Encourage or Discourage eCigs?
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have to disagree with grouping the "vast majority" into this discussion of substance / behavioral addiction. I would say that from my own personal experience with many different supposedly addictive activities (some in my youth, which I will not divulge) that it's different for each person. There were some things I did in my early years that were considered highly addictive, and I was fortunate enough to not suffer those addictions. There were other things that might be considered lower risk addictions by the masses (alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) that had a greater addictive affect on me.
I will concede that when it comes to some of the more harmful substances (illicit and illegal), there have been studies to back up the addictive qualities that affect the majority of the subjects tested. However, you did not cite these in your example, and I only used them as an example in my personal experiences to help stress my point. For the items you cited as examples, I believe that only coffee (caffeinated) would be relevant.
Finally, I would like to stress that almost all studies dealing with nicotine addiction until recently have been related to combusted tobacco use. Until we have more peer reviewed studies on the addictive properties of nicotine alone, one can only speculate based on ones own experience, and my experience with vaping tells me that it's almost exactly like caffeine.
Well, since we can't talk about illegal substances here, I didn't go there. IMO, it is akin to some of those, and still in class all its own because humans have consistently sought a way to keep nicotine legal, used everywhere and anywhere (even around very young humans) while knowing that the craving is very strong, and does next to nothing to alter the mind. A craving so strong that getting off the smoking kind and getting onto the vaping kind is considered 'great' step in scheme of things. If you took any of the illegal substances with similar quality for cravings and said, no - it's so much better now that I'm vaping it, I don't think anyone would be sold on that. They'd say instead, I think, that the addiction is just as pathetic as it was in the other form.
To me, addiction makes it sound like - I'm powerless, this is not my own doing, please have pity on me.
Whereas craving sounds like - heck yeah I want more of that, I admit it's on me, please don't judge me.
And to me, the craving for nicotine is in a class all its own.
To me, addiction makes it sound like - I'm powerless, this is not my own doing, please have pity on me.
Whereas craving sounds like - heck yeah I want more of that, I admit it's on me, please don't judge me.
And to me, the craving for nicotine is in a class all its own.
I've already explained why discussions that use the word "addiction" tend to be useless. And there are enough comments here claiming to talk about addiction to illustrate my point beautifully.
I'll just say this: I know more people who have quit smoking than people who have stopped eating fried foods.
Last edited:
Tell me. What is you exceptional expertise regarding addiction and the relative addictive properties of nicotine and fried food?
Do you have some medical background studying these issues? Or are you just some guy on the internet making statements that have no more basis than the other guys on the internet to which you refer?
If you are in some way expert in this area, I may listen to you. Otherwise what you claim in this regard just doesn't carry much weight.
Well heres the thing. If the person is strong enough to not have tried smoking, he can probably resist the temptation of vaping. Discourage him/her and explain the side effects of nicotine. Sounds little hypocritical but its the best advice i would give if i were in your shoes.
Which does speak to the point of craving. I crave foods, often, that are known to be unhealthy. And a percentage of the time (but not all the time), I give into that craving. Partially because, as I reason, eating something is better than not eating at all. And partially because, as I reason, if I've had umpteen thousand french fries up to this point and I actually feel healthier now than I did 2 years ago, it can't be bad / catastrophic.
I do think it might be difference of me living to 78 instead of 89. Here today, I say, I'm okay with that. But if I knew for sure, that I was going to live until 89, and also knew for sure that by eating the fried foods that I crave would cut that by 11 years, then I would be unreasonable to make the claims I make that justify why I give into my cravings. As I don't know that, and as a good life where I get to be active like a youthful person, seems already way short from all accounts I've seen (in say last 2500 years), then I'm in the camp that says 'seize the day' and live life to its fullest.
And yet, the 4 or so other illegal substances I had cravings for in my youth have been set aside, no longer something I'm interested in (all that much) and so I can't even live up to the idea of living life to its fullest. Maybe when I'm 94, I'll have this all figured out.
nice try, but honestly completely irrelevant.
the only interesting question would be:
how many people do you know of, that have tried quitting smoking and succeeded/failed compared to how many have tried to stop eating fried foods and succeeded/failed?
And, how many people would stop eating fried food if it was culturally unacceptable, they couldn't eat it indoors, or within 100 ft. of a door way, or if their insurance rate was doubled, none of their friends or family ate it, their friends, family and significant other harassed them constantly to quit, etc., etc., etc.
He has been trying to ride that donkey like it was the next derby winner for several days now.
I just skimmed over this thread. It is my personal opinion to do neither. I would supply them the facts and my personal experience, and leave it up to them. I feel the same way about cigarettes. I don't believe it's my place to make decisions for another adult. I think everyone has the right and responsibility to form their own opinions, and no one has the right to force their opinions on anyone else. The imposing of your opinions on some one else is how we ended up with prohibition, and it's partially why there is such a huge anti THR campaign by various groups and why the the FDA has taken such a keen interest in ecigs.
I've been vaping for 6 months or so. I still have a cigarette occasionally, one every two or three weeks. I used to love to smoke and I still do. The difference is that I have a cigarette now because I want to not because I need to. I started vaping because it is close enough to smoking to satisfy my addiction and I feel it is a healthier alternative. Well there's my
I've been vaping for 6 months or so. I still have a cigarette occasionally, one every two or three weeks. I used to love to smoke and I still do. The difference is that I have a cigarette now because I want to not because I need to. I started vaping because it is close enough to smoking to satisfy my addiction and I feel it is a healthier alternative. Well there's my
I don't believe I could go cold turkey tomorrow on all foods deemed unhealthy that I currently eat.
Somewhat depends on what is determined unhealthy.
But if it were just the 'junk' type stuff, I'd have a pretty tough time. Perhaps down the road, I'd be thankful. I might even conclude that in moderation, not too bad. But if told say one item in next year means I haven't really quit, then I believe I would have a very tough time.
Today, what I've eaten so far, I'd call healthy, so just wish to make this clear. I'm not a junk food addict, IMO, but I eat some almost every day, and for sure at least once a week.
And the ostracizing of unhealthy foods hasn't happened, yet. I honestly believe it could, and I think it isn't far off. For sure there are signs of it, and have been for awhile. I could just say the word 'obesity' and I think many here agree that with something like Obamacare in place, and say a few stepping stones along the way, and suddenly we are living in a society where 'junk food' is banned and ideally everyone is a vegan. If you are not, then you are part of the problem.
Off with your head!
I would discourage E-Cigs. If he/she persists then I will tell them to get E-liquid in zero nic. Acctually insist on zero nic. No need to get sombody hooked on nic. I will tell them that nic is HIGHLY addictive. I cant stress that enough.
Vegans have a high incidence of disease, particularly heart disease. TBH, the whole anti-fat things is contraversial. Health science is often nebulous at best. Recent evidence suggest a completely different "smoking gun" for heart disease, and that prior assumptions are wrong.
IMO the only "unhealthy food" that isn't all that up for scientific or logical questioning is large amounts of refined sucrose (table sugar). But TBH, before we went down any track of regulating "unhealthy food", the public should demand a 100% "smoking gun" on it. I doubt that will even manifest with fat, if anything I think the opposite is already true, its already being disproven. Give it some time, i reckon that house of cards will have fallen.
Sugar, well we have some good direct evidence, but not enough to call it a smoking gun.
So, yeah, anyone that introduces regulation on "unhealthy food" should be seriously questioned, and the general public should not be so gullible as to buy into mere statistical associations.
That said, I think, addiction wise, if one was to entirely forgo _sugar_, that it would be harder than forgoing nicotine, and comparable/close but not quite as hard as smoking. Theres proven evidence sugar is addictive, and ive tried cutting it out. It is damned hard - serial, id compare eliminating all sugar to cutting out smoking (the same sugar which we ironically feed to children when they have no defense against physical addiction)
I doubt the same is true of fat. We might enjoy it, but its nothing like as hard to surrender as sugar.
So, actually "junk food" is not a bad counter example. High refined sugar are highly addictive, seem by the science to cause a large amount of disease and we not only recommend it, but we offer it to young children. That kind of puts the whole, less addictive and probably less harmful nicotine into perspective, lol (not that we should offer that to adults or children either).
Cultural bias and moral panic, is an interesting phenomena.
This very issue is one that Health Canada ( and I'm sure the FDA) is assessing. Here is an excerpt from a letter from HC:
The data requirement may vary according to the inhaled product and associated health claims (e.g. smoking cessation, temporary abstinence). Pharmacokinetic data, addictive properties, long-term safety (local and systemic), bystander exposure and the possibility of overdosage are examples of important issues/ information that would need to be addressed in the NDS. The fact that non-smoker could use this product and develop addiction is another issue that would need to be addressed in the submission.
The data requirement may vary according to the inhaled product and associated health claims (e.g. smoking cessation, temporary abstinence). Pharmacokinetic data, addictive properties, long-term safety (local and systemic), bystander exposure and the possibility of overdosage are examples of important issues/ information that would need to be addressed in the NDS. The fact that non-smoker could use this product and develop addiction is another issue that would need to be addressed in the submission.
For the purposes of this thread, the only qualification you really need to concern yourself with is the fact that I'm smarter than you. Don't take it ill. You're in good company, and you seem to be plenty smart anyway.
Last edited:
I hate grammer nazis, but I can't help but be amused at your verbiage and sentence structure.
Actually, I'm in my 40s, so I know many more people who have tried to cut back on fried foods and failed than I know who smoke at all. It's a similar situation with Atkins-type diets (Protein Power, South Beach, Caveman, etc); every person I know who as tried them has failed in spite of their initial success, because after a few months (at most) they just cannot give up bread. Atkins and others call this "carbohydrate addiction." Seems silly to me, but he's using the word exactly the way that you all are.
I do know one guy and his wife who have completely quit fried foods and all processed foods and sugars and almost all most meat using the Eat to Live program.
But all that's just anecdotal evidence. The overwhelming majority of dieters fail to maintain weight loss, because eating habits (or "addictions," as Atkins, et. al. refer to them) are at least as difficult to overcome as the draw of cigarettes. The figure often cited is 95% failure rate for diets, but there's good reason to question that number. At any rate, you're probably more likely to be able to quit smoking cold turkey than to be able to maintain weight loss for 2 years. This is a large factor in the increasing obesity of Americans, and it results in health risks comparable to those associated with smoking.
The truth is that "addiction" is a lot more like everything else than most people want to admit, because they want to partition it off as a special kind of bad.
Last edited:
That's great. My web-forum comment publishing entourage has an open spot for an editor. Perhaps you'd like to apply.
- Status
Similar threads
