I can understand why people want to ban Esmoking!

[Spills]

I agree with most of this. Big Tabacco and the pharmies ladadada. Atm though ecigs have got to be like an ant. I doubt honestly they are putting a dent in anything. I love them and will vape to the end if possible. Everything adds up when it comes to greed. At the same time itss like a penny rolling down the street. Yea I noticed it but dont care to pick it up

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

they are extremely addictive!...but these thing are very highly addictive. i smoke-puff 4-5X more as an epuffer then i did as a real puffer! I burn 7-10ml a day of ejuice- during a normal day i can't under any circumstance go more then 30 minutes without a drag.

To begin with, at 7-10ml per day you're an aberration. That you do so doesn't mean vaping is highly addictive; more likely, it means you are easily drawn into addictions.

Conclusions about the addictive nature of anything aren't drawn from single, extreme anecdotes--at least not valid conclusions (although the FDA might happily adopt you as a poster boy).

What I believe is mainstream about your vaping habits is that you vape more than you smoked, for the simple reason that you can; you're not--no matter how much you vape--absorbing more than trace amounts of the toxins you took in with cigarettes. Moreover, once you've bought your kit, you're spending a fraction on juice & consumables what the analogs were costing you.

There's a freedom to vaping, a sense--even if not 100% accurate--that you can vape with impunity.

 

[Bigfoot1974]

I agree with everyone here. Banning e-cigs will do nothing but send the market underground. We should be able to put in our bodies whatever we want. The government should be there to help make what we want safer not just tell us we can't have it. There should be regulations set in place to make sure that the liquids we put in our PVs are pure and safe and tested so that we can purchase them knowing whats in them and that they aren't just thrown together in a garage with crap found in the kitchen. If our government would just embrace it and help us out we could have flavors that burn at prime temps and are proven safe to vape.

Why can't our government learn from their mistakes and see that alcohol prohabition did nothing but increase crime and corruption then cost a fortune trying to enforce with nothing to show for it. And oh yeah that joke known as the "War On Drugs", that did well, NOT.

 

[EricB]

@BestLion: When you used to smoke cigs, did you also smoke indoors at your home ? That could be a problem too with vaping more. For me I always kept my home smoke free & I would go out into my garage for a cig break. I apply my same routine to vaping. Just vape where you would only smoke & not create more vaping opportunities. If I started vaping indoors I'd probably be vaping 5ml a day. I allow myself 3ml per day but when I first started I was easily vaping 5 to 6mil per day. Get yourself a 3ml bottle, fill it up & just use that for the day.

 

[Raynen]

I just vape away, but in public not as much, I act it's like an analog. It's still a habit, but I'm still weaning off nicotine. It's a difficult transition, but it still the much better alternative.

 

[kristin]

People may vape more just because of the diversity of flavors out there. It may not be the nicotine addiction itself but the ability to change flavors. Ive seen alot of people mention "after dinner" vapes and "early morning vape with coffee". Imagine if you could change flavors of analogs like that. People would probably smoke more. With analogs, yes you are feeding your addiction but its the same old flavor each and every one.

Not only that, but smoking HURT. Smoke too much and my lungs, throat and eyes would burn. Don't have that problem with vaping.

On the other topic of addiction, why do people keep treating addiction like it's inherently "bad?" Addiction in and of itself is NOT bad - the adverse health effects of SOME addictions are bad. If something makes you feel good, you enjoy it, you can afford it and it has low health risks, who cares "how much" you are addicted to it?

Consider that sex is the ultimate addiction and it can be a good addiction or a bad addiction. Why do I call it an addiction? Because sex without the intent to procreate is purely for pleasure and enjoyment, contributes to our sense of well-being and balance and is not needed for survival. Like any other addiction, people don't need it to survive, but if you were getting it and then are denied it for long periods, it can cause crankiness, depression, moodiness, anger and even some physical illness - all of the classic signs of withdrawl. (It's technically an oxytocin addiction.) So, if it makes you feel good, doesn't adversely affect you in any way, adds to your sense of well-being and improves your relationships, it's a good addiction. If it's all-consuming, makes you take unwise risks with your health and damages your relationships, then it's a bad addiction.

So, if one of the most basic human instincts is actually an addiction, how can addiction always be considered undesirable and something only to be "beaten?" If the goal is to ban all addiction, then sex would have to be on that list, too!

 

[moseng]

I consider any addiction to be undesirable! Well maybe you have me on the sex thing! Really, anything one can't control is a bad thing. The OP started this by saying they are more addicting than cigarettes? I would say the answer is definitely yes! I mean just look at this forum! The main point here though is that they are not as harmful health wise. So if for no other reason than that they should not be banned IMO

ad·dic·tion –noun the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

 

[NCC]

Taking issue with post #46. RE: sexual addiction.

"technically an oxytocin addiction", what the hell does that mean? Half of us don't even have a uterus.
Did you mean to say oxycontin? If so, that's equally bizarre.

No, not necessary for the survival of the individual, but for the survival of the species. Future technology might make that untrue, but let's hope not.

There are people who are literally sex addicts, it is a recognized abnormality. Those people will rob their mother and sell their house, if that's what it takes for some 'action'.

Most of us are not sex addicts in the true sense of the word. Yeah, who would deny sex is pleasurable, it's supposed to be, biologically. That fact is in our genes and deepest thoughts.

No question it is a basic animal instinct akin to breathing air, eating food, and scratching an itch.
But, the sex drive exists even when a virgin. Therefore, not an addiction.

It is a basic biological drive. Not an addiction (for normal people). It was designed by evolution to be enjoyable.

 

[StarsAndBars]

Ok, At first I thougth these were a great alternative..and they are..BUT I can see why people-Governors-Senators-Presidents-congressmen-Church goes- are out to pose a ban on these.. they are extremely addictive! yes coffee is addictive and so is porn..but these thing are very highly addictive. i smoke-puff 4-5X more as an epuffer then i did as a real puffer! I burn 7-10ml a day of ejuice- during a noraml day i can't under any circumstance go more then 30 minutes without a drag. I am tending to think these esmokes are more addictive then regular normal analog cigarettes.
Now I wouldn't be for the ban..but I can maybe see why people want to ban them.
Also with that said i do encourage people to smoke these..non smokers alike. They are very pleasant and enjoyable !

Your still new to vaping. After a while you will vape less. At least this is true in my exp.

With your rate of consumption, you would be ideal for observing affects (if any) of vaping. In your short time, you've vaped the same amount it took me 5 months to vape. Stick around and let us know if you experience any adversities.

Everyone wants to bash the FDA for the stand on E-Cig, but what do we know about the affects of these things? Nothing, the truth is none of us know anything about it. I don't feel the FDA is a lurking communist monster tryin to tell me what I can and can't do. Unless any one of us here has done definative research on what these chemicals do to us after long term exposure...( don't mean Googling some doctor who defends them)... the FDA is giving me something to think about.

 

[Modrod.]

7-10 ml a day??? wow not even sure how you do that but you know what IT'S NONE OF MY DAMN BUISNESS!! and it shouldnt be anyone elses.

people need to remember why cigerettes were banned in public places, it wasn't because they were addictive or bad for you it was because of second hand smoke, show me the second hand smoke on e-cigs.... no now it's just people who think they have a right to tell others what todo.


now as to why politicians are against them, easy between big tobacco,big pharmacy and taxes on real cigerettes every politician is affected by people who quit smoking.

why is the church against them? thats easy the church is against anything that people enjoy doing all the way down to protected sex.

banning e-cigs without a study finding a major health concern is just another step to you being told what you can eat and drink.

Not to mention a violation of our rights.

 

[kristin]

The American Society of Addiction Medicine has this definition for Addiction: Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

If that is the medical definition of addiction, since nicotine use, absent smoking, has not been shown to result in disablility or premature death or significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships (nor does it cause most people "severe" trauma to quit,) I'm not sure nicotine use is really a true addiction then.

I belive most people could avoid nicotine use - they simply choose not to. Nicotine "addiction" cannot even begin to be compared with other addictions regarding the negative impact on one's life. It seems cliche to say, but you don't see nicotine "addicts" knocking over drug stores or prostituting themselves for a fix!

Before the age of narcotics, addiction had a different definition. It simply meant something that a person couldn't live without.

Postive addiction has been recognized by psychologists as a good thing and something that can be used to avoid bad addictions. Another example would be people who have a daily workout routine. They widely report that missing their workout has negative effects on their mood and behavior - classic withdrawl symptoms. It literally helps them function - even increasing their cognative abilities. These aren't obsessive workout addicts that over exercise because they have poor body image - just average, healthy 20 minute workouts. Their workouts bring them only positive results, yet since cessation brings extreme discomfort, they truly are addicted in every sense. So how is that undesirable? I would LOVE to be addicted to a 20 minute daily workout! LOL!

So, if there can be positive and negative addictions, there can be varying degrees in between, as well. (I can't control my heart beating either, but that doesn't mean I consider it undesirable! lol )

 

[NCC]

I suspect you posted #51 in response to me.

You're hopeless. Have fun.


Ug, maybe not. I see your subsequent post now. I don't know if I have time to digest it. You're sure verbose.

 

[kristin]

Taking issue with post #46. RE: sexual addiction.

"technically an oxytocin addiction", what the hell does that mean? Half of us don't even have a uterus. Did you mean to say oxycontin?

No, not necessary for the survival of the individual, but for the survival of the species. Future technology might make that untrue, but let's hope not.

There are people who are literally sex addicts, it is a recognized abnormality. Those people will rob their mother and sell their house, if that's what it takes for some 'action'.

Most of us are not sex addicts in the true sense of the word. Yeah, who would deny sex is pleasurable, it's supposed to be, biologically. That fact is in our genes and deepest thoughts.

No question it is a basic animal instinct akin to breathing air, eating food, and scratching an itch.
But, the sex drive exists even when a virgin. Therefore, not an addiction.

It is a biological drive. Not an addiction (for normal people). It was designed by evolution to be enjoyable.

Yet we still seek it even when we are not seeking to pro-create. People report an overwhelming sense of well-being with a healthy sex life and negative reactions when that is removed. It is the same chemical process as other addictions.

My point was on the definition of "addiction" and how it can be good or bad. I acknowledged that there is "bad" sex addiction. But the desire for sex can be scientifically linked to an actual chemical - oxytocin. That "biological drive" is fueled by that chemical which makes it enjoyable and why we want more. Regardless, it wasn't meant to be a scientific biology lesson, it was meant to get people to think about whether all addiction/dependence is "bad."

The point was that using the word "addiction" can make any dependence or desire sound bad and that is not always the case.

 

[kristin]

I suspect you posted #51 in response to me.

You're hopeless. Have fun.

Actually, it was in response to post #47. Post #53 was to you.

Relax, will you? Why are you being so dramatic? I apologize if I somehow offended you with my theories and ideas. That's all they are.

 

[NCC]

Oxytocin stimulates the contraction of the uterus during delivery, and can be introduced to induce delivery. It's a female thing. And, has nothing to do with the sex act, so far as I can determine. I'm not a doctor, but I Google pretty well.

Sex is designed by selection of the fittest, i.e., evolution, to be enjoyable. It's not normally an addiction.


------
I'm totally relaxed and not feeling the slightest bit dramatic (cheap shot at invalidating my comments).
I've found that three little letters, IMO, go a long way when stating one's opinion.
And, also found that dragging in pseudo knowledge key words, and miss-usinig them, leads to folks raising an eyebrow.

 

[kristin]

Anything posted in an online forum should be presumed to be an "IMO" - IMO.

Oxytocin does more than just constrict the uterus, but that is beside the point. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. You could be a little more courteous and tolerant in your comments to people - that goes a long way when stating one's opinions, as well.

 

[xg4bx]

To begin with, at 7-10ml per day you're an aberration. That you do so doesn't mean vaping is highly addictive; more likely, it means you are easily drawn into addictions.

Conclusions about the addictive nature of anything aren't drawn from single, extreme anecdotes--at least not valid conclusions (although the FDA might happily adopt you as a poster boy).

What I believe is mainstream about your vaping habits is that you vape more than you smoked, for the simple reason that you can; you're not--no matter how much you vape--absorbing more than trace amounts of the toxins you took in with cigarettes. Moreover, once you've bought your kit, you're spending a fraction on juice & consumables what the analogs were costing you.

There's a freedom to vaping, a sense--even if not 100% accurate--that you can vape with impunity.

agreed. i know i vape alot because i've literally got the supplies to burn ( no pun intended lol).

i feel fine so no harm, no foul. and i'm not worried about the financial toll of vaping, i've got plenty of juice whereas with cigs i started counting them and being more careful because they are (relatively) expensive. with vaping, i've got the stuff and it's cheap so i use it because i can.

 

[NCC]

You could be a little more courteous and tolerant in your comments to people - that goes a long way when stating one's opinions, as well.

I'm very courteous. But, have a hard time letting misinformation stand when I recognize it.

 

[BestLion]

@BestLion: When you used to smoke cigs, did you also smoke indoors at your home ? That could be a problem too with vaping more. For me I always kept my home smoke free & I would go out into my garage for a cig break. I apply my same routine to vaping. Just vape where you would only smoke & not create more vaping opportunities. If I started vaping indoors I'd probably be vaping 5ml a day. I allow myself 3ml per day but when I first started I was easily vaping 5 to 6mil per day. Get yourself a 3ml bottle, fill it up & just use that for the day.

Hi, I counted yesterday i smoke 5.5 ml..so it seems I am going through around 5-6 ml a day..it just seems like more. I place my Cuban ejuice in a 10ML syringe and when i went to bed it was at 4.5 ml full. I smoked outside when i was a chain smoker..now i smoke indoors and work on the PC most of the day.
I am upping my nicotine level from now 12 mg to 24 mg I think that will slow me down..i tried this a few days ago and it cut me to half consumption.

 

[mistinthewoods]

Wow NCC, You went out of your way to pick a fight with kristin?....... KRISTEN?????
Kristen is one of the most intelligent, well informed and truly likable people on this forum. I'm an artist. not a doctor or a scientist and I don't care about looking up "Oxytocin" just to start an argument with a total sweetheart. Her original point was more than valid.
That crap was just uncalled for man.