Effects When First Vaping?

[AndriaD]

I swear I will never understand this "buzz" from nicotine that people sometimes mention.
I never got one from cigarettes, and still don't get one now that I'm vaping.

But I have learned enough in my years on this forum to KNOW that we are all different.
So if some of you get some kind of buzz, I can only say I wish I got one.

When I first started smoking, lo these many years ago, I got quite dizzy from smoking. And if I vape a higher mg than I'm accustomed to, I get that again, a little, but it's not as pleasant, and leads very quickly to nausea. I think the too-high-nic dizziness from vaping is pure nicotine, which is why it can go so quickly to nausea; the dizziness from smoking when you're unaccustomed is a mix of a) nicotine intolerance, b) hypoxia from carbon monoxide, and probably c) a mix of the MAOIs and the other chemicals that are used to make the nicotine hit the brain faster. In other words, when it's from smoking, it's a cry for help from your brain, because it's not getting sufficient oxygen, but most smokers are so dumb, they think it's cool. (and yes, I was one of those idiots -- I was 13 yrs old!)

Anyone who calls that sort of dizziness a "buzz", clearly has never had an actual buzz.

Andria

 

[WharfRat1976]

The deeming is not an FDA conclusion. That is pure politics.

Nice reach there. Not buying, again. You stated an FDA position on nicotine as being a factual resource.

You believe the FDA deeming is based on non factual conclusions.

So the FDA provides facts when they work for your arguments.

The FDA proceeds non facts when it does not work for your arguments.

Your nicotine argument is a fallacy.

 

[VNeil]

Nice reach there. Not buying, again. You stated an FDA position on nicotine as being a factual resource.

You believe the FDA deeming is based on non factual conclusions.

So the FDA provides facts when they work for your arguments.

The FDA proceeds non facts when it does not work for your arguments.

Your nicotine argument is a fallacy.

No, I think the FDA had to acknowledge that nic is not addictive, even though it is very counter to its main political objective at the moment. Or you could look at it that they had contradictory objectives on that one.

You are trying very hard to argue your way around a very simple fact: there are no studies suggesting nic is dependence forming for never smokers. Nor is there any other evidence of such. I previously asked where all the addicted never smoking vapers are? They surely are not here on this site complaining about their addictions. But you won't address that because the facts do not matter to you.

You can throw up all the Red Herrings you want, but the plain fact is that you are simply unwilling to accept the results of those studies simply because those results run counter to your personal beliefs. That makes it more of a religion to you than anything else.

 

[AndriaD]

there are no studies suggesting nic is dependence forming for never smokers. Nor is there any other evidence of such..

And it should be obvious to anyone who's watched the politics of vaping for a week, that IF such studies existed, THE ANTZ WOULD HAVE HAD A FIELD DAY WITH THEM!!!!!!!!! They've been hollering about nicotine being as addictive as street narcotics for decades... you think they're gonna ignore ANY study that would back up that assertion? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! If there was ANY evidence, no matter how slim, that nicotine was in ANY way addictive or dependence-producing for never-smokers, it would have been front-page news!

This is also why the studies which suggest the direct opposite, that nicotine is not in fact dependence-producing for never-smokers, are so hard to find -- the ANTZ would love to bury them so deeply, nobody would EVER find them! But truth will always out -- always. It might take a while, it might be difficult at first to find -- as we're seeing with this particular truth -- but the truth remains the truth, no matter what anyone says about it, no matter how deeply the liars try to bury it.

If nicotine were really as addictive as the ANTZ have made it out to be, do you really think that NRT would have become OTC? You can't even get pseudoephedrine or codeine cough syrup without showing your ID and signing on the dotted line!

Andria

 

[HotRodCarts]

If nicotine was really "addictive" when taken alone, it would not be available OTC. The fact that it is no more dependence-producing than caffeine is why it is as easily available as caffeine.

LMAO!

I guess that means alcohol can't be addictive either.

To the OP nicotine is VERY addictive so take the advice that most have given you and if your going to vape go with 0mg nic liquid.

 

[AndriaD]

LMAO!

I guess that means alcohol can't be addictive either.

To the OP nicotine is VERY addictive so take the advice that most have given you and if your going to vape go with 0mg nic liquid.

To about 90% of the population, alcohol is not addictive. Only about 10% become alcoholics.

Nicotine is not addictive; cigarettes, on the other hand, are VERY addictive -- but the nicotine is only a small part of the reason why.

Andria

 

[VNeil]

LMAO!

I guess that means alcohol can't be addictive either.

To the OP nicotine is VERY addictive so take the advice that most have given you and if your going to vape go with 0mg nic liquid.

And what does alcohol have to do with nicotine? Just one more Red Herring thrown into the pot when the facts are just not on your side.

 

[HotRodCarts]

And what does alcohol have to do with nicotine? Just one more Red Herring thrown into the pot when the facts are just not on your side

I'm a living fact when it come to addictions, trust me on that one.

 

[VNeil]

I'm a living fact when it come to addictions, trust me on that one.

You're a smoker. We are talking about never smokers here. Did you not read any of the prior pages?

 

[HotRodCarts]

Nicotine is not addictive; cigarettes, on the other hand, are VERY addictive -- but the nicotine is only a small part of the reason why.

This doesn't make sense then.

 

[HotRodCarts]

You're a smoker. We are talking about never smokers here. Did you not read any of the prior pages?

Yep, read every post and stand by what I've said.

 

[VNeil]

Yep, read every post and stand by what I've said.

OK, you stand by your belief that your experience as a smoker makes you an expert in the effects of nicotine on never smokers. More of an expert than the researchers that have done peer reviewed studies on the subject

 

[HotRodCarts]

OK, you stand by your belief that your experience as a smoker makes you an expert in the effects of nicotine on never smokers. More of an expert than the researchers that have done peer reviewed studies on the subject

I guess.
It's good to know the you know so much about me. lolz

 

[VNeil]

I guess.
It's good to know the you know so much about me. lolz

Well, you have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your opinion, other than your experience as a smoker. That is all I need to know about you.

 

[HotRodCarts]

/yawn

 

[WharfRat1976]

Nvmnd

 

[VaporDaze]

 

[AndriaD]

Well, you have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your opinion, other than your experience as a smoker. That is all I need to know about you.

It's like trying to hold back the tide, the ignorance in this thread. I'm thinking it's time to just unwatch it, and let 'em believe whatever crap they insist on believing. You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.

Andria

 

[WattWick]

This is not a matter of "hand picking studies". There are no, none, zero studies showing that never smokers become addicted to nicotine delivered without tobacco. None.

Those that try to discredit those never smoker nic studies never have any basis for it. When anti-vape bad science is discredited here, there is always a reason. It is usually either misrepresenting the data in the conclusions and press releases, or serious breaches in methodology. I have never seen a case where the actual raw data results were seriously questioned.

If you want to discredit studies by shooting the messenger then you are saying that the facts do not matter. Which is quite fine, as long as you are up front with it. But discrediting studies "just because" is just another way to say the facts don't matter.

If those studies are seriously flawed or falsified, then where are the legions of never smoking vapers now hooked on that highly addictive nicotine? Another null result, only confirming that those studies are legit.

Read the first sentence of your quotation of your linked conclusion.

"We also note that although any nicotine-containing product has the potential to be addicting,"

Which part is the credible, factual part? That part, or the rest of the very same sentence, which reads

"...based on the available evidence, currently marketed OTC NRT products do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence."

One of the above? Both? Neither?

I have stated my position. Which is, in plain writing: On the fence. Yet, you keep attributing me a different position; and keep furiously arguing against what you project onto me. My interest in participating is as nonexistent as the need for my participation.

This is me humoring you with a pinch of politeness - instead of merely ignoring you. Don't mistake it for an interest in arguing for or against you/"me".

(Edited for ease of reading)

 

[classwife]

I think you scared the OP off...hasn't been back online since Wednesday