" Is Nicotine Addiction Safe In The Long Term And You" : The Debate

[DMF]

Much of the scientific details available , both pro and con, are above my limited knowledge.

Like many vaporizers, I started because I didn't want to "quit smoking" but wanted to stop using a tool that caused me to have difficulty breathing and appeared to be causing other new health issues for people at an alarming rate. In recent years , smoking has been blamed for quite a few terminal ailments that it had never been linked to in the past.

I still don't want to "quit smoking"(as it appears to others). I enjoy the hand to mouth,draw in blow out, relaxing habit that I've had since I was eleven years old. Only difference is now, I enjoy it while being able to run after grandbabies, and I'm not heading to the doctor every month for ailments as I used to. At this point, with almost two years of vaporizing under my belt , I have to correlate my improved health with the lack of smoke contaminants.

I use nicotine in my e-liquid, though sometimes I use less and occasionally use none. Without all the other contaminants I was inhaling , it's easier to walk away from the nicotine "addiction' I have but enjoyment and the calming effect are important to me.

I enjoy my "habit" and in spite of those few who feel they must control the world around them, I will continue to vaporize. I was heading toward my grave at a rapid rate with smoke, I have turned in another direction and my doctors have made claims based on tests and my lack of health issues , that the lack of SMOKE in my diet has improved my health.

That's enough for me.
Thank you , OP for your concern for my health though.

 

[Stubby]

Ah but this thread is about nicotine alone. I apologize that I didn't make it about long term vaping, which is retrospect I perhaps should have, but such as it is I am forced to remain on topic as much as possible.

I don't agree with everything you say because you state things in fact instead of the hypothetical. I also do not appreciate what I consider to be personal attacks. I do, however, agree with this statement. There have been many many tests that prove that these chemicals are GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) but one has to wonder if they are done with these chemicals AFTER being vaporized. One can imagine that the smoke machines that pump out PG "fog" are much higher voltage than our simple PV's but VG is another question entirely. Plus there is acrolein produced by heated PG to consider.

I don't want to argue with you. I thought very long and hard for a few days now. Those tests that you consider to be truth are VERY shady and made by a guy who is very driven by his own point of view instead of a scientific one. There are two things that turn me off. The fact that it's called TobaccoTruth, and the fact that he takes each study as if it's proven 100%. Calling the site "TobaccoTruth" says two things to me: one that he is concerned with tobacco (he especially focuses on smokeless tobacco; chew), not nicotine, and two that whenever someone says "I'm THIS!" they are often not. Plus his credentials are less than impressive. He's not a household name, or the next messiah. You can take offense to this if you want, but at least I am attacking the post and not the poster (which is a rule of the forum btw, you might want to look into that before you call people "ignorant" etc.).

At the end of the day NONE of this stuff is truly and 100% proven so there is no need for any of us to speak as if that is the case. If it was they'd make a NOVA program about it or something lol. This is a debate. As I said in my original post, there is no need for ad-hominem. If you need to look that up then so be it. I, for one, would consider such base attacks as a great disservice to the community because it will only result in them closing this thread and me opening another. The idea is to educate. Prove what you can, tell us what you believe, and leave emotion at the door please. Logic is reason without emotion so I'll go ahead and forgive you.

You are falling back on very questionable logic, and that is attacking the messenger and not the message. Brad Rodu is highly qualified. Your evaluation of him is immature at best. You have failed to point out a single instance where his analysis is wrong. Instead you attacked him on a personal level. That is simple bad form on your part.

The problem with this thread is that you are desperately trying to play the objective scientist and lead a rational discussion, while it is very obvious you are not capable of doing so. The fact that you have said that snus is far more harmful then vaping has told me much of what I need to know about your irrational debate.

Clearly Snus, which at one point I considered before I learned about e-cigs, is vastly inferior to vaping.

Edit: I dug up the other thread you got into about the dangers of nicotine. Actually the thread wasn't originally about the dangers of nicotine, but that's what it morphed into.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-absorption-contradiction-4.html#post6696227

I linked to where you jumped in. If anyone cares to read through it there are many excellent responses to the questions raised.

I believe ninja may be missing a few cards..........

 

[Renrav]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-absorption-contradiction-4.html#post6696227

I linked to where you jumped in. If anyone cares to read through it there are many excellent responses to the questions raised.

I believe ninja may be missing a few cards..........

Too true. I always enjoy a good debate, and was considering continuing this discussion, but after reading this and the linked thread, I won't. I can't discuss science with someone who dismisses the scholarly writings of numerous professors that hold PhDs, but routinely uses Wikipedia as a valid resource, and I can't debate logic with someone who can't understand the difference between "less harmful" and "good for you." Have fun, I'm out.

 

[ShogaNinja]

I'm just going to add the haters to my ignore list who have nothing better to do but try to insult people they don't know when they disagree that the studies they have shown are pretty weak. If they had read the first post they wouldn't even be arguing with me. That lack of reading comprehension is clearly the source of this steadfast anger that someone has the audacity to not believe everything they read as law in a situation where there is not yet a real answer to my original question. Stalking me isn't making their argument any stronger. Apparently following the forum rules is too hard for them. Sadder still that they somehow hold elevated status despite their obvious behavioral problems. I'm so over it. Now BACK TO THE PLOT!

I found a cool thread on addiction that may interest some people:
Habits: How They Form And How To Break Them : NPR

 

[ShogaNinja]

That's not quite accurate. there are many studies on the effects of nicotine on people, animals and isolated cells. I agree that the research on patches, gum and inhalers can give us information about medium-term use, ~ 6 months. The dangers of medium use are less than that of many of commonly prescribed drugs, including and especially chantix.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the pharmaceutical companies that sell the FDA approved nicotine replacement devices are also doing the studies to increase the approved length of use beyond 6 months. My interpretation of that is that they're beginning to realize that the abysmal statistics for maintaining abstinence from smoking using those products require longer term maintenance use of nicotine than they initially realized.

Yet, I'm also concerned that you are relying on wikipedia rather than going to the references that are included at the bottom of every verified wikipedia entry. wiki is a place to start, but reading the actual studies- or at least reading the abstracts- can give you a much better sense of what the studies really say. There are contradictions, and to understand where those contradictions arise, and to evaluate the evidence on its own merits is the only way to draw conclusions.

Basically each of us has to do a cost-benefit analysis based on what we've read and how we evaluate the available evidence. It's obvious that your conclusions are different than mine. The preponderance of the evidence that I've read ( see my earlier post for examples) leads me to the conclusion that for me, the potential benefits of nicotine use outweigh the potential costs.

My nicotine tolerance has decreased, and the concentrations i currently use are 1/3 of what i needed when i started. I'm ok with that. But, it's been dictated by my physiology, not by an external requirement that i quit using nicotine. Perhaps I'm "addicted" but this "addiction" is legal, harms no one, and contributes to my ability to function as a reasonable human being. The greater harm would occur if i thought that nicotine was too dangerous to use....because then either i would be smoking again (which has much greater risks), or i would not be a particularly functional or reasonable human being. Thus, as long as I continue to need nicotine to function then i will continue to use it. On my current trajectory, I'll be vaping 0mgs/ml nicotine in another year or two.

I took wellbutrin once and I am very sad to say that for the first time in my life I inexplicably contemplated suicide. That stuff is dangerous, as is chantrix, and vaping is far superior to any other quitting method, save one, which I will address in a moment. For the record I quit taking that crap immediately and just as rapidly felt so much better for doing so. I also cursed my "doctor" (who is sworn to "do no harm") for suggesting I take that poison. Needless to say I have a new doctor presently, but this is not part of the debate.

I am unaware of what the statistics are for the pills that help you quit and their success/failure rate. Last I checked, the statistics for NRT in the traditional form of gum, inhalers, and patches were a 90% failure rate within 6 months. That is, those people reverted back to smoking within that time frame. I have 2 uncles who both underwent alternative medicine treatments to quit smoking and neither one has relapsed. In the case of one it's been well over a decade. In the case of the other, mere months. The one that has lasted the longest so far was my uncle who underwent hypnosis therapy. The other was acupuncture. Because he got it done so recently, only time will tell as to the effectiveness of that particular treatment. He has taken to chewing on toothpicks now instead.

I am not simply relying on wikipedia, I am also drawing my facts from studies on these aformentioned NRT methods, as well as common knowledge (as in the case of Polonium 210 being used in tobacco). Perhaps I will rediscover the links for them and post them for you for clarity's sake. I cannot however paste 1000 links from Google when one could just as easily type those search terms in themselves and see that there is a world of information out there that is both contradictory, and frightening. It's easy to see that not all of it is true, but its mere existence makes one have to think that one mere study isn't near enough to combat the 1000 other pages that say otherwise.

No one is debating whether vaping is safer or cheaper than smoking. It's clear that it wins hands down in both categories. I would say, however, that hypnosis is the cheapest of all because it seems to work and it's a one-time expense and you're done for good.

You say your tolerance has decreased and that you'll be at 0mg soon. You have no idea how happy it makes me to hear that. However, the question is, beyond nicotine will you continue to vape? After all, once the physical dependence is gone all you will have to contend with is the mental variety. If what you say comes to pass I will be elated. I wish the same fate on every vaper in the world, but my primary concern is this idea that is, more often than not, found on ECF that one could, should, and would vape for life. The original idea of vaping over smoking was to quit. ALL THE WAY; not this in-between limbo in which we currently exist. The idea is to be free of addiction. Addiction isn't cool. At the heart of this thread it is that concept, more than any other, which I am personally trying to combat.

 

[Nurzrachit]

Who wants to live forever! those who live in Nursing homes with their feeding tubes and their bedsores would surely vape given the opportunity. I have worked as an RN for over 15 years primarily in acute care settings, and the one thing you can not change seems to be the predictor of destiny. Genes! This is a healthier alternative, our bodies tell us that. I must have ADHD, because I am happy to say I chose this as an alternative to smoking, I never really wanted to quit. Besides, cancer kills slowly, what concerns most MD's about nicotine is the cardiovascular risk inherent. Can you say MI.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm just going to add the haters to my ignore list who have nothing better to do but try to insult people they don't know when they disagree that the studies they have shown are pretty weak. If they had read the first post they wouldn't even be arguing with me. That lack of reading comprehension is clearly the source of this steadfast anger that someone has the audacity to not believe everything they read as law in a situation where there is not yet a real answer to my original question. Stalking me isn't making their argument any stronger. Apparently following the forum rules is too hard for them. Sadder still that they somehow hold elevated status despite their obvious behavioral problems. I'm so over it. Now BACK TO THE PLOT!

I found a cool thread on addiction that may interest some people:
Habits: How They Form And How To Break Them : NPR

I think most people will agree that there is a Fundamental Problem when it comes to doing research on the Internet. Something that you May or May Not have Considered.

And that is for Any given Topic, a person can find Page after Page of Links which Support the Topic. But by the same token, they can find Page after Page of Links which Do Not Support the Topic.

So what it comes down to is what is Believable and Credible. I don’t believe there is argument can be made that because a Study/Article/Report has been posted to the Internet, that it should be considered as Fact.

Lack of Reading Compression maybe be a Factor into someone not Agreeing with your “Opinion” on what is Factual or Not. Or it could be that some people, including Myself, do not consider some sources like Wikipedia to be 100% Factual 100% of the time.

If you want to post a link or reference to a Clinical Studies Findings, in its Entire Unedited Form, that has been Peer Reviewed and Includes the Statistical Analysis Method to which the Null Hypothesis was said to be either True or Not True, I would like to review it.

-----

BTW – I don’t think people are Stalking you. But I think lately you have popped in and out of many threads and made Statements which people have Challenged or asked for Clarification only to have you not return.

Here is an example.

The best answer here is both if you want versatility.

To help you to better understand what ohms vs voltage can do here is a chart:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ur-battery-temperature-preferences-excel.html

It's up to you what you do with this knowledge.

You will also note that the resistance gets up so high that common atomizers/cartomizers/clearomizers aren't sold at that level of resistance. This is why the EGO Twist is the best solution, and also why most people who have Provaris and Lavatubes vape within the range of the twist anyway. Plus the Provari and Lavatube both have a secret safety feature that lowers the voltage to safe ranges without your knowledge. It makes it impossible to push the envelope with dual and triple coil cartos etc. That, and cost is what makes the twist a superior choice IMO.

Reply to your Post

Perhaps this is a New Feature of the Provari.

But My Provari will output Displayed Voltage if it can. If it Can't, it will not Output any Voltage and Dispay an error.

When did you buy your Provari and what Revision is it?

The Irony of it is when someone Pops in and Makes an Unsubstantiated Claim and then Never Returns to answer replies to the Claim, It is called “Ninja Posting”

Perhaps this is Part of Reason why you feel you are acquiring “Haters”

 

[Kurt]

Metals are not at all likely to be present in a final purified organic alkaloid extraction product. Nor have I seen any evidence of them in the many MS analyses I have seen of various pure nicotines used by mixer/vendors. If they are present, they are below levels able to be seen at all, let alone quantified. Chemically, they should not come through all the extraction steps, its just not reasonable, given their nature. The extraction process, by definition, is designed to remove everything but the target alkaloid, and then there are further purification steps after the extraction itself. This goes for benign metals from the soil to the nasty ones listed, namely Po. To my knowledge and experience, extracted nicotine contains no metals.

This subject has come up over and over. I won't deny it is a valid concern if you are not educated in organic chemistry. Po is scary, and tobacco does leach it from the soil. But until I am shown evidence that essentially pharm grade nicotine contains any metals, let alone Po, the chemistry simply does not support it at all, nor do the existing analyses.

 

[Foggy]

Perhaps I will rediscover the links for them and post them for you for clarity's sake. I cannot however paste 1000 links from Google when one could just as easily type those search terms in themselves and see that there is a world of information out there that is both contradictory, and frightening. It's easy to see that not all of it is true, but its mere existence makes one have to think that one mere study isn't near enough to combat the 1000 other pages that say otherwise.

If you desire to convince people that your opinion is correct, it's on you to find the evidence and post it. Don't expect everyone else to google for you.

The original idea of vaping over smoking was to quit. ALL THE WAY; not this in-between limbo in which we currently exist. The idea is to be free of addiction. Addiction isn't cool. At the heart of this thread it is that concept, more than any other, which I am personally trying to combat.

While this may be true for you, my original idea of vaping was to quit smoking, period. Over the years I've tried the patch, the gum, chantix, wellbutrin, (which I agree was horrible.) Not one of them worked. In addition to wellbutrin being terrible, I feel the gum was also really bad for me because it was dumping nicotine directly into my salivary glands. I also tried hypnosis, which did nothing for me. You really think you'll make your case based on one person's experience with it?

I finally quit on July 13, 2012 after taking up vaping again in December 2011. I have no desire right to quit nicotine.

If you feel the need to get off nicotine completely, more power to you. I'm happy for you. There are many others who have made the same choice or vape at 0mg.

While you're welcome to your opinion, you haven't presented any compelling evidence of the damage that nicotine does. Your latest mentions of "metals" and hypnosis also demonstrate that you and I see the world quite differently and will likely never agree on this issue or many others.

 

[ShogaNinja]

I think most people will agree that there is a Fundamental Problem when it comes to doing research on the Internet. Something that you May or May Not have Considered.

And that is for Any given Topic, a person can find Page after Page of Links which Support the Topic. But by the same token, they can find Page after Page of Links which Do Not Support the Topic.

So what it comes down to is what is Believable and Credible. I don’t believe there is argument can be made that because a Study/Article/Report has been posted to the Internet, that it should be considered as Fact.

Lack of Reading Compression maybe be a Factor into someone not Agreeing with your “Opinion” on what is Factual or Not. Or it could be that some people, including Myself, do not consider some sources like Wikipedia to be 100% Factual 100% of the time.

If you want to post a link or reference to a Clinical Studies Findings, in its Entire Unedited Form, that has been Peer Reviewed and Includes the Statistical Analysis Method to which the Null Hypothesis was said to be either True or Not True, I would like to review it.

-----

BTW – I don’t think people are Stalking you. But I think lately you have popped in and out of many threads and made Statements which people have Challenged or asked for Clarification only to have you not return.

Here is an example.



Reply to your Post




The Irony of it is when someone Pops in and Makes an Unsubstantiated Claim and then Never Returns to answer replies to the Claim, It is called “Ninja Posting”

Perhaps this is Part of Reason why you feel you are acquiring “Haters”

Anyone with a sensible amount of reasoning can see through the posted "credible" claims that study made. Every opinion that comes out of that dude's mouth is tainted, as is his vision. It's a mirage. He sees what he wants to see. Just as a fool who reads a study and doesn't understand the intricacies of it will believe it as the word of God when clearly it's the word of an opinionated man. Show me irrefutable proof. The burden of proof isn't mine, it's the naysayers. If you can show me 10 studies that come to the same results I will accept it. The fact is, you or anyone else can't. In the meantime I am forced to believe common sense which is that toxic substances hurt people. I never claimed Wikipedia is 100% accurate and I don't recall ever saying that. The fact that this negative stuff about nicotine comes up all the time can't be ignored until you give me irrefutable proof.

I don't subscribe to every thread I post to or create, if I did I'd have too many to deal with. You call it ninja posting I call it not really give a S#!^. I'm not getting paid to do this. I love how you say people aren't stalking me and then you stalk me. Irony much? Instead of stalking my past post why don't you try finding something more meaningful to do with your life? Being hateful can't be good for your health either. I'm sure there are studies you can find on that.

 

[ShogaNinja]

If you desire to convince people that your opinion is correct, it's on you to find the evidence and post it. Don't expect everyone else to google for you.



While this may be true for you, my original idea of vaping was to quit smoking, period. Over the years I've tried the patch, the gum, chantix, wellbutrin, (which I agree was horrible.) Not one of them worked. In addition to wellbutrin being terrible, I feel the gum was also really bad for me because it was dumping nicotine directly into my salivary glands. I also tried hypnosis, which did nothing for me. You really think you'll make your case based on one person's experience with it?

I finally quit on July 13, 2012 after taking up vaping again in December 2011. I have no desire right to quit nicotine.

If you feel the need to get off nicotine completely, more power to you. I'm happy for you. There are many others who have made the same choice or vape at 0mg.

While you're welcome to your opinion, you haven't presented any compelling evidence of the damage that nicotine does. Your latest mentions of "metals" and hypnosis also demonstrate that you and I see the world quite differently and will likely never agree on this issue or many others.

I never set out to "convince people my opinion is correct" I set out to challenge this belief that vaping is the end of the road for people who quit smoking via this method. I set out to combat the rampant idea that vaping is 100% healthy for people, when there is no definitive study that proves such a thing. I set out to combat the idea that a vaper is as healthy as a non-smoker, non-vaper. I set out to challenge people to think for themselves, not to acquire a small hate group of people so set in their ideals that they are too closed-minded to hear anything but what they want to believe.

At the end of the day an addict is an addict and the very act of addiction is unhealthy mentally, if nothing else. Not to mention disgusting to the non-addict, as well as toxic to your pocketbook. Foolish me for believing that on a forum where insults aren't allowed I would accumulate a small army of trolls who took this thread as trollbait or as a personal attack and spent seemingly every waking hour attempting to hijack and disrupt it (against the rules btw). What I wanted to do was to create a debate, not defend myself against constant harrying by people who have nothing better to do than to attack what they believe is wrong FOR THEM, but rather to discuss pros and cons and create a place where such a MEANINGFUL discussion could take place. In the end I regret doing so because I don't have the time of day to be fighting off attacks from 100 different fronts. If I could close this thread, I would, for all the benefit it has done the community (see also: NONE). I spent an especially long time trying to set up an initial post that was to be the ground rules for the discussion but I guess reading comprehension is for for people who saw what they wanted to see. I was wrong for believing that this community was mature enough to follow the rules and to engage in such meaningful conversation; mea culpa.

 

[zoiDman]

Anyone with a sensible amount of reasoning can see through the posted "credible" claims that study made. Every opinion that comes out of that dude's mouth is tainted, as is his vision. It's a mirage. He sees what he wants to see. Just as a fool who reads a study and doesn't understand the intricacies of it will believe it as the word of God when clearly it's the word of an opinionated man. Show me irrefutable proof. The burden of proof isn't mine, it's the naysayers. If you can show me 10 studies that come to the same results I will accept it. The fact is, you or anyone else can't. In the meantime I am forced to believe common sense which is that toxic substances hurt people. I never claimed Wikipedia is 100% accurate and I don't recall ever saying that. The fact that this negative stuff about nicotine comes up all the time can't be ignored until you give me irrefutable proof.

I don't subscribe to every thread I post to or create, if I did I'd have too many to deal with. You call it ninja posting I call it not really give a S#!^. I'm not getting paid to do this. I love how you say people aren't stalking me and then you stalk me. Irony much? Instead of stalking my past post why don't you try finding something more meaningful to do with your life? Being hateful can't be good for your health either. I'm sure there are studies you can find on that.

Great Post ShogaNinja.

I’m glad that you Clarified your Position.

…

The burden of proof isn't mine, it's the naysayers. …

I don't subscribe to every thread I post to or create, if I did I'd have too many to deal with. You call it ninja posting I call it not really give a S#!^.
...

This is Very Shrewd.

By putting the Burden of Proof on the “Naysayers” it frees a Person to Post Anything they want No-Matter How Uniformed or in some cases, Flat Wrong.

But the Pure Genius is to Not Subscribe to your Own Posts. That way you Don’t Have to Deal with all those Pesky People who keep Posting replies as to why you May Be Wrong. And even if you did see their Replies, Since You Don’t give a S#!^, what does it matter?

My Hat is Off to You.

You have come up with a Fool Proof way to Post ANYTHING you can Dream Up and Never have to Take Responsibility for it.

Outstanding!

 

[ShogaNinja]

Well Zoidman you got 7000+ posts somehow after all...

 

[Foggy]

I never set out to "convince people my opinion is correct" I set out to challenge this belief that vaping is the end of the road for people who quit smoking via this method.

Yes. Some of us see vaping as the solution to quit smoking, the end of the road for my addiction to tobacco.

I set out to combat the rampant idea that vaping is 100% healthy for people, when there is no definitive study that proves such a thing. I set out to combat the idea that a vaper is as healthy as a non-smoker, non-vaper.

I've never seen people make these definitive statements. The consensus is pretty much, "more study is needed" to determine the long term affects of vaping, though we're pretty confident it's better than all the carcinogens in cigarettes. Do you care to quote sources?

I set out to challenge people to think for themselves, not to acquire a small hate group of people so set in their ideals that they are too closed-minded to hear anything but what they want to believe.

Unfortunately, I'm too poor to hire others to do my thinking. If only it were so! I could sip margaritas and eat bon-bons all day, "Tell me what to think of this one, Jeeves!" So sad. I'm stuck thinking for myself, I guess. I am open to debate though, or I never would have opened this thread.

At the end of the day an addict is an addict and the very act of addiction is unhealthy mentally, if nothing else. Not to mention disgusting to the non-addict, as well as toxic to your pocketbook.

I choose to continue to vape nicotine, so you label me "unhealthy mentally" and "disgusting to the non addict"?

Foolish me for believing that on a forum where insults aren't allowed I would accumulate a small army of trolls who took this thread as trollbait or as a personal attack and spent seemingly every waking hour attempting to hijack and disrupt it (against the rules btw).

Wait, so you DID believe that you would accumulate an army of trolls on a forum where insults aren't allowed? Good grief! Why put yourself through that?

What I wanted to do was to create a debate, not defend myself against constant harrying by people who have nothing better to do than to attack what they believe is wrong FOR THEM, but rather to discuss pros and cons and create a place where such a MEANINGFUL discussion could take place. In the end I regret doing so because I don't have the time of day to be fighting off attacks from 100 different fronts. If I could close this thread, I would, for all the benefit it has done the community (see also: NONE). I spent an especially long time trying to set up an initial post that was to be the ground rules for the discussion but I guess reading comprehension is for for people who saw what they wanted to see. I was wrong for believing that this community was mature enough to follow the rules and to engage in such meaningful conversation; mea culpa.

I followed the rules. I did not attack you anywhere in my post. I disagreed with you, but quite politely. I even cheered on your personal decision to quit nicotine altogether.

You broke the rules. You said my decision to continue to use nicotine makes me "mentally unhealthy", and "disgusting to non addicts." While these may be your opinion, I consider them both to be personal attacks that cross the line.

 

[ShogaNinja]

Yes. Some of us see vaping as the solution to quit smoking, the end of the road for my addiction to tobacco. I've never seen people make these definitive statements. The consensus is pretty much, "more study is needed" to determine the long term affects of vaping, though we're pretty confident it's better than all the carcinogens in cigarettes. Do you care to quote sources? Unfortunately, I'm too poor to hire others to do my thinking. If only it were so! I could sip margaritas and eat bon-bons all day, "Tell me what to think of this one, Jeeves!" So sad. I'm stuck thinking for myself, I guess. I am open to debate though, or I never would have opened this thread. I choose to continue to vape nicotine, so you label me "unhealthy mentally" and "disgusting to the non addict"? Wait, so you DID believe that you would accumulate an army of trolls on a forum where insults aren't allowed? Good grief! Why put yourself through that? I followed the rules. I did not attack you anywhere in my post. I disagreed with you, but quite politely. I even cheered on your personal decision to quit nicotine altogether. You broke the rules. You said my decision to continue to use nicotine makes me "mentally unhealthy", and "disgusting to non addicts." While these may be your opinion, I consider them both to be personal attacks that cross the line.

Really? What happens when you run out of ejuice? Are you going to freak out? Are you going to rip your hair out? Go buy a pack of smokes? Do you really consider that healthy by ANY length of the imagination? The fact that people are willing to die for nicotine, which after you are addicted to it really has no real benefit for you, is morbid. At least caffeine wakes you up and has several other health benefits. Maybe you should watch a movie that starts with Trainsp.....g and another that starts with Requiem f.. a d.... (PM me for the exact names if you can't guess. I don't want to break any rules on the forum here). It's really no different, just on a smaller scale.

Sure, more study is needed, but in the meantime I say err on the side of caution. They teach you concepts like that in Home Ec and Shop classes in Junior High with sewing or woodworking. Cut to the wayside because you can't add material back. It's a basic concept.

Do I quote sources? No, because there are none worth quoting. We both know that.

No, I thought there would be at least some support on both sides and that they would debate, not me doing all the work. If I wanted to do every drop of work I'd write a blog and leave the trolls out of it. I gotta work for a living too you know.

I'm glad you were civil. Addiction is disgusting and it ruins lives. That's not a personal attack it's a fact of life. Anything that you want to do so bad it kills you is not healthy. It's about as far from zen as you can be. Especially when it clouds ones vision to the point where unproven things become viable options for life. Like I said, go watch those movies I suggested and we'll see if they change your tune. I've lost way too many friends and family to addiction. At the end of the day this thread was meant to be a wake up call not trollbait. If I opened at least one person's eyes it was all worth the trouble.

 

[CES]

...At least caffeine wakes you up and has several other health benefits....

...Do I quote sources? No, because there are none worth quoting.....

....I thought there would be at least some support on both sides and that they would debate, not me doing all the work. .....

Um, see post 6 in this thread...

just sayin'

 

[ShogaNinja]

Um, see post 6 in this thread...

just sayin'

Yeah that was cool but you lost me at rectal mucosa....

 

[CES]

just read the parts in italics- it's the bottom line for each of the references...

i guess my point was you can't really have a debate if you're not willing to go through the evidence.

 

[zoiDman]

just read the parts in italics- it's the bottom line for each of the references...

i guess my point was you can't really have a debate if you're not willing to go through the evidence.

I don’t think ShogNinja is Interested in having a Debate. Just in Telling people what he thinks.

 

[Stubby]

Um, see post 6 in this thread...

just sayin'

Thank you for posting that. One of the fundamental flaws of the anti tobacco/nicotine groups, and ninja's argument, is the failure to recognize that a good percentage of people are actually getting something from their tobacco/nicotine use, and it's something that is important to them. It's not just addiction for addictions sake, but it can be a positive part of peoples lives. The addiction is not the problem, it's the method of use. Fortunately for users of modern smokeless tobacco and e-cigs the risk is very low.

No one of any authority who is involved with THR has said it is 100% healthy, as has been stated by ninja, but the risk is very low compared to smoking as numerous studies out of Sweden on the long term use of snus has shown.

All addictions are not alike. Being addicted to narcotics, alcohol, etc, is very different from being addicted to caffeine or nicotine. In order to understand what is going on, we have to try and understand the differences. Narcotics and alcohol degrade people on all levels, both physical and mental. On the other hand nicotine can enhance thinking and if using one of the low risk products has a very low health risk. Trying to claim that caffeine or nicotine addiction is the same as being addicted to narcotics is a grossly uninformed opinion.