Fear from FDA, Family Members, etc That Vaping is Long Term Substitue for Other Addictions

[mkbilbo]

You know I have to bring this out, but it's not because you choose to ignore it

I don't think that anyone is going to argue that nicotine isn't addictive. The real question is: how addictive is it?

Can I suggest a little experiment? For those that have been off analogs for a year or more, can you go more than 2 hours without vaping, and not get the jitters? How hard/easy was it? (Should we start another thread for this?)

Well... not so much "ignore" as "not go off on long tangent that's not going to be settled any time soon".

Also, nicotine's addictive level is not some set thing. There are "social smokers" who don't seem to crave it much or at all. There are people that can pick up or walk away from cigarettes. Smoke when they drink but only then. Others who quit "cold turkey" without much withdrawal at all.

Me? It would be better to lock me away and let me "detox" if you want "cold turkey". I became utterly impossible to live with the times I attempted "cold turkey". I can even recall, disturbingly enough, periods when I was young and broke, feeling pretty strong impulses to steal to get money for cigs. I didn't but it rattled me to find that kind of thinking in myself.

I feel the same strength of reactions about vaping. The idea of somebody trying to take it away makes me angry. I mean just thinking about it. I get angry. Right now. I'm serious. Nobody is even suggesting it and I'm here, vaping away but there it is. Just the thought causes the reaction.

I suspect for various and sundry mine is a fairly straightforward (and powerful) addiction to nicotine. But it gets complicated fast. I'm not necessarily representative of... anybody. My transition was rather simple. And had few side effects. Which is one reason I suspect I'm more "textbook" nicotine addicted and that's the bulk of it. Others... there are so many chemicals involved... who could untangle all that?

But.

If the primary addictive component is not nicotine, vaping shouldn't work.

That is, people who tried to "switch" would experience powerful, deeply unpleasant withdrawal and would likely go back to smoking. The failure rate of "cessation" products and techniques is in 90% territory. The NRT that seems to be working to any significant degree involves switching the delivery system for the nicotine (gum, patches, inhalers, etc.).

I know it's more complex than "just nicotine" but if nicotine isn't the primary addiction, switching delivery systems wouldn't work well. Or at all really. Vaping wouldn't be growing the way it is. Smokers wouldn't be adopting it in droves. It would have been a curiosity that had a moment of interest then fallen by the wayside.

I'm a little (often very) disturbed at those who play down nicotine's addictive aspects. For one, that's highly variable among individuals. I'm a heavy coffee drinker. I like it. But if I get up in the morning and find I forgot to buy some and I'm out? I grumble at myself and put it on the grocery list. That's it. I have zero addiction to caffeine. In fact, it doesn't affect me much. It's largely useless as a "stimulant". Unless I consume unhealthy amounts. I go through a pot of regular strength coffee and it flat does not wake me up. I can't tell the difference between the mornings I have coffee and those times I forgot to buy some and am out. I seem to wake up at the same rate.

(Which is, with my metabolism, in a word: slowly)

Other people are intolerable until they've had their coffee. Much like I am without my nicotine.

So it's even more complicated than just "how addictive is nicotine". It's "how addictive is nicotine for person X". Because the answer isn't going to be the same for everybody.

But notice nobody ever tried a "nicotine free cigarette". In fact, the tobacco industry did everything they could to find ways to enhance the addictiveness of the nicotine and to "spike" nicotine content. At it's most simplistic level, it's the nicotine. From there, it gets complex enough we could talk about it for days. Weeks. Years even.

Addiction is complex. Like humans. If it were simple, we'd fixed it already.

 

[Mohamed]

you're just going to have to live with the fact that discussions are organic and often go in completely different directs to that intended. Sure you can try to keep it on topic, but don't chide us for taking it in any specific direction.

Yeah sorry didn't mean to chide anyone. I was low on nic and I realize I came off abrasive on that post.

You will be. When you're dead.

Had to laugh at that one.

I hate to tell you this but one of the fundamental realities of addiction is that it involves the manipulation of neurotransmitters such as dopamine to which you are "addicted" from the day you were born until the day you die. In fact, without your inherent dopamine "addiction", you wouldn't have gotten out of bed this morning. Or any other morning. Without a dopamine "addiction", you'd see no point to life and probably throw yourself off a bridge or some such thing.

This is why Pfizer is settling over 2700 cases involving suicides or attempted suicides by users of Chantix (to the tune of $273 million so far). Chantix was intended to stop nicotine from triggering dopamine production. In far too many cases, it apparently inhibits dopamine production or uptake and the people in question ceases to see the point of life itself. And kill themselves.

hmm...thought provoking.

I deny that "addiction", in and of itself, is a problem. A superbly fit athlete is damn well addicted to opiates produced naturally by exercise. Instead of "treating" them, we sign them to multimillion dollar contracts. A street addicted user of opiates is thrown in jail.

We need better terms than just "addiction is bad". We may need to jettison the word "addiction" entirely.

I believe that is where the heart of the original post was meant to lead. Is an addiction in of it self necessarily bad? I was hoping that by eliminating the "healthier" debate that it would be directed in this direction...but again realize now that's something that does not necessarily have a right or wrong answer as long as you can justify your belief system in a some what of a logical and persuasive manner.

My only chance in life to not be a nic addiction passed by in 1984. My wiring turned the switch on then and it's proven to not be able to be turned off. But that's fine for me. Water under the bridge and I quite like where I am today.

I'm assuming by your timeline of 30 years you meant that the moment you started is the moment you had no longer had a chance to not be a nic addict. I started smoking when I was 15. I'm not sure I "really" was an addict until about 19...when I no longer was smoking just a couple a week but when I started smoking a pack a day. Admittedly there is probably some grey area in between those stages when the actual flip was switched on.

It doesn't matter anymore. I can't turn the clock back 30 years to figure it out.

If only you could though. I know if I had it to do over again I never would have touched them...but you're right kind a pointless thought now.

So what's wrong with:

"Mind your own business."

Works for me.

I guess It's because I'm one of those that like to justify everything logically and informative if possible. I was never one of those that ever really listened to the "Because I told you so" or "It says so" I always wanted to know why and why and why? In the same regards when someone puts forth an argument along the lines of, "That's good for you but I hope you don't get addicted long term and just replace this addiction with a vaping addiction".

You can go round and round with the it's healthier argument but it's still an addiction...but it's healthier...yeah but it's still an addiction argument. I don't feel the need to necessarily prove to someone it's ok but I do feel the need to rethink what I believe is right and wrong from time to time. And sometimes a healthy debate on that is good for my soul. Aside from what my name implies, I'm actually an agnostic so the good/bad right/wrong debates tend to spark my interest more than others.

I see both sides of the story now...doesn't mean I 100% made my mind up of what I believe though

I do see one of the key aspects that people use to differentiate a good/bad addiction habit is the good/bad that it brings to ones life. So the athlete addiction is good as it brings about positive things in one's life. Where as the opiate junky usually has the negative things associated with it. Another key difference is how the substance is delivered. Athlete man made or induced through exercise. Junky non man made. Again this is probably one of this philosophical statements with no right or wrong answer it's just where you personally decide to draw the line.

As for the PC auto censorship thing I agree and understand reasoning. Thought I posted that a while back but not sure any more.

 

[crxess]

I think a lot of the fear from people I have discussed using this as a quitting tool is that I am just replacing one addiction with another

Clipped from Ops post.
People may wish to disagree, but my view on this.

We are not replacing one addiction with another. Nope not even close. We are eliminating as much of the Danger in smoking as possible while dealing with our Nicotine addiction.

People cm\lain cold turkey - with the aid of Chantex, Nicotine Patches, Gums..Etc. They are no different than us in choosing a crutch to assist and many, actually most will start smoking again.
I know a dozen Chantex FAILURES just at work. Our insurance covered 100% of cost so it was a given for many. Just does not do what they claim.
Patches? Hah, I tried several times. could not deal when lower than step 2, would often light up under stress while wearing the patch.

Started Vaping, 18mg, dropped to 12 in one month, only stayed there because I bought to many e-liquids. Now doing DIY and down to 9mg and 6mg e-liquids.

Facts are always skewed to suit the ANTZ that think they know what is best for everyone else. Most are not MD's and that is enough for me to ignore their advice.

 

[OlDogNewTricks]

To be brutally honest, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the act of smoking. The feel of it, everything. I am addicted to the act, as well as the chemicals. I switched to vaping for precisely the fact that I can continue to 'smoke' longer, my health was getting pretty bad. I never see myself not 'smoking'. I feel better, I love the community and enjoy the scientific aspects (DIY, etc). I understand your feeling and appreciate them, but I would ask myself if it is simply a chemical addiction or something else and plan your life accordingly. At the end of the day, you have to be able to face yourself in the mirror every morning. Hope this helps.

 

[State Of Zen]

There is, of course, an awareness that ECF, being the biggest vape forum around, is very visible. I landed in this place because just about any e-cig/vape related Google will return results from ECF on the first page, at or near the top.

This is also how I found ECF, through a Google query about ecigs in general. And yes, it was displayed very high on the first page of results.

 

[vang0gh]

I didn’t read the entire thread. So, forgive me if I’m rehashing something that has already been said. I’d agree that no nicotine addiction at all would be ideal. But, for me at least, it’s a fallacy to think that the choices are patches, nicotine gum, or vaping when I know for a fact that two out of those three will ultimately just result in continued smoking. So, the only real available choices for me are to vape or to smoke. If the other methods have a chance to work for you and, as a result, leave you free and clear from all nicotine addiction, then, congratulations, you have an obvious answer as to the best path for you to take.

 

[BlueMoods]

Pretty simple to me. I am addicted to nicotine and caffeine and, I have no intentions of quitting either. I simply chose not to keep trying to give myself cancer, COPD, emphysema, or even a chronic cough in the process of getting my nicotine. SO, anyone else can yap at me all they want, I don't care, I am happy with what I am doing and, it's my body, my life, my choice so, nag all you want - it won't change me.

Now, where the problem comes in is if you deny addiction, that is a problem and, one that you need to solve. Are you too insecure or lack the self confidence to admit an addiction? Maybe not but, that's the impression denial gives me, and others. Vaping is not advertised as a stop smoking aid, or as NRT, it's simply an alternative choice to smoking. If you happen to be able to use vaping to reduce or even eliminate your need for nicotine, great but, that is not what it is marketed to do. Anyone that nags can go nag a tree for all I am going to listen.

Nicotine is legal, so what's the problem in being addicted to it? Oh that addict stigma - yea well that's up to you to accept and be that do anything for a fix, stealing, lying addict, or simply be a great person that choose to vape rather than smoke and, it's up to you to realize you will NEVER change how anyone reacts to you but, you can change how you allow those reactions to make you feel.

 

[Mohamed]

Not to mention that's a side trip and a half as the idea caffeine was used that way strikes me, in a word, as "ludicrous". The Aztec get smeared a lot in history. But, well, history is written by the conquerors...

Again don't think the Aztec thing was off topic but that's probably because I knew what I wanted to ask and you guys aren't mind readers. In my defense I got insomnia so was just ranting around 5:30 am with no sleep from night before so my thought process wasn't that coherent. As stated before it was poorly rant driven question and I'll try to avoid those in the future. Also if I put the time to think about the question that I really wanted the answer to I probably never would have posted it in the first place...but cat is/was out of the bag at the time of the Aztec post. (Also lack of sleep and nic is my excuse for being irritable leading to my snap to stay on topic abrasive comment.) But again you guys aren't mind readers and you know what they say about excuses

Colleague was just making an argument for his belief system that an addictive substance and an addiction to the substance is a bad thing. Historically accurate or not his point was that an addictive substance can be used to control the population to a certain extent and that in the hands of the few this addiction can be used against the masses. I have to agree not a far leap to go from big tobacco controlling the "masses" (smokers/slaves) into giving them their money or working for the "few"...just take a second to think about that.

If FDA took control and very high taxes come about on e-juice I think you can easily draw the same parallel between a few controlling the masses.

Again cat is out of the bag and it's pointless to shut down conversation now. But my real intent was give your reasoning for or against the statement "An addiction is bad". I originally wanted to stipulate that the health factor was an inconsequential point in the argument as it doesn't address of the issue of It's still an addiction and long term if you don't quit that you still have an addiction and therefore that is bad.

After having time to formulate what I was really after and what people have said any justification that you can use to validate to yourself your own belief of is addiction to a substance necessarily a good or bad thing that may also be used to convince others is as valid from one person to the next.

I personally was just looking for some counter arguments outside of the "But it's healthier for you"...but again realize now that anything can be used as a reasonable answer because the original statement is subjective in nature...i.e. philosophical/religious/moral.

 

[Bill's Magic Vapor]

Erm... <cough>statistical noise<cough>

Excuse me! Allergies and... stuff.

LOL. Yes, I'm very familiar with the published numbers that you quote. I have the studies, and the data behind them. The 1.7% is the unadjusted number, not the adjusted numbers that have been published, which exclude certain ethnic groups who fail more often, exclude failure before treatment completion, smokers who are excluded due to their usage below baseline and fail, adjustments to the failure cessation dates, and four other significant adjustments, that change the published results dramatically. I wish they were as high as the published reports and the "war on smoking."

I enjoy your posts very much. Keep up the good work. Like many here, I certainly appreciate your thoughts, and the way they are presented. Thank you mkbilbo.

 

[Bob Chill]

I'm assuming by your timeline of 30 years you meant that the moment you started is the moment you had no longer had a chance to not be a nic addict. I started smoking when I was 15. I'm not sure I "really" was an addict until about 19...when I no longer was smoking just a couple a week but when I started smoking a pack a day. Admittedly there is probably some grey area in between those stages when the actual flip was switched on.

Probably not for me. I chased things when I was young. Sure, maybe I could have saved myself but maybe I would have just replaced it with something else even worse. Who knows. I went from smoking a couple to a pack a day in a very very short period of time. Back in my teen years I had no intention of quitting ANYTHING I did. I lived fast and had a lot of fun doing it. Never got in trouble or anything but pushed the envelope with most everything I wanted to get involved in.

Again, it's a wiring thing for some. My wife is the exact same way. She started smoking in her mid-teens and smoked more than I did (she adores vaping now). I also started drinking coffee daily when I was 15 (at the recommendation of my high school vice principal no less). I've been a 2 cup a dayer ever since.

To be bluntly honest, I love my nicotine addiction. It simply works well with me. Now that I don't smoke I love it even more.

 

[Mohamed]

As I understand your dilemma, the problem is that people tell you, "You are addicted to something. Addiction is bad.", and you have no response.

Yes with long rant and several posts that is exactly what I was after...just not articulate enough to say it that clearly.

The problem as I see it is that someone tells you you are doing something bad and you accept it.

Reread some of my posts I may have been unclear but I'm not accepting what others tell me as fact nor am I necessarily interested in convincing them one way or the other. I like to be able to justify to myself what is right and wrong and was not necessarily buying into the "It's healthier argument" and didn't really have anything to refute their argument...and if I can't refute their argument I can't refute my own ingrained thoughts of addiction is bad because of x and especially the weakness part.

I respect a lot of the neurological arguments but it still failed to dispute the addiction is bad because it can be used by a few to control others (indentureship/slavery/taxes what every you want to call it) which the person with the addiction has little control over. I'm challenging my own belief system as I read these comments as well but that was just an example of one that I'm having hard time countering. Again no right or wrong answer here as I discovered as long as in my own mind I can also come to that justification.

My personal criterion for morally wrong is deliberately hurting myself or someone else (whether that's physically, emotionally, financially, whatever).

Devil's advocate here...but what if the action/choice does not deliberately hurt you or anyone else but has the potential to significantly increase the risk to do "exponentially larger" damage in the future if that action/choice is carried out.

Where does your moral compass begin and end? I personally have two moral compasses 1.) what immediate affect good/bad will my action have on myself or others. Those are usually the easier psychological/moral decisions to answer. 2.) what are the possible implications or probability that my current action is to cause a good or neutral result and what is the probability that it may cause a bad result? At that point you need to way the risk/reward. That part is subjective and thus "gut" based and thus very hard to decide what is right and wrong.

I would never force either of those moralities onto others but I do think that to the best of my ability I should enforce those moralities on myself. An example would be if I came from a long line of alcoholics and I know that genetic predisposition is highly attributed to alcoholism and I know that many alcoholics don't have the life that they desire due to the addiction and suffer many negative aspects throughout their life. Knowing all of that would it be morally right for me to have 2-4 drinks every night because society feels this is the acceptable range? Or would it be more morally right to just abstain from drinking?

Again just playing devils advocate no right or wrong answer here...and am not here to impose my belief system on you...but maybe if you challenge your own belief system you may or may not change what you believe in? If you do change your opinion it doesn't mean that "You need the acceptance of me or others." All that it means is that you reevaluated your belief system and came to a different conclusion...and that maybe in the future you will use it to convince someone else to change their mind.

That's my true goal...challenge my own belief system until I myself am comfortable with the reasoning behind the thought process of an addiction to a substance is bad.

 

[mkbilbo]

Again cat is out of the bag and it's pointless to shut down conversation now. But my real intent was give your reasoning for or against the statement "An addiction is bad". I originally wanted to stipulate that the health factor was an inconsequential point in the argument as it doesn't address of the issue of It's still an addiction and long term if you don't quit that you still have an addiction and therefore that is bad.

Then I'd say you have a lot more work on your hands.

"Addiction" is ill defined. It is not a clearly defined concept and is very slippery to deal with.

Further, "addiction" is not necessarily good nor bad. Caffeine addiction is, well, irrelevant. No serious health consequences, no detectable social consequences, no... nothing. It's not "good" nor "bad". It's... just there.

I think you need to figure out what it is you're actually after here...

 

[Wizzlefits]

Personally, I traded 1 addiction for 3.
I love vaping!
I love DIY juices!
And
I LOVE Collecting vape gear!

Anyway..
Swapping one addiction ofr another... Yes it is. But at least with this addiction, I'm not killing myself OR anyone around me. And because of my new addiction, I'm healthier and so is my family. So in short, vaping is one addiction we ALL can live with.

 

[Mohamed]

Now, where the problem comes in is if you deny addiction, that is a problem and, one that you need to solve. Are you too insecure or lack the self confidence to admit an addiction? Maybe not but, that's the impression denial gives me, and others. Vaping is not advertised as a stop smoking aid, or as NRT, it's simply an alternative choice to smoking. If you happen to be able to use vaping to reduce or even eliminate your need for nicotine, great but, that is not what it is marketed to do. Anyone that nags can go nag a tree for all I am going to listen.

I'm not insecure about that I myself feel it is an addiction and am open about it. As for not being advertised as a stop smoking or reduce nicotine...ok true...but that's what I plan on using it for...and think it is working. I can't say for sure about reducing nicotine just yet but that is a goal of mine although not necessarily the point I intended for the thread as I always assumed that I would be able to get to zero nicotine with this process eventually.

Nicotine is legal, so what's the problem in being addicted to it? Oh that addict stigma - yea well that's up to you to accept and be that do anything for a fix, stealing, lying addict, or simply be a great person that choose to vape rather than smoke and, it's up to you to realize you will NEVER change how anyone reacts to you but, you can change how you allow those reactions to make you feel.

Exactly...I'm in the process of deciding how I would feel being addicted psychologically to vaping with zero nicotine. I stress the fact that I am deciding the dilemma of the right or wrongness of this and that there is no right answer. I would have deleted this hours ago but "cat is out of the bag" at this point so just going along with it at this point. The question is probably more relevant to a moral/psychology debate than an ECF forum debate...but what is done is done.

 

[UntamedRose]

Does it matter?? we arn't talking about vegan perfectly in health non smokers who only drink water here...........
97% of smokers who wanna quit... arnt quitting, they may for a month or 5 and then go Right back...........if ecigs are the same in healthy the difference is null...if ecigs are 1-20% better(talking long term studies) then its completely worth the risk, 20-50% its wonderful.....

Statics wise.........there is no down side here. I WOULD have been smoking the last 3 years had it not been for ecigs....just a fact. While I might not be sure of the long term effects of vaping for 3, 10, 20 years.........the chances of them being Worst then smoking that whole time are basically 0.

 

[Mohamed]

I think you need to figure out what it is you're actually after here...

Maybe it is a language barrier but I'm doing my best. It's a moral delima that I wish to confront and decide for myself of if an addiction is bad in nature. I agree I didn't do a very good job initially expressing this. Thought I was making myself more clear as posts went on but maybe not?

Caffeine addiction is, well, irrelevant. No serious health consequences, no detectable social consequences, no... nothing. It's not "good" nor "bad". It's... just there.

Again maybe a language barrier but the no health consequences may be a point. The no social consequences on the other hand I disagree with. What if the FDA/Government decided to put $1.00 "sin" tax on all sodas or $1.00 on all ounce of coffee/tea. Yes that may deter youngsters from starting or for moderate users to quit altogether but what about those that "don't have the choice of quitting...those with the (weaker) will powers?" Is this not exploiting the weakness of others for the sake of the "few"?

Is that neutral/good/bad? I'm leaning towards bad but am open to hearing alternative points of view to counter this argument. It doesn't matter how you define addiction or how you define healthy; the fact remains that some people's will power is lower than others and that "weakness" can be extorted by the few. I quote the "weakness" not for the fact that is a proven or a disproven fact or that it is a "proven" addiction or that there is empirical evidence to suggest that if you raised the tax to $1000 that all people will quit.

Again not sure if this discussion even belongs here. I just figured while conversation was out there; and it is; I might as well discuss the point of view that some ecig advocates are following and how to go about having a counter argument when they bring up this up? Not my main focus...focus was on convincing myself of someone else's morality...but you guys might as well use this when arguing with the "non believers"

 

[bnrkwest]

Actually vaping makes perfect sense to quit smoking. You still have the hand to mouth habit, you still get some nicotine. But what alot of folks don't realize is with vaping most all vapers lower their nic levels and have no trouble doing it over time. I certainly didn't. I started at 12 and few 18, now down to 6, 3 and zero. If nicotine is highly addictive, why are we all lowering our levels so easily and not constantly upping them. I vape now because of flavor and a relaxing habit, not because I an so addicted to nic. Just saying........bnrk

 

[sam12six]

Reread some of my posts I may have been unclear but I'm not accepting what others tell me as fact nor am I necessarily interested in convincing them one way or the other. I like to be able to justify to myself what is right and wrong and was not necessarily buying into the "It's healthier argument" and didn't really have anything to refute their argument...and if I can't refute their argument I can't refute my own ingrained thoughts of addiction is bad because of x and especially the weakness part.

I respect a lot of the neurological arguments but it still failed to dispute the addiction is bad because it can be used by a few to control others (indentureship/slavery/taxes what every you want to call it) which the person with the addiction has little control over. I'm challenging my own belief system as I read these comments as well but that was just an example of one that I'm having hard time countering. Again no right or wrong answer here as I discovered as long as in my own mind I can also come to that justification.

You keep going back to this "addiction allows few to control the masses" idea. In every society bigger than family groups (and arguably in those), few have controlled the many. Yes, addiction can be used to this end. So can food, or money, or land, or pretty much anything people need that they can't get in unlimited supply. If your self argument is that addiction gives you another need that people could use to control you, it's a valid point but a moot one until someone actually is trying to control you.

Someone introducing an addiction (the classic pimp getting women hooked on drugs so they'll hook for a fix) is an entirely different concept than an addiction that you choose because you enjoy the substance. The latter doesn't become "bad" until it interferes with your or someone else's life in a harmful manner.

As for tax argument. I personally don't mind the idea that the government would add a surtax to things that eventually end up causing people to be a bigger burden on the rest of the taxpayers - only, only if that money were put in a kitty to offset the extra medical costs or whatever. Since that's not what's happening to the extra money being collected for tobacco (or potentially soft drinks or fast food), then the government is doing something bad by taking advantage of people.

Devil's advocate here...but what if the action/choice does not deliberately hurt you or anyone else but has the potential to significantly increase the risk to do "exponentially larger" damage in the future if that action/choice is carried out.

Where does your moral compass begin and end? I personally have two moral compasses 1.) what immediate affect good/bad will my action have on myself or others. Those are usually the easier psychological/moral decisions to answer. 2.) what are the possible implications or probability that my current action is to cause a good or neutral result and what is the probability that it may cause a bad result? At that point you need to way the risk/reward. That part is subjective and thus "gut" based and thus very hard to decide what is right and wrong.

I would never force either of those moralities onto others but I do think that to the best of my ability I should enforce those moralities on myself. An example would be if I came from a long line of alcoholics and I know that genetic predisposition is highly attributed to alcoholism and I know that many alcoholics don't have the life that they desire due to the addiction and suffer many negative aspects throughout their life. Knowing all of that would it be morally right for me to have 2-4 drinks every night because society feels this is the acceptable range? Or would it be more morally right to just abstain from drinking?

Again just playing devils advocate no right or wrong answer here...and am not here to impose my belief system on you...but maybe if you challenge your own belief system you may or may not change what you believe in? If you do change your opinion it doesn't mean that "You need the acceptance of me or others." All that it means is that you reevaluated your belief system and came to a different conclusion...and that maybe in the future you will use it to convince someone else to change their mind.

That's my true goal...challenge my own belief system until I myself am comfortable with the reasoning behind the thought process of an addiction to a substance is bad.

First, you can't spend your life afraid to do things because they might have some horrible consequence you don't know about. The best you can do is try and do as little harm as possible while enjoying life.

As for drinking alcohol being a "bad" thing when your family has shown a predisposition for alcoholism:

Well, alcoholism is like addiction or terrorism - there's not a real, solid definition of it. You can look at individual situations and say, "That's a terrorist.", or, "That's an alcoholic.", but it's all but impossible to lay out a list of specific things that define a terrorist or alcoholic (or someone who is addicted). The terms are so fuzzy that we only have general definitions for them.

If your family history shows that most of the branches in the family tree have gone crazy and started killing people after 2-4 drinks, you might be wisest to avoid alcohol. Likewise, if you have a family history of health problems with alcohol, you might be wisest to avoid it. These are both individual decisions based on your specific situation - not a blanket indictment of alcohol.

The problems that I have with the argument - any argument whatsoever on the subject of addiction as a morally negative thing are that, as has been repeated in the thread, there's both no solid definition for addiction and that everyone has something they do that could be called an addiction (maybe not a physical dependence, but we all have some degree of obsession with something). Whether it's good or bad is again an individual thing but I don't believe anyone can say addiction in general is good, bad, or neutral. Addictions are just something that humans are prone to developing.

Again not sure if this discussion even belongs here. I just figured while conversation was out there; and it is; I might as well discuss the point of view that some ecig advocates are following and how to go about having a counter argument when they bring up this up? Not my main focus...focus was on convincing myself of someone else's morality...but you guys might as well use this when arguing with the "non believers"

See, that's the thing. You can't argue it. It's like someone saying, "My God is the real one and yours is a myth.". There's no empirical thing to point out where they're mistaken. If you're intellectually honest, your only possible rebuttal is, "I disagree." (Unless you're just enjoying the debate in which case you ask them to prove their assertion that their God is real (or on-topic, to prove that addiction in general is bad)).

 

[BigBen2k]

I'm glad to see everyone's converging; it's beautiful!

You're all expert dancers around issues-that-will-not-be-discussed-here.