Encourage or Discourage eCigs?

[Drael]

Complex topic. Nicotine is less addictive than smoking, and alot less harmful.

Wikipedia, on nicotine:

"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[55] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.[35]"

There's two solid cited studies, showing what everyone should ultimately know, or learn, about tobacco chemistry, nicotine on its own isn't significantly addictive, especially compared to smoking. Subjectively this should also be obvious - if nicotine was as addictive as smoking, the patch would have a near 100% success rate, and everyone would be using e-cigs already.

So, i'd discourage it, but id also discourage drinking, lots of refined sugar, or reliance on caffiene, and all pretty equally, as you don't need any of them. Mind you, probably sugar is more addictive than the others, and more harmful than most of them (apart from drinking). So maybe not equally. Adults make there own choices though, but I would give my advice..

 

[Worzel]

It's a toss up. Part of me would say "this person may go to stinkies if I don't encourage them to vape" so I would humor them and tell them to do the zero juice. But then the ex-smoker in me would say no, forgetting this is vaping we are talking about. Like comparing apples to a bacon, ham, liverwurst, Crisco sandwich.

 

[Tanti]

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.

I believe ive seen people post that vape 0% nic here in the forum.
Its first and formost its important to get people off analogs, we know for 100% fact they are deadly.
We can tell by the small studies that have been done that vaping is safer than smoking.
Its up to each person to make that personal choice for them selves where they go after vaping.
Ive seen where alot loved smoking they just didnt like having been taking in all those chemicals, so its a good fit for them.
I think everyone here has a plan of what they are going to do, and I dont think anyone needs encouragement or discouraging that is already vaping. Like I said its a pesonal choice.
But for someone that has never vaped and is not addicted to nicotine should not be encouraged to try them. Nobody needs it that has never tryed it.
Altho with all the studys that are being done of the good things nicotine, you may see people being told to use it depend on the outcome of the studies.

There is more to the addiction of analogs than just the nicotine, but nicotine plays a huge part in it. so does alot of the chemicals they used in tobacco to inhance the nicotine addiction. There is also the habit. Relearning life all over again without the habit. Being able to do day to day life without it that is the hard part. Ive seen people pick cig back up after being away from for many years, the want from the brain is still there. They dont even quite understand the whole reason behind this.
For people that have chemical disbalance of the brain the nicotine can help them.

 

[Drael]

There is more to the addiction of analogs than just the nicotine, but nicotine plays a huge part in it.

Ive seen no evidence that nicotine alone is a huge part of the addiction of stinkies.

All the science ive seen suggests the opposite, that nicotine alone plays a very small role, and has low addictive properties compared to smoking. See my post above.

I don't think its fair to project, what it is like to be a smoking addict, onto someone who has never smoked. I mean I wouldnt encourage the choice either, but I dont think we can say off the bat, that the we are dealing with an intense addictive compulsion, if somebody is tobacco-niave, but nicotine experienced.

I suspect we'd be talking about a much smaller scale of habit, based on the science, and my own experiences. Ive heard of people using the patches for memory enhancement, with no significant troubles stopping.

Just saying. Again, I would not encourage it either. If anyone can avoid a sweet tooth, a caffiene habit, social drinking, or any other reliance that isnt needed in life, they are better off.

Good point about the mounting medical reasons btw. Like ulceratic colitis, parkinsons.

 

[Tanti]

Ive seen no evidence that nicotine alone is a huge part of the addiction of stinkies.

All the science ive seen suggests the opposite, that nicotine alone plays a very small role, and has low addictive properties compared to smoking. See my post above.

I don't think its fair to project, what it is like to be a smoking addict, onto someone who has never smoked. I mean I wouldnt encourage the choice either, but I dont think we can say off the bat, that the we are dealing with an intense addictive compulsion, if somebody is tobacco-niave, but nicotine experienced.

I suspect we'd be talking about a much smaller scale of habit, based on the science, and my own experiences. Ive heard of people using the patches for memory enhancement, with no significant troubles stopping.

Just saying. Again, I would not encourage it either. If anyone can avoid a sweet tooth, a caffiene habit, social drinking, or any other reliance that isnt needed in life, they are better off.

Good point about the mounting medical reasons btw. Like ulceratic colitis, parkinsons.

"There is more to the addiction of analogs than just the nicotine, but nicotine plays a huge part in it."

Isnt that what I said?
I did say there is more to it than just nicotine.

There is more to it, for a person that has been quit for over 20 years to still crave a cig.
I worked in a pharmacy and am certified in smoke cessation counciling. The failure rate is very high on the FDA appoved devices.
I have many tell me that they chew gum, have a tooth pick in their mouth or whatever to help with the craving even years and years later.

 

[Jman8]

I believe ive seen people post that vape 0% nic here in the forum.
Its first and formost its important to get people off analogs, we know for 100% fact they are deadly.

I'm curious about the 100% fact deadly claim, and what that means? I will readily concede that everyone (ever) that has smoked has eventually died. But that is also true, incidentally, with all people, in human history, who have never smoked.

All ex-smokers, now vapers, are still alive at the time they try vaping. I've heard enough stories of - 3 packs a day for 30 years straight and now going with vaping, as is the choice. Also heard enough stories of the old grandpa / grandma who is lived to be 111 years old and smoked up until the day he/she died. So, this would be one factual side of the discussion.

Then there are those who smoked, however much they smoked, and around age 40 had a massive heart attack, or got lung cancer, or had to go on oxygen tank, or had enough health issues that smoking was the obvious culprit and thus it would be rather foolish to live in some la la land and pretend smoking has no effects on people ever.

I observe the 2nd of the 2 above paragraphs is the one that has 'won' and that anything in that first paragraph is to be downplayed to the degree that talking about it will be met with venom, even among people who curse ANTZ and favor vaping.

So, I honestly ask those with venom / hatred of smoking if you feel the exact same way about smoking if a person chooses to smoke say 1 to 3 a day or even 1 to 3 a week?

We can tell by the small studies that have been done that vaping is safer than smoking.
Its up to each person to make that personal choice for them selves where they go after vaping.

Agreed, and would say the same with smoking. I'm pretty sure most would agree with the idea on smoking as well, and just make note that vaping is safer than smoking. And would, for this reason alone, encourage vaping (over smoking).

Ive seen where alot loved smoking they just didnt like having been taking in all those chemicals, so its a good fit for them.
I think everyone here has a plan of what they are going to do, and I dont think anyone needs encouragement or discouraging that is already vaping. Like I said its a pesonal choice.

I think it is become less a matter of personal choice and that is obvious. That regulation has the effect of limiting personal choice and carries with it a stigma that one is pathetic to not address their habit/addiction immediately. If they show up without a plan and instead show up with 'this is my personal choice' they come off even more pathetic and have a stigma that the non-nic user quickly labels as denial from not truly looking at the addiction, but instead caught up in own cycle of addiction, self destruction.

Now, I wrote this previous paragraph with smoking in mind. I wrote it as if it is only about smokers. And I think that ex-smokers would, in some cases, go along with the claims of pathetic, without much hesitation. Favor more regulation, if not an outright ban, and are very okay with the stigma being attached. That those who smoke and claim to have a plan in mind and that it is a matter of personal choice, are not to be readily believed, for it is their addiction trying to make claims rather than one who is free from addiction. Because after all, smoking is 100% deadly.

But transfer that same logic to vaping, and suddenly it is a whole new ball game, and the addiction is at worst unfortunate, but is not something to attach any stigma too and instead to inflate the sound bite of personal choice to the nth degree. That a plan isn't truly necessary and that above all else this is safer than smoking and ought to be allowed indefinitely. With the fall back position that vaping is relatively harmless. What does relatively harmless mean? Is it just some pie in the sky wish? I would say no. I would say there is plenty of anecdotal evidence around and actual studies available that convey 'relatively harmless.' And thus the addiction is akin to the justified need to live in a U.S. city where the air quality is poor, but the rewards for that choice are believed to outweigh any known risk. And unknown risks be damned, this is my personal choice, do not tread on me / us.

But for someone that has never vaped and is not addicted to nicotine should not be encouraged to try them. Nobody needs it that has never tryed it.

Nobody technically needs it after they tried it. The addiction is one that is allowed, unless it is somehow not allowed.

Altho with all the studys that are being done of the good things nicotine, you may see people being told to use it depend on the outcome of the studies.

Which is what happened with smoking. Non-smokers instinctively knew - uh, that can't be healthy. As everyone is born a non-smoker, everyone has pretty much known this since smoking has been around, for around 3000 years, give or take. But some felt until circa 1967, there was a chance, just maybe, that it wasn't really that unhealthy, that they are alive and doing okay for themselves, and that it is my own damn choice. Don't tread on me / us!

 

[junkman]

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.

Downplaying the potential risks of 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, you are not doing anyone any favors.

Obviously safety of a practice must lie on a continuum between completely safe and instantly deadly. Examples of the extremes are likely very rare.

When deciding whether to partake an activity lying on that continuum, it would be rational to 1) examine the benefits of partaking, 2) investigate alternatives that may provide those benefits while being closer to the safe end of the spectrum, and 3) consider the frequency with which you will be partaking the activity.

I would suggest that eating meat, however prepared, over burning wood and charcoal may not be as safe as you think. Particularly if done on a daily basis over long periods of time. Of course the occasional char-grilled steak is a pleasure I will not forego. Lucky it isn't addictive. However, the nature of risk in this regard is that even things that are relatively safe given sporadic use can become more dangerous with consistent, repeated exposure.

When choosing to eat a grilled meat I have the benefits of nutrition, enjoyment of the taste, and the social interaction of the cook out. While there may be alternatives, such as boiling the meat or substituting vegetables that would be safer, there would be a trade off in the benefits of taste and likely social interactions. However, as the cook outs are rather infrequent, I would be more likely to subject myself to the higher risk.

Now, you could place vaping and smoking on the continuum as well. Where they would be on that continuum isn't precisely important and probably is unknown for any given individual. However, I think most people would agree that smoking would be much nearer the deadly end than vaping. Therefore, if the benefits of vaping are similar to smoking it would be rational to choose vaping, or in fact recommend to smokers to switch to vaping. That is a rather easy choice for most of us.

For a smoker, the benefit of continuing to smoke is to some degree satisfaction of the cravings for nicotine. In fact for many smokers, despite what benefits they may have believed they were obtaining when they began smoking, the satisfaction of that craving is the only benefit they currently gain when they light up. That craving is strong enough to over-ride the costs and risks associated with continuing to smoke. This should be a caution to anyone considering uptake of such a habit.

Now, consider the continuum for a non-smoker. Where would you place the level of risk of vaping? Surely you can't place it as completely harmless? Would you place a day of vaping in the same general risk class of eating a grilled steak? More risky? Less? How would you go about assigning their relative positions? Regardless, encouraging someone who is not a smoker to begin vaping is encouraging them to partake in some level of risk, the exact amount of risk unknown. To blithely compare it to eating nachos or eating grilled meat is to make a rather large assumption on the relative risks of the activities, to ignore the benefits and alternatives of each activity, and to ignore the nature of risk increasing with consistent, repeated exposure.

When you combine the unknown level of risk with habit forming/addictive nature of nicotine which often results in daily use (consistent, repeated exposure) it is difficult to imagine a benefit for the non-smoker that would justify the risk, particularly when the non-smoker is at present not subject to the cravings of nicotine as is a smoker.

Therefore, to actually encourage a non-smoker to vape doesn't appear to be a good idea, and is not something I would choose to do.

 

[Jman8]

Not something I would choose to do.... knowingly.

Is what I think we vapers mean to say.

 

[DC2]

Can we all agree that...

1) If a non-smoker took up vaping and the use of nicotine...
2) And actually did become addicted to nicotine...
3) And electronic cigarettes were regulated to the point of being useless...
4) And the person in question started smoking as a result...

That this would be a bad thing?

As for me, I think it would be a bad thing.
And it is the reason I would not encourage an non-smoker to vape.

I am nowhere near convinced that (2) above is inevitable.
But just the possibility is enough for me to never encourage a non-smoker to begin vaping with nicotine.

 

[Jman8]

Can we all agree that...

1) If a non-smoker took up vaping and the use of nicotine...
2) And actually did become addicted to nicotine...
3) And electronic cigarettes were regulated to the point of being useless...
4) And the person in question started smoking as a result...

That this would be a bad thing?

As for me, I think it would be a bad thing.
And it is the reason I would not encourage an non-smoker to vape.

I am nowhere near convinced that (2) above is inevitable.
But just the possibility is enough for me to never encourage a non-smoker to begin vaping with nicotine.

I can agree this would be a bad thing.

Can we agree that if #3 doesn't occur, then it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am nowhere near convinced that #3 is inevitable.
And the hypothetical possibility is not enough for me to always discourage a non-smoker to begin vaping nicotine.

 

[DC2]

I can agree this would be a bad thing.

Can we agree that if #3 doesn't occur, then it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'll wait until we see the deeming regulations before I start thinking about that question.

I am nowhere near convinced that #3 is inevitable.
And the hypothetical possibility is not enough for me to always discourage a non-smoker to begin vaping nicotine.

If you look at what the European Union is getting ready to do, then you might change your mind.

 

[Jman8]

If you look at what the European Union is getting ready to do, then you might change your mind.

I have. Doesn't change my mind. If done, my mind would not be changed, on the principle at work. Perhaps it could be, I don't believe it would be. I've already experienced the underground market, and humans tend to function okay with it in place. Getting exactly what they want, as desired. Getting everything they want? Not likely. Even in the current market, this somewhat free market we have with vaping, I've been let down a few times. In general, I'm a happy vaper.

 

[Saintly1]

When you encourage someone to do something you're saying that they SHOULD do it. There are plenty of reasons why a smoker SHOULD start vaping but I can't think of a single reason why a non-smoker SHOULD start vaping.

If non-smokers want to vape then let them. Who are we to say they SHOULD. I just don't understand the need for individuals to encourage it. Vendors are a different story. They're looking to make profits and will always look for new customers. In most cases.

Yes, those of us that vape do enjoy it but you have to keep in mind that most of us were, and some still are, smokers. We enjoy inhaling something into our lungs. Just because we enjoy it doesn't mean other people will. There are plenty of people who are non-smokers because they don't enjoy something going in to their lungs.

I enjoy pickles. Does that mean I should encourage people to eat pickles?

 

[DC2]

I have. Doesn't change my mind. If done, my mind would not be changed, on the principle at work. Perhaps it could be, I don't believe it would be. I've already experienced the underground market, and humans tend to function okay with it in place. Getting exactly what they want, as desired. Getting everything they want? Not likely. Even in the current market, this somewhat free market we have with vaping, I've been let down a few times. In general, I'm a happy vaper.

Sure, those of us reading this will find a way, for the most part.
But what about the 45 million current smokers in the United States today?

 

[Jman8]

When I encourage someone to do something, I'm not saying they SHOULD. I'm saying, they COULD, and I recommend it based on my experience and based (partially) on what I know of them. I'd desire discussion likely before I did any encouraging.

I might encourage a non-smoker because I find enjoyment in vaping and I believe another could as well. I would likely only encourage someone if I knew them previously, they approached me, and essentially said, 'hey could I try that?' Even then, I'd likely have a discussion of some sort to determine, for my own self, why do you want to try this? How things proceed from there might lead me to say, nah, I'd rather not share at this time, or it might lead to, yeah, go ahead here you go. So, essentially a case by case basis / situational ethics sort of thing occurring. I don't think I could sit here and be honest and say I would always discourage a non-nic user from trying out vaping. Perhaps someday, I'll update things, but right now, as things exist right now in both my own experience and my perception of the product and industry, I could see some instances where I would encourage it / recommend it - for non-nic users.

 

[junkman]

When I encourage someone to do something, I'm not saying they SHOULD. I'm saying, they COULD, and I recommend it based on my experience and based (partially) on what I know of them. I'd desire discussion likely before I did any encouraging.

I might encourage a non-smoker because I find enjoyment in vaping and I believe another could as well. I would likely only encourage someone if I knew them previously, they approached me, and essentially said, 'hey could I try that?' Even then, I'd likely have a discussion of some sort to determine, for my own self, why do you want to try this? How things proceed from there might lead me to say, nah, I'd rather not share at this time, or it might lead to, yeah, go ahead here you go. So, essentially a case by case basis / situational ethics sort of thing occurring. I don't think I could sit here and be honest and say I would always discourage a non-nic user from trying out vaping. Perhaps someday, I'll update things, but right now, as things exist right now in both my own experience and my perception of the product and industry, I could see some instances where I would encourage it / recommend it - for non-nic users.

If a non-smoking \ friend ask me "Hey, let me try a toke of that", I would have no problem in letting them try. My feeling was the question was more along the lines of where can I get some of that, what should I order, etc. Which I would look at them and tell them they are nuts. Stay away.

 

[DC2]

When I encourage someone to do something, I'm not saying they SHOULD. I'm saying, they COULD, and I recommend it based on my experience and based (partially) on what I know of them. I'd desire discussion likely before I did any encouraging.

encourage = should

Maybe you should have chosen a different word?

 

[ihsjepsen]

I would strongly discourage anyone from nicotine. I smoked analogs for over 45 years and to this day I wish that I had never become addicted to nicotine. Vaping has given me a way to give up the analogs by substituting vaporized nicotine but I still wish that I was not addicted. Discourage them!

 

[Tanti]

When I encourage someone to do something, I'm not saying they SHOULD. I'm saying, they COULD, and I recommend it based on my experience and based (partially) on what I know of them. I'd desire discussion likely before I did any encouraging.

I might encourage a non-smoker because I find enjoyment in vaping and I believe another could as well. I would likely only encourage someone if I knew them previously, they approached me, and essentially said, 'hey could I try that?' Even then, I'd likely have a discussion of some sort to determine, for my own self, why do you want to try this? How things proceed from there might lead me to say, nah, I'd rather not share at this time, or it might lead to, yeah, go ahead here you go. So, essentially a case by case basis / situational ethics sort of thing occurring. I don't think I could sit here and be honest and say I would always discourage a non-nic user from trying out vaping. Perhaps someday, I'll update things, but right now, as things exist right now in both my own experience and my perception of the product and industry, I could see some instances where I would encourage it / recommend it - for non-nic users.

I really dont get your point of all this.
to encourage someone is more than just saying they could, it is saying they should.
Im not understanding why in heck you would want to get a non-smoker, a person that doesnt need to have nic, and to get them addicted to nic. And even if they used 0 mg nic why would you want them to?

What I believe is you are stirring the big spoon here (as they say across the pond).

 

[MikenGA]

I started smoking as a way to drastically change my self-image and handle stress a bit differently. I thought about smoking for a few months before I bought my first pack. There was no alternative to analogs available...but if ecigs had existed back then, I ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE WANTED SOMEONE TO EXPOSE ME TO THEM!

I was 'going' to smoke...for awhile at least...and no amount of 'encouragement' or 'discouragement' would have played a role in that most personal decision.

I suspect most of us would 'discourage' someone who wanted to pickup smoking or vaping just for kicks...but for the person who is of the mindset they are 'going to do it' with or without my blessings, I certainly would ENCOURAGE them to VAPE!

As for the addicting aspects of nicotine, I'm not convinced that nic alone is what kept me smoking analogs for 32 years. Here's why: After a year and 4 months analog free, the only kick I get from nic alone, is it lifts my spirit above depression, and I'm able to concentrate more easily. Even so, I'm down to 6mg most of the time, but sometimes less. I think it's the other crap in addition to nic - generated by burning tobacco - that makes smoking so unbearably addictive.

What's more, I have recently gone for several days at a time without vaping and the 'nic fits' are not there. THIS would NOT have been possible with analogs...but with my vape, it's amazingly easy for me to skip a few days, if necessary. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE to vape, I enjoy blowing clouds, and I like my flavors, but I don't seem to require them anymore. As far as I'm concerned, this is 'a gift' I never expected from vaping, but it took me well over a year to realize I had received it.

Analogs were definitely physically and mentally addictive for me. Vaping may also have physically addictive qualities, but in MY experience, they're almost non-existent in comparison to analog smoke. If I were still vaping 24mg, I might feel differently, but I lowered the nic levels when my body basically told me "TOO MUCH NIC!" Ok, ok...so I cut the nic down to 18mg...then 12mg...then 6mg...then 0mg. At '0', I felt clouds of depression begin to stir, so I raised my nic level back up to 6mg.

At this point, vaping is similar to drinking coffee; I don't require it, but I LIKE it if it's available. Would I encourage others to drink coffee with me? I dunno...in my (almost) 61 years, I've never met a 'coffee virgin'. I'm sure I would offer coffee, but not sure I would feel the need to encourage (or discourage) its use. Likewise with vaping: I'll offer a 'toot' to those who are curious, but I don't feel the need to encourage OR discourage the practice...it is what it is.

Those who are 'going to do it' with or without my blessings do NOT need a reprimand; they need guidance toward best choices, and I'm certain I would ENCOURAGE such people to first try my hardware and juice, rather than buy a pack of smokes and a lighter. Knowing what I now know, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE of me to do otherwise!