Four Steps to Kick the E-Cig Habit - By Jerry Nelson, LHOSN

[Nate760]

blogs dot psychcentral dot com/sober-life/2014/11/four-steps-to-kick-the-e-cig-habit/

E-cigarettes look techy [sic] and space age, so it is fairly easy to think the hype that e-cigs are safer than smoking is true. Unfortunately, they are not.

TRANTZLATION: I am an anti-smoking zealot. Therefore, everything I say is true because I said it. I do not need evidence, because anyone who would question me is a paid operative for Big tobacco.

Menthol, java, cherries, vanilla and yes, even tobacco flavored are just a few of the products which can entice children to give e-cigs a try.

TRANTZLATION: Menthol and tobacco flavors have gotten a free pass long enough. All vapor product flavors exist for the sole purpose of turning your children into nicotine junkies.

An unhealthy does [sic] of chemicals does wait for anyone that wants to use an e-cig.

TRANTZLATION: It's true, you don't even have to use one of these devices in order to be poisoned and possibly killed. Just thinking about it could land you in the emergency room.

It wouldn’t be a step-forward if a person quit smoking tobacco only to find they were hooked on vapiing [sic].

TRANTZLATION: The longer people keep smoking, the sooner we can get them in a box in the ground where they belong. Let's not jeopardize this important work by giving them a safer alternative.

 

[Oliver]

Lack of internal consistency - one of the best ways of identifying agenda driven critics...

E-cigarettes look techy [sic] and space age, so it is fairly easy to think the hype that e-cigs are safer than smoking is true. Unfortunately, they are not.

and

Since there’s no tobacco in e-cigs, people don’t get the same amounts of carbon monoxide and tar as they would otherwise.

 

[Oliver]

Asked at the e-cig summit on Thursday how much safer than smoking e-cigs are likely to be, the panel responded as follows:

Robert West: "I'm a pessimist, and I'd say a twentieth"
Riccardo Polosa: "1/20th"
Hajek: "5% of the risk or less"

 

[DrMA]

Asked at the e-cig summit on Thursday how much safer than smoking e-cigs are likely to be, the panel responded as follows:

Robert West: "I'm a pessimist, and I'd say a twentieth"
Riccardo Polosa: "1/20th"
Hajek: "5% of the risk or less"

Looks like the experts are very conservative here. I wonder what they have to say about the absolute risks of vaping (compared to not using anything) or the relative risk to common activities, such as breathing city air, crossing the street, drinking coffee.

 

[csardaz]

I took this article, Sober Living, as for prople with addiction problems. For them, the actual addiction is the harm - the health effects are secondary. They may see substituting vaping for smoking as perpetuating a nicotine addiction and defeating it as further progress in defeating some more harmfull addiction they're recovering from like gambling or hard drugs or such.

In any case, he spouts off standard 'quit smoking' junk as the solution with a quit date, keep your hands busy etc. I expect he's never vaped and is unaware that you control the nicotine dosage completely and can load them with zero-nic and be aware that whatever further urges remain are totally psychological. I'd hoped to hear something specific to breaking such behavioral habits, but he's assuming its still a chemical dependancy.

 

[Oliver]

Looks like the experts are very conservative here. I wonder what they have to say about the absolute risks of vaping (compared to not using anything) or the relative risk to common activities, such as breathing city air, crossing the street, drinking coffee.

Oh, absolutely! It's hard to convey the tone and nuance of the way it was said, but you'll see what's implied when the video's posted up next week (hopefully). They are being conservative (hence Robert's "pessimist" quip) - Peter has said elsewhere he thinks it's possible e-cigs are essentially harmless.

Also, what's never discussed is the difference between risk and hazard. E-cigs could be 1/20th of the risk of smoking, but not actually cause or contribute to any death at all.

 

[Kent C]

Oh, absolutely! It's hard to convey the tone and nuance of the way it was said, but you'll see what's implied when the video's posted up next week (hopefully). They are being conservative (hence Robert's "pessimist" quip) - Peter has said elsewhere he thinks it's possible e-cigs are essentially harmless.

Also, what's never discussed is the difference between risk and hazard. E-cigs could be 1/20th of the risk of smoking, but not actually cause or contribute to any death at all.

Or the difference between 'risk and reward' - the benefits of nicotine regarding Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia, Rh. arthritis, and heightened focus and concentration for attention deficit disorders.

 

[Nate760]

Or the difference between 'risk and reward'

Or, for that matter, the difference between dependence and addiction. I'm consistently shocked by the number of "addiction specialists" who apparently don't understand the distinction.

 

[Kent C]

Or, for that matter, the difference between dependence and addiction....

...and independent decisions. It's the last that many hate (and/or fear) the most.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

What irks me is that someone got paid paid for writing that.

Looks like the experts are very conservative here. I wonder what they have to say about the absolute risks of vaping (compared to not using anything) or the relative risk to common activities, such as breathing city air, crossing the street, drinking coffee.

You forgot "posting on ECF."

 

[Nate760]

You forgot "posting on ECF."

One time I got a sore throat after posting on ECF. More research is required, as well as stringent FDA regulation, to determine the long-term health effects of ECF posting. We owe it to the children.

 

[Anjaffm]

Typical case of disease mongering. ( Disease mongering and drug marketing )

Tell people that they are sick / addicted / whatever and that you just happen to have a treatment for them. For money, of course. Surprise!

And actually, if leading "one sober life" makes you look like that person ... naaaawww I think I'll pass

 

[Nate760]

Typical case of disease mongering. ( Disease mongering and drug marketing )

Tell people that they are sick / addicted / whatever and that you just happen to have a treatment for them. For money, of course. Surprise!

And actually, if leading "one sober life" makes you look like that person ... naaaawww I think I'll pass

It's hard not to notice that "addiction specialists" and "smoking cessation counselors" are some of the most shameless and enthusiastic anti-THR liars. Probably because they suffer from the same conflict of interest as the ALA and ACS: if they succeed in their stated mission, they have obviated the need for their own existence.

 

[FearTX]

Most addiction/dependence specialists are against harm reduction programs. When pushed they will admit that there is a certain percentage of any addiction/dependence population that harm reduction is the only means of treatment. Then there are some that will fully admit it is a valid modality.

More often that not the only method they back is their own brand of "cessation from X"

 

[Anjaffm]

Most addiction/dependence specialists are against harm reduction programs. ...

More often that not the only method they back is their own brand of "cessation from X"

But of course. They make money on their own brand of "cessation from X".
I remember this "lung doctor" in the comments to a German news magazine article on e-cigs (a positive article, for a change). Oh, he was so worried about the oh-so-horrible dangers of e-cigs. So worried... such horrible dangers... Yeah. A quick Google search discovered the source of his worry: The "good doctor" was in the business of selling smoking cessation "counseling" sessions - at 200 Euro a pop. Yeah. I'd be worried too about the oh-so-horrible dangers of competition to my very own snake oil.

 

[Nate760]

Most addiction/dependence specialists are against harm reduction programs.

In many cases, because they don't know or care about the difference between addiction and dependence.

 

[AndriaD]

Or the difference between 'risk and reward' - the benefits of nicotine regarding Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia, Rh. arthritis, and heightened focus and concentration for attention deficit disorders.

or even, remaining tolerable to my husband so he doesn't kill me (or tolerable to myself so I don't kill myself!).

Andria

 

[Kent C]

or even, remaining tolerable to my husband so he doesn't kill me (or tolerable to myself so I don't kill myself!).

Andria

Yeah, that too

 

[DC2]

It's hard not to notice that "addiction specialists" and "smoking cessation counselors" are some of the most shameless and enthusiastic anti-THR liars. Probably because they suffer from the same conflict of interest as the ALA and ACS: if they succeed in their stated mission, they have obviated the need for their own existence.

That's true, and one important reason why what this guy is doing is so important...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ducators-caade-endorses-thr-e-cigarettes.html