Encourage or Discourage eCigs?

[Jman8]

I would encourgage them to vape, it is an awesome hobby and perfectally safe. far better than smoking or chewing rocks....

Have you seen the flavored rocks they have put out lately?
Far safer and tastier than chewing dynamite, which was a hard addiction for me to get over, but thank God my friend encouraged me to start chewing rocks or I don't know if I'd be alive today.

 

[junkman]

Your logic is weak. There is nothing to guarantee the substance addiction. Some people understand / employ moderation in their use of all substances.

If (allegedly) addictive substances were forbidden from being advertised / encouraged, we'd have almost nothing for sale on the current market.

Your logic is along lines of - addiction is bad, hey you who are addicted to that substance I despise, come over here and get addicted to this substance I'm okay with. But remember all you people who might wish to try this - on principle, addiction is bad.

OK, perhaps if you read my statement literally and attempted not to understand the point, you would be right. So let me rephrase that -

There is a clear difference between discouraging someone from starting an activity that involves a highly addictive substance and attempting to ban a safe effective way for those already addicted to that substance to quit a dangerous activity.

Granted, individual reactions to nicotine and nicotine withdrawal are different. It is possible to smoke or vape and not become addicted. I is also quite common for those using nicotine to become addicted.

And yes, I believe addiction is a negative thing. Not something to be encouraged. I don't care if it is caffeine, nicotine, whatever. However, some addictions have worse consequences than others.

 

[sacricide]

i guess then its not about what i should do, it is just another question. whether they have the right (although hopefully an accurate and informed decision) to do it without me stopping them? i say they do

it would be unfair to me, to draw those lines for others and impose myself since i understand how important being able to choose and make those mistakes are.. as i do not like the FDA being around and on my back. i cannot find a way to justify doing it to someone else. health concerns while a majority find important. isnt for everyone as we assume, and i cant see myself drawing those lines even when it seems in their best interest (IMO)

 

[Jman8]

OK, perhaps if you read my statement literally and attempted not to understand the point, you would be right. So let me rephrase that -

There is a clear difference between discouraging someone from starting an activity that involves a highly addictive substance and attempting to ban a safe effective way for those already addicted to that substance to quit a dangerous activity.

Granted, individual reactions to nicotine and nicotine withdrawal are different. It is possible to smoke or vape and not become addicted. I is also quite common for those using nicotine to become addicted.

And yes, I believe addiction is a negative thing. Not something to be encouraged. I don't care if it is caffeine, nicotine, whatever. However, some addictions have worse consequences than others.

If what you are saying is your position, then I would think it would be good / right, to encourage the less harmful activity with the clear stipulation that the sooner you go cold turkey on the less harmful activity, the better. Hesitating on this is something to be spoken to as often as humanly possible. Medical professionals and possibly law enforcement must be brought in to handle this matter as self diagnosis around own addiction issues may not be warranted as 'effective' given the substance in question.

That is, unless the substance in question is relatively harmless. In which case, use of it by previous addicts or new addicts is of little consequence to all involved within the community.

 

[junkman]

If what you are saying is your position, then I would think it would be good / right, to encourage the less harmful activity with the clear stipulation that the sooner you go cold turkey on the less harmful activity, the better. Hesitating on this is something to be spoken to as often as humanly possible. Medical professionals and possibly law enforcement must be brought in to handle this matter as self diagnosis around own addiction issues may not be warranted as 'effective' given the substance in question.

That is, unless the substance in question is relatively harmless. In which case, use of it by previous addicts or new addicts is of little consequence to all involved within the community.

Get a clue man

 

[Iffy]

I'll just leave this thread alone I guess...

Your logic is weak.

If what you are saying is your position

Guess not...

 

[Jman8]

Wow, such feeble comebacks.

I hope all arguments on ECF are this easy to settle.

 

[junkman]

Wow, such feeble comebacks.

I hope all arguments on ECF are this easy to settle.

All your arguments are based on false dichotomies. You belabor the same issues to death so it is worthless to say more

 

[Jman8]

As I said... feeble comeback.

 

[Thucydides]

I put my response to the oft-asked question of Encourage vs Discourage in the form of a parody in a new thread, which some admin/addict with a low level of reading proficiency took to have nothing to do with the topic at hand and moved it to The Lounge. So I'm reposting it here in the form of a comment:

I'm an addict. And I am addicted to nachos. Studies show that eating copious amounts of nachos has a profound neurological impact on all organisms with a taste for ersatz Tex-Mex. Plus, nachos makes you fat and ugly and give you heart disease. In spite of the obvious risks of being fat and ugly and getting heart disease, I cannot stop eating nachos.

Anyway, nachos were making me fat and ugly and giving me heart disease, so I switched to low-calorie chips with low-fat cheese so that I can remain healthy in spite of my pathetic addiction, which fills me with such shame that I cannot help but declare, "I'm an addict!" whenever anyone talks about nachos.

Now a friend of mine is interested in trying my low-fat, low-calorie nachos, and I'm faced with the most profound moral dilemma that I've ever faced in my life as an addict. Should I encourage it or discourage it?

Keep in mind, this person is an adult, and has never eaten nachos in her life. What's more, my friend is healthy and is neither fat nor ugly.

For my part, I feel fine eating my low-calorie Nachos, because it's a replacement for the high-calorie Nachos that was making me fat and ugly and giving me heart disease. But what about a person who's never had nachos? Nachos just aren't natural. Shouldn't she avoid it altogether?

I just don't know. I wish eating low-calorie nachos would make me just as wise as it does healthy.

 

[sacricide]

I put my response to the oft-asked question of Encourage vs Discourage in the form of a parody in a new thread, which some admin/addict with a low level of reading proficiency took to have nothing to do with the topic at hand and moved it to The Lounge. So I'm reposting it here in the form of a comment:

haha, well put. i like it.

 

[junkman]

I put my response to the oft-asked question of Encourage vs Discourage in the form of a parody in a new thread, which some admin/addict with a low level of reading proficiency took to have nothing to do with the topic at hand and moved it to The Lounge. So I'm reposting it here in the form of a comment:

I guess that would be a better analogy if 1) nachos were highly addictive to large segments of the population instead of just you 2) eating nachos was an ostracized activity 3) eating your healthy version of nachos carried an unknown amount of health risk along with the addiction.

But in the end you have to eat something, and most other foods carry many of the same risks, so the analogy just doesn't seem to fit the situation.

 

[Jman8]

I think the analogy fits the situation quite well.

 

[Thucydides]

I guess that would be a better analogy if 1) nachos were highly addictive to large segments of the population instead of just you 2) eating nachos was an ostracized activity 3) eating your healthy version of nachos carried an unknown amount of health risk along with the addiction.

But in the end you have to eat something, and most other foods carry many of the same risks, so the analogy just doesn't seem to fit the situation.

You may be surprised by how tired I am of people trying to sound informed by insisting that there is an "unknown" health risk associated with vaping. I've dealt with that one on numerous occasions, for example in this thread, where I said the following:

How many tests have been conducted on cake mixes for their "long-term" health impact? None. You throw a bunch of ingredients together that everyone considers safe and you blast it through enough heat to bake a small chicken or to kill any reasonably-sized living thing, and then you eat it. The texture, flavor, smell, density, and mouth-feel of the resulting cake all depend on the complex chemical reactions of the ingredients -- eggs, flour, sodium bicarbonate, salt, sugar, animal and vegetable oils, chocolate, artificial flavorings, artificial colorings, preservatives, gums & gels.

How about flavored vitamin water?

What's the long-term impact of Slurpees?

How many tests have been conducts on people who have consumed non-dairy creamer for decades?

What about those "apple pie" things they sell at McDonalds?

How many tests have been performed measuring the long-term impact of the textured vegetable protein (TVP) consumed by so many vegans and vegetarians?

Look, I'm not knocking any of these things. I'm just saying that all of this focus on coming up with a 100% certified long-term proof of safety for vaping is a crock, plain and simple; we must lose no opportunity to say so.

Vaping ingredients have been used in foods, beverages, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products for decades. Millions of people have been vaping them for years, and the best thing that the news can come up with is a story about an idiot with a poorly designed, homemade battery that exploded.

When people complain that, "We don't know the long term health impact," they're either (a) falling prey to the pseudo-scientific belief that there's some measure of safety for everything that we do, or (b) they're trying to fuel paranoia among vapers and anti-vapers.

Look, there may be legitimate health questions about vaping, but "we don't know the long term health impact" answers a question that isn't even worth answering. Reject the basic assumption of the question and get on with things.

I don't see what ostracizing has to do with it. If you're going to avoid vaping in public because you fear being ostracized, then you're engaging in a behavior that preserves that tendency to ostracize.

Regarding your statement that it's "highly addictive," I've already dealt with that in an earlier comment on this thread:

I get tired of people going on and on about "addiction." If you removed all the added salt from your diet, so that you only got the amount of salt you needed to maintain health, you'd hate life for a while. Same with sugar. Same with driving. People talk about being addicted to caffeine, carbohydrates, smart phones, video games, the Internet. Come on.

Jails are full of people who commit violent crimes to satisfy their addictions. Recovery groups are stacked with members who have harrowing tails of how they destroyed their family, their career, and their financial well-being due to addictions.

Funny thing: You don't find people committing violent crimes or destroying their career over nicotine or caffeine or smart phones.

Sure, people who suffer debilitating health conditions due to smoking can't bring themselves to stop. But they also can't bring themselves to start an exercise program either. Are they addicted to inactivity?

People have all kinds of behavioral patterns that they cannot break. Some are odious, like those of serial wife-beaters. Others are benign, like biting your fingernails. In my opinion, statements to the effect of "I'm an addict" by people who use nicotine, caffeine, or nail-biting to eek out some modicum of pleasure or enjoyment in this bleak and indifferent world are sheer hyperbole.

In the scheme of things, if you want to make your life better, if giving up nicotine (as nicotine, separate from smoking) isn't pretty low on your list, then you're either (a) damn near perfect otherwise, or (b) focusing on minor things.

So I guess I'm still waiting for someone to offer a well-informed response.

 

[junkman]

You may be surprised by how tired I am of people trying to sound informed by insisting that there is an "unknown" health risk associated with vaping. I've dealt with that one on numerous occasions, for example in this thread, where I said the following:



I don't see what ostracizing has to do with it. If you're going to avoid vaping in public because you fear being ostracized, then you're engaging in a behavior that preserves that tendency to ostracize.

Regarding your statement that it's "highly addictive," I've already dealt with that in an earlier comment on this thread:



So I guess I'm still waiting for someone to offer a well-informed response.

1) Whether I would be surprised by how tired you are of hearing it or not has no bearing on the discussion. I could care less if you are tired of hearing it. I would love to be able to say that repeatedly inhaling PG/VG/Flavorings/Nicotine and whatever else may be in e-liquid from heated metal wires through various fillers, wicks and devices over long periods of time is known to be completely safe. I can't say that nor can you. My feeling is probably more detrimental than not vaping. I can pretty confidently say that it is at worst reduced harm from smoking cigarettes, but I can't prove that either.

2) So in your mind, nicotine isn't addictive. And you are waiting for someone else to demonstrate they are well informed? You seriously attempt to repudiate my comment based on a claim that nicotine isn't addictive?

3) The ostracize comment was with respect to a reason your analogy is weak. There is a huge difference between smoking and vaping vs. eating nachos in our society. Has nothing to do with whether I choose to vape in public or not. Encouraging someone to take up a habit that is addictive and will put them in an ostracized group looks like a .... move to me.

I guess the original question here was would "you" encourage or discourage a non-smoker to vape.

I wouldn't. If you truly believe that it is perfectly safe and that nicotine is not addictive, than I can see why you would feel free to encourage someone. But I don't share your beliefs.

 

[Jman8]

If you truly believe that it is perfectly safe and that nicotine is not addictive, than I can see why you would feel free to encourage someone. But I don't share your beliefs.

Can you point to someone in this thread who has claimed that eCigs are 'perfectly safe?'

To be a bit more clear, do you share the belief that eCigs are relatively harmless?

 

[cactus71]

You may be surprised by how tired I am of people trying to sound informed by insisting that there is an "unknown" health risk associated with vaping. I've dealt with that one on numerous occasions, for example in this thread, where I said the following:



I don't see what ostracizing has to do with it. If you're going to avoid vaping in public because you fear being ostracized, then you're engaging in a behavior that preserves that tendency to ostracize.

Regarding your statement that it's "highly addictive," I've already dealt with that in an earlier comment on this thread:



So I guess I'm still waiting for someone to offer a well-informed response.

I could only "Like" this once, but if I could continuously "Like" it, I could very well have a new addiction.

 

[Tanti]

Well this is a no-brainer! Of course you dont willfully get someone addicted to something that is so addictive.
Its has been equated to addiction of herion, in testing and by drs over the many many years.

Cold turkey has a failure rate of about 80 -90% long term.
yes there maybe a handful of people that can just put it down and walk away and not look back but those a very small % of the smoking population.

I'm certified in smoke cessation, Ive helped people in using different products to get off smoking. I worked in a pharmacy for 21 years and heard every excuse in the book. Ive also used everyone of those excuses. The brain is a powerful thing, it can trick you and get its way when it comes to addictions. The one I used to love was, " I can put these down anytime I want, I just dont want to".
Most everytime that I saw the first stressful event of the person life since off cigs they would be right down to the store buying a pack, then come back to me and want to try again to quit. Or the question can I smoke while I have the patch on.

This is truely the first product ive seen that truely works. I see people on here that have been smoke free for years and that is very encourging to me.

Im not sure how they would get a true testing from vapers since all of them were smokers to see the true effects of vaping. I guess they would have to use 0mg nic e-cig. but that doesnt give a true picture of it. guess they could take new people that have not started yet and get a base line before starting, but how would they truely know if it was from e-cig or from years of smoking.

Just say NO to getting anyone started on Nicotine! No matter what age!

ugg ive been talking about cigs to long, thats still my trigger. I wouldnt wish this on my worse enemy.

 

[Thucydides]

1) Whether I would be surprised by how tired you are of hearing it or not has no bearing on the discussion. I could care less if you are tired of hearing it. I would love to be able to say that repeatedly inhaling PG/VG/Flavorings/Nicotine and whatever else may be in e-liquid from heated metal wires through various fillers, wicks and devices over long periods of time is known to be completely safe. I can't say that nor can you. My feeling is probably more detrimental than not vaping. I can pretty confidently say that it is at worst reduced harm from smoking cigarettes, but I can't prove that either.

You've defined "completely safe" in a way that makes it a useless term in both technical and practical contexts. You're certainly entitled to define and use terms however you choose for the purposes of your own usage, but once you make the transition into supposing that you're drawing objective conclusions based on your personal definitions, you run afoul of the fallacy of equivocation. When you do this in a way that spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt, you're not doing anyone any favors. But let's be perfectly clear about the fact that defining "completely safe" in a way that it cannot possibly refer to anything at all doesn't translate into an indictment of vaping when it, like everything else, turns out to not be "completely safe" by that definition.

Humans have been mixing safe ingredients and performing complex, heat-based chemical transformations on them since the dawn of our species. If you want to go to a barbecue and complain that you're not sure of their special, homemade marinade and glaze is completely safe, because they're using a novel mix of (safe) ingredients and roasting them inside of or atop raw animal flesh for prolonged periods on a smoking fire at temperatures that will kill any living thing, then be my guest. But you're certainly not going to be the life of the party.

I understand that withholding judgment makes one look circumspect, critical, and sophisticated. But it can also make one look pretty silly, too.

2) So in your mind, nicotine isn't addictive. And you are waiting for someone else to demonstrate they are well informed? You seriously attempt to repudiate my comment based on a claim that nicotine isn't addictive?

Since these questions are obviously being asked for rhetorical impact, I won't bother to answer them. I will, however, note that your interpretation of my comment, rhetorically charged as it is, is something of a leap.

The term "addictive" has become a useless term in the last 30 years. It is pretty much used to refer to anything that someone wants to relegate to a very special category of bad things. This makes it nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about medical and neurological impact of certain patterns of cravings of specific food-stuffs and food derivatives, because one seldom makes it past the basic supposition that something very, very bad is happening.

3) The ostracize comment was with respect to a reason your analogy is weak. There is a huge difference between smoking and vaping vs. eating nachos in our society. Has nothing to do with whether I choose to vape in public or not. Encouraging someone to take up a habit that is addictive and will put them in an ostracized group looks like a .... move to me.

Please refer to my comment above about the usefulness of the term "addiction."

I wouldn't [encourage use of e-cigs among non-smokes]. If you truly believe that it is perfectly safe and that nicotine is not addictive, than I can see why you would feel free to encourage someone. But I don't share your beliefs.

I'm good with that. Normally I check out of discussions such as these because they're pointless. But I like you. You're smart and you're a spirited arguer.

 

[Jman8]

This product (vaping) isn't getting people off the addiction, but is, in some cases, getting people away from the habit of smoking.

This forum (and many others like it) encourage eCigs which carry with it a potential addiction to nicotine. This forum then is not about getting away from the addiction to nicotine. It, in fact, encourages that.

This thread is about encouraging and discouraging based on the idea that:
a) this product is a safer alternative to smoking
b) this product is relatively harmless

The first idea speaks to people who wish to smoke less or not at all.
The second idea speaks to anyone interested in vaping, be they non-smoker, ex-smoker, current smoker, etc.