Scenario 2: Imagine for a moment that we discover an unacceptable level of danger from consuming nicotine through a personal vaporizer that was not present in other nicotine delivery systems or with 0-nic PVs. That would mean that the safest and most effective system would be to get your "nic fix" from polacrilex, but address your desire to smoke with a PV. Would we not support that combination?
Scenario 3: What if we discovered that using a PV with Chantix reduced or eliminated the adverse side effects of Chantix but successfully broke the nicotine addiction...Shouldn't we support that combination?
Scenario 4: What if an individual only found success through combined efforts? What if someone considering the purchase of an e-cigarette wanted to know if they would have more or less success by combining e-cigarettes with one or more other methods? Finally what if combining therapies DOESN'T work??? Shouldn't we be able to give an answer?

 

[Mister]

I think that the voting on the user group name may tell us something about how people feel about the organization's scope.

The leading name at the moment is Association for Tobacco Alternatives. Four of the five names which were popular enough to make it to the final poll include "Tobacco Alternatives" as part of the name.

Names containing "Tobacco Alternatives" total 171 votes at the moment, vs 80 votes for one other entry.

I don't think the group should be actively supporting NRTs with the word "Alternatives" being right there in the name. NRTs (misnamed perhaps but as Vocalek notes, we're stuck with the established meaning) are intended to kick the habit, not to be an alternative. And posts on this thread suggest that no one wants to include NRTs as something actively supported.

I also don't think the group should be actively supporting snus, chewing tobacco, or any of the other things I mentioned in an earlier post. They're all tobacco based, they're "Alternative Tobacco" but not "Tobacco Alternatives". I'm also guessing that a majority of people don't want those things actively supported based on the name voting.

 

[dperino]

Your point is invalid. Just because I don't know of any caffeine addicts who has killed, robbed, lost their homes or children or turned to prostitution because they haven't had their morning cuppa...doesn't mean it hasn't happened and it certainly doesn't mean the addiction is any less real.



No, it's not "oh so different" its just different. Every addiction is different, but every addiction is still an addiction. Dealing with a sex addiction is quite different than dealing with a .... addiction, which is different than dealing with a caffeine addiction, which is different than dealing with a ....... addiction, which is different than dealing with a food addiction/eating disorder, which is different than dealing with a prescription painkiller addiction, which is different...well, you get the point. Every person is different and ever addiction has things in common with other addictions and has things that are unique to that particular type.

We are focused here on methods of coping or eliminating a nicotine addiction...but more than that we are focused on reducing or eliminating smoke, whether or not we smoke because of a nicotine addiction or an addiction to some other element of smoking.



That's just wrong. Nicotine addiction is different than any other addiction because every addiction is different than every other...but nicotine addiction can be has hard to break as a crack addict, it is as deadly (or moreso) as being a huffer, it is as unappealing socially to stink of smoke and have yellow teeth and pollute the air around with second-hand smoke as being a .... head. So actually nicotine addiction is like other addictions in some ways and it is unique in other ways. Its not a big deal, no need to get in a twist about it, really.

Well then, claim it and it is yours. If being addicted to nicotine is on par with all that you have said then you best run along to smoke enders or some other 12-step group before the **** really hits the fan for you. While on the way, please do stop at a legal library to find that case of a caffeine deprived individual who had robbed or killed for their early morning Starbucks fix.

Not all here are intent on quitting nicotine, rather they had merely found a more preferable delivery system. Is this part of the junkie mentality of nicotine addiction, or a preferable and more rational method towards reducing harm? Yes, each addiction has differences and similarities, and those similarities are likelier found in behaviors. Are you absolutely sure that nicotine is the cause of adverse health effects causing cancer, emphazema and other associated effects? No you can't, but you can buy into the social stigma.

What you describe as negative social consequences is attributable to cigarette smoking, not nicotine addiction. Take away the tobacco and reduce the nicotine to its purest form (yes, crack nicotine) and what you have is the opportunity to research and better understand how addictive nicotine actually is without all the other chemicals that are in, or have been added to, other tobacco products.

You can call yourself an nicotine addict, call yourself anything you want. But, there is no such evidence, scientific or otherwise, that would back up the assertion. You base your opinion solely on the use of cigarettes, which is a overly-polluted nicotine delivery system and is a poor comparison to the PV and, yes, NRTs.

 

[Thulium]

I think that the voting on the user group name may tell us something about how people feel about the organization's scope.

The leading name at the moment is Association for Tobacco Alternatives. Four of the five names which were popular enough to make it to the final poll include "Tobacco Alternatives" as part of the name.

Names containing "Tobacco Alternatives" total 171 votes at the moment, vs 80 votes for one other entry.

I don't think the group should be actively supporting NRTs with the word "Alternatives" being right there in the name. NRTs (misnamed perhaps but as Vocalek notes, we're stuck with the established meaning) are intended to kick the habit, not to be an alternative. And posts on this thread suggest that no one wants to include NRTs as something actively supported.

I also don't think the group should be actively supporting snus, chewing tobacco, or any of the other things I mentioned in an earlier post. They're all tobacco based, they're "Alternative Tobacco" but not "Tobacco Alternatives". I'm also guessing that a majority of people don't want those things actively supported based on the name voting.

I think your observations are quite valid, actually.

However, I have previously voiced an objection to the immediate tie-in with tobacco or nicotine and it seemed that there was at least some agreement with that point. With that in mind, here's my revised submission for our Charter:

Mission:
SAFER is dedicated to preserving the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking.

Objective:
The Smoke-free Alternatives Foundation, Education, & Resources (SAFER) is a non-profit international coalition of consumers and industry professionals working together educate the public about the real risks and potential benefits of smoke-free alternatives and alternate chemical delivery systems, publicize research and support new as well as existing harm reduction technologies, and share provide and support political and legal causes that preserve consumer freedom.

1. Inform and educate the general public as to the available options for smoke-free alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.
2. Maintain a web-based community for individual users and their shared experiences with these products by testimonials, photos and multimedia clips.
3. Serve as a collective voice urging more positive political, medical and legal representation of the personal vaporizer and smoke-free alternative community in Congress, the medical community and the media.
4. Enjoin existing efforts to discourage the use of nicotine products by minors and actively support individual efforts to break chemical dependencies.
5. Support manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:
   • disclaimers on packaging, and web sites
   • requirements that purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
   • reporting attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.
6. Act as a consumer protection support center for products and services that do not adhere to ethical practices, demonstrate the consumer’s best interest in manufacturing and marketing practices.
7. Establish guidelines that manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers are required to maintain in order to receive SAFER Approved Certification.

 

[Thulium]

Well then, claim it and it is yours. If being addicted to nicotine is on par with all that you have said then you best run along to smoke enders or some other 12-step group before the **** really hits the fan for you. While on the way, please do stop at a legal library to find that case of a caffeine deprived individual who had robbed or killed for their early morning Starbucks fix.

Not all here are intent on quitting nicotine, rather they had merely found a more preferable delivery system. Is this part of the junkie mentality of nicotine addiction, or a preferable and more rational method towards reducing harm? Yes, each addiction has differences and similarities, and those similarities are likelier found in behaviors. Are you absolutely sure that nicotine is the cause of adverse health effects causing cancer, emphazema and other associated effects? No you can't, but you can buy into the social stigma.

What you describe as negative social consequences is attributable to cigarette smoking, not nicotine addiction. Take away the tobacco and reduce the nicotine to its purest form (yes, crack nicotine) and what you have is the opportunity to research and better understand how addictive nicotine actually is without all the other chemicals that are in, or have been added to, other tobacco products.

You can call yourself an nicotine addict, call yourself anything you want. But, there is no such evidence, scientific or otherwise, that would back up the assertion. You base your opinion solely on the use of cigarettes, which is a overly-polluted nicotine delivery system and is a poor comparison to the PV and, yes, NRTs.

Excuse me if I came off confrontational, but what you're saying in the above quote....is basically the same thing I'm saying.

 

[dperino]

Thulium, you've done some very good work on the charter document. Excellent

 

[Thulium]

While on the way, please do stop at a legal library to find that case of a caffeine deprived individual who had robbed or killed for their early morning Starbucks fix.

High-Caffeine Energy Drinks Like Red Bull Linked to Violence, Risk-Taking Among Teens

Caffeine - Google Books

Activists warn of dangers from caffeine addiction | Spero News

Just sayin.

 

[dperino]

christ, we're back to this. first, high energy drinks not only have amped-up amounts of caffeine (much more than coffee), but also other stimulants such as guarana in them. your use of the article does nothing to further the argument concerning addiction, only that if you take caffeine use to the extreme you may get violent, do stupid things or feel like crap. secondly, the use of said products do not, in and of themselves, induce violence-prone behaviors, i've no doubt there are other mitigating issues. lastly, the quote you've used by me refers to caffeine deprivation not about guzzling down an amped up beverage. please stop. this argument does nothing in terms of furthering the development of whatever the association is going to be.

 

[dperino]

High-Caffeine Energy Drinks Like Red Bull Linked to Violence, Risk-Taking Among Teens

Caffeine - Google Books

Activists warn of dangers from caffeine addiction | Spero News

Just sayin.

Just sayin' what? That you're proving a point? Well then, what's the point? That others believe that caffeine is a brain addling substance? Absolutely, I agree that it is. But so what? An activist protesting so-called caffeine addiction must really be a socially deprived individual. Move on to the business at hand, thank you.

 

[Thulium]

Just sayin' what? That you're proving a point? Well then, what's the point? That others believe that caffeine is a brain addling substance? Absolutely, I agree that it is. But so what? An activist protesting so-called caffeine addiction must really be a socially deprived individual. Move on to the business at hand, thank you.

I was trying to, really. I posted those article specifically responding to the quoted text as a way of showing that even the socially acceptable addiction of caffeine has symptoms in common with harder drug addictions. I think its best to leave the "e-cigarettes are for drug addicts" stuff for that thread, and I apologize for my part in the digression.

However, it does dovetail with the on-topic point I was making that our mission is larger than just "promoting e-cigarettes". Our mission is (or at least should be, IMO) the same as any environmental or social issue interest group: Reducing adverse environmental and health impact, improving safety, educating people, and supporting efforts to break unhealthy dependencies.

It might make you feel better about your addiction to tell yourself "well, at least not I'm not one of THOSE drug addicts", but shouldn't we as an organization support the ideal more than some product? If personal vaporizers or similar technology helps ...., ......, or other illicit substances that are smoked to overcome their addiction, shouldn't we also support that? On the other hand, if we discovered that hard drug addicts recovery process is somehow hindered by e-cigarettes or any other technology, would we not set aside our allegiance to a product line and admit that they might not be good for everyone? I'm not saying any of that is what we're actually going to discover, I'm just using that as an example why holding to an ideal should take priority over any specific product. Even going to the name issue, I think even our name should avoid any connection to a specific product (be it tobacco, nicotine, or e-cigarettes) and rather be based around either an anti-SMOKE agenda, or a pro-CONSUMER ideal, or better still...BOTH.

 

[dperino]

I was trying to, really. I posted those article specifically responding to the quoted text as a way of showing that even the socially acceptable addiction of caffeine has symptoms in common with harder drug addictions. I think its best to leave the "e-cigarettes are for drug addicts" stuff for that thread, and I apologize for my part in the digression.

However, it does dovetail with the on-topic point I was making that our mission is larger than just "promoting e-cigarettes". Our mission is (or at least should be, IMO) the same as any environmental or social issue interest group: Reducing adverse environmental and health impact, improving safety, educating people, and supporting efforts to break unhealthy dependencies.

It might make you feel better about your addiction to tell yourself "well, at least not I'm not one of THOSE drug addicts", but shouldn't we as an organization support the ideal more than some product? If personal vaporizers or similar technology helps ...., ......, or other illicit substances that are smoked to overcome their addiction, shouldn't we also support that? On the other hand, if we discovered that hard drug addicts recovery process is somehow hindered by e-cigarettes or any other technology, would we not set aside our allegiance to a product line and admit that they might not be good for everyone? I'm not saying any of that is what we're actually going to discover, I'm just using that as an example why holding to an ideal should take priority over any specific product. Even going to the name issue, I think even our name should avoid any connection to a specific product (be it tobacco, nicotine, or e-cigarettes) and rather be based around either an anti-SMOKE agenda, or a pro-CONSUMER ideal, or better still...BOTH.

perhaps someone who monitors these threads could place this conversation where it belongs. i apologize that the both of us have cause a more important issue to be hijacked.

thulium, your wrong. there is no correlation between guzzling hyper-caffeinated beverages and addiction of said caffeine.

as a matter of fact, i am not one of those other addicts. let's get that straight. no one here is. if so, then where is your proof? where are the studies that are stating nicotine, by itself, is on par with substances that are addictive?

is your mission on the same page as others here? i'm not so sure of that. but then, conduct a poll and find out. relationships can form into unhealthy dependencies, but then there are no such organizations trying to stamp them out. with what it is that we know today, the use of a pv is a choice, a preference that is not only about being a nicotine delivery system. there are many people using the pv with 0mg eliquid. is it fair that these individuals be catagorized within your addiction schematic, and consequently do you think they'd appreciate being represented as such?

your insistence about the addiction thing goes way overboard and does a disservice. to equate nicotine addiction to that of other aversive behaviors and substances is irresponsible because, again, there is no evidence finding nicotine, by itself, to be anywhere near the addictive substance as you state it is. furthermore, using the caffeine example is just absurd.

i'm sorry. if you are fearful of the potential downsides of pv's then quit using them. but, equating their use to addictive behaviors is nothing short of detrimental, and is at this juncture intellectually dishonest.