Hobby vapers

[Tom Lauten]

I was wondering how many of you vapers specifically avoid nicotine or for whom nicotine is not any kind of issue.

Personally I used to smoke analogs some 15 years ago and have smoked the occasional pipe and cigar since. I am not pedantic about avoiding nicotine, I have no issues with its consumtion. I just am not particularly keen on a "need" to have it (either psychological or physical).

Who else enjoys vaping just for the fun of creating vapour, for the sensation of exhaling, for the flavour, for the tactile sensations and for the fun of mixing flavours and "playing" with the kit?

 

[Carmel]

I prefer a throat hit. Zero nicotine vaper gives no throat hit.

 

[Tom Lauten]

I realise that, I sometimes vape a bit of coffee with nicotine in it but are there any people out there for whom the nicotine effects don't really matter.

 

[Jim Davis]

I realise that, I sometimes vape a bit of coffee with nicotine in it but are there any people out there for whom the nicotine effects don't really matter.

Check the Social Group section. Their is a "no nic" group. Personally, I'm dropping my nic level, but I'm still spiking in the morning with my coffee, so I'm still a long way away from 0 nic.

 

[Tom Lauten]

Hi Jim, thanks for that, I didn't spot the No nic group. I am by no means a zealot but I know no nic is the way it'll go for me but I too have my medium level nicotine coffee juice with my morning coffee...how funny!

 

[breakfastchef]

Who else enjoys vaping just for the fun of creating vapour, for the sensation of exhaling, for the flavour, for the tactile sensations and for the fun of mixing flavours and "playing" with the kit?

I am really on the fence about how to best address your question. Another consideration to your question would be are personal vaporizers medical devices or entertainment devices or undefined devices?

On one hand, I am concerned that 'vaping for fun' shows a side of vaping that might be sending the wrong message to those in 'power'. Most people on this forum started vaping as a personal harm reduction strategy, not as a hobby. Forum members are pretty good about not recommending vaping to kids, non-smokers and pregnant women. When someone posts on the forum who wants to start vaping for fun, they are very cautious about why anyone would do such a thing. Additionally, with e-cigs in the sights of the FDA, maintaining a consistant message about the benefits of vaping are important.

On the other hand, all the hobby aspects are indeed fun. They are fun for me because I have reduced personal harm by eliminating analogs from my diet while trying different flavors and devices. I suppose the argument would be if you can hookah, why not vape, too.

For now, I want to send the right message to the right people of the life-prolonging benefits of vaping. Since no one has any clue what the long term effects are of inhaling a mixture of chemicals in smoking fluids, I will not recommend hobby vaping to anybody. Vaping is likely significantly safer than smoking analogs, but it may be more damaging than air.

 

[Tom Lauten]

I see what you mean. For me vaping was something I could replace cigars and pipes with now that I am having my bypass. It seems much safer... to me anyway. I can't however, deny that I also enjoy all the elements of vaping, it isn't, to me, just a matter of switching delivery methods for self medicating with nicotine. One could go to a silly extreme with that conceptual argument by saying something stupid like "interveinous narcotics are OK so long as a person uses a clean needle"...but I appreciate the grey, fuzzy line you pointed out.

I would not advocate vaping to kids or those who don't smoke. I would not suggest drinking alcohol to children or those who have never wanted to have a drink. I have smoked (tobacco) in the past and occasionally still do in small amounts. I do so because I enjoy the smell and taste of fine cigars and pipes (like a connoisseur of fine wines...not necking hooch like a wino) but I don't NEED it.

It is clear that smoking tobacco is a starting point for many vapers and that many have chosen vaping as a (broadly speaking) "safer" means of either continuing nicotine consumption or curtailing it. Should they (following the logic) stop vaping as soon as they hit 0% nicotine liquid or alternatively... should they choose to "stay addicted" to nicotine by never going onto 0% because then they would then have to give up vaping. Surely that would be seen as "dodgy" as well. Should it be that e-cigs should be prescribed by doctors who control who starts vaping and when they stop...like methadone?

Basically many of us have the right to vape like we have te right to smoke and to drink...habits that are FAR more damaging (certainly it appears that way at this time), with rights comes responsibility not to abuse them for fear of them being taken away. Hiding the fact that people enjoy vaping for vapings sake is the thin end of the wedge I fear, it will either drive things underground or over legislate it (ie. make it prescription only), neither result would be a proportionate reaction. I think we need to be honest and appeal for fairness, moderation, responsibility and a balanced view on the part of the "powers-that-be". We should not present them with a rose tinted view of one side of the coin, surely that approach is doomed to failure.

I now retire my (rather unexpected) position on the soap box! LOL

 

[breakfastchef]

Mr. Tom: Unlike some posters to this forum that say, "Hey I'd like to vape because it looks cool" are not the people that this forum embraces. You provide well-reasoned thought in your position by presenting 'hobby vaping' as an enjoyable past time. In fact, you really are a smoker who no longer smokes tobacco cigarettes.

I cannot, and will not argue against any of your points. I only point out that if the FDA gains control over tobacco and smoking cessation devices/schemes/non-tobacco product/smokeless tobacco, we all become criminals overnight. For e that is a possible death sentance. That is important to me.

If and when the dust clears and e-cigs are okay for some period of time, it would be my privilege to vape with you.

 

[Tom Lauten]

Hey, that's fair enough. I just hope the FDA and the UK standards organizations don't knee jerk to any decisions...well we can hope... I guess?

I'm getting a ScrewDriver this week and can't wait to give it a run so you are cordially invited to "Ye Olde Reindeer" (a 400+ year old classic pub) and my "local"in Banbury, England for a few pints and that vaping session...indoors!

Cheers!

 

[breakfastchef]

Oxforshire, huh? My family used to own a property in Hampshire. Been to Stratford, Worcester and Northampton, but never Branbury. Any pub would be fine with me. Cheers, mate.

 

[yvilla]

I only point out that if the FDA gains control over tobacco and smoking cessation devices/schemes/non-tobacco product/smokeless tobacco, we all become criminals overnight. For e that is a possible death sentance. That is important to me.

Breakfastchef, I'm sorry to keep harping on this point (that is, if you have seen my previous posts on point), but I believe it it such an important one that I must post on it again here.

And that is that if the FDA gains the control you speak of, and even if it imposes a full-out "ban" on ecigs, what that would mean is that they will be illegal to sell in the US. It would not mean that they will be illegal to possess or use. It would not mean we as consumers will all become "criminals".

This is an extremely important distinction, that all too frequently gets blurred on this forum, and does us no service at all. Criminalization of ecigs (due to their nicotine content) simply could not occur without the simultaneous criminalization of each and every product that contains nicotine - cigarettes, pipes, cigars, nicotine gum, nicotine patches, inhalers, snus, chewing tobacco, etc, etc. And that is not going to occur. Even more absurd is the notion that propylene glycol would ever be criminalized.

So the FDA control that you speak of - and that we all hate to think will occur - would result in driving ecigs underground perhaps, slow or stop their uptake among the masses of consumers who have not yet discovered them, and make them harder for all of us to obtain, but would not make consumers "criminals".

Edit: Just thought I'd mention it's a life or death issue for me too. So I completely empathsize with where you are coming from.

 

[breakfastchef]

yvilla: I don't have a specific gripe with any of your points. The fact is, whether or not we all go underground to get our fix, ceasing the sale of personal vaporizers to the averge person is equivilent to making it criminal. Such a ban might prevent us from purchasing the most unreliable part of the vaping system - the atomizer. At that point, individual vapers could be seriously screwed.

We can parry words all day, but if we do need to be 'secretive' of our activity, it is far from free and open. At that point, I would feel like a criminal, but would vape anyway. This is about me and my life.

 

[yvilla]

But Bkchef, I don't see this as an issue of semantics. I see it as fundamental. If ecigs cannot be criminalized, then yes their sale may be driven underground here in the US, but their use and possession cannot be. We consumers would not need to be secretive.

Heck, if they do succeed in banning the sale of ecigs in the US, I would be immediately much more evangelistic about them than I have ever been up to now. I would be showing and telling anyone and everyone who would listen that this is a potentially life-saving product, containing nothing but legally available ingredients, kept out of US market by the FDA/the government/whoever is ultimately responsible for such a reprehensible act. I would hope that all of us would react similarly, so that eventually enough pressure would be brought to bear that such a misguided and plainly wrong decision would be overturned!