Is vaping more dangerous than we think?

[VNeil]

It's another reason to get DIY supplies, to cut pre mix or mix from scratch. The economics are irresitable. The tobacco in a cigarette has about 20 mg of nic but only 1 mg survives combustion. All the nic in vaping survives because there's no combution. A $50 liter of 100mg nic has 100,000 mg of nic. That's the same as the yield from 5,000 packs of cigarettes. Wouldn't that be the deal of the century?

Food for thought: if nic is ever taxed per milligram, a tax of 1 cent per milligram would be mild for commercial juice. A 12 mg 15ml bottle would be taxed at $1.80. Not too bad on a $5-$10 cost now, considering some tax schemes just throw a 100% or so tax on it.
But that 1 liter 100mg bottle that costs $50 - $100 now would be taxed at $1000. That is not far fetched. Every vapist should have a liter or two in the freezer at the untaxed $50 price...

 

[sofarsogood]

Food for thought: if nic is ever taxed per milligram, a tax of 1 cent per milligram would be mild for commercial juice. A 12 mg 15ml bottle would be taxed at $1.80. Not too bad on a $5-$10 cost now, considering some tax schemes just throw a 100% or so tax on it.
But that 1 liter 100mg bottle that costs $50 - $100 now would be taxed at $1000. That is not far fetched. Every vapist should have a liter or two in the freezer at the untaxed $50 price...

In Michigan a carton of cigs costs $60 which works out to 30 cents per cig or 30 cents per mg of nic because one cigarette yields 1 mg of nic. If liquid nic were valued that way a 1 liter bottle of 100 mg nic (1000 ml X 100mg) with 100,000 mg of nic would be worth $30,000 instead of $50. In Chicago, where a pack of cigs costs $12 a 1 liter bottle would be valued at $60,000. Some more math. 100,000 mg is 100 grams,, about 4 ounces. Gold is $1,000 an ounce. Nicotine in Michigan cigarettes is costing $,7,500 an ounce. In Chicago or New York cigarettes it's $15,000 per ounce. Mr. Big Government Drug Dealer has a difficult problem. Does anybody sell a refrigerated gun safe?

 

[Rossum]

In Michigan a carton of cigs costs $60 which works out to 30 cents per cig or 30 cents per mg of nic because one cigarette yields 1 mg of nic. If liquid nic were valued that way a 1 liter bottle of 100 mg nic (1000 ml X 100mg) with 100,000 mg of nic would be worth $30,000 instead of $50. In Chicago, where a pack of cigs costs $12 a 1 liter bottle would be valued at $60,000. Some more math. 100,000 mg is 100 grams,, about 4 ounces. Gold is $1,000 an ounce. Nicotine in Michigan cigarettes is costing $,7,500 an ounce. In Chicago or New York cigarettes it's $15,000 per ounce.

Slight issue with your numbers: My understanding is that the 1mg/cigarette that's on the side of the pack is what's actually delivered to the body. There's about 20x that much nicotine present in the cigarette before it's smoked, much of which is destroyed in the process of combustion. Then there's also the question of hour much of the nic in our juice is actually absorbed by the body vs. still in the vapor when we exhale it. I suspect this depends tremendously on one's vaping style.

So it might be more fun to look at nicotine gum, where if you chew a piece long enough, all the nic in it is delivered to the body. 100-pk of 4mg sells for about $30. That's 400 mg, so an ounce of nic bought that way would only cost ~$2125.

Mr. Big Government Drug Dealer has a difficult problem.

As do the Pharma companies selling NRTs.

Does anybody sell a refrigerated gun safe?

I'm not aware of one, but I just glanced over at the new 2.1 cubic foot freezer I have dedicated to nic and I'm pretty sure I could fit it inside of one of my gun safes.

 

[skoony]

It's another reason to get DIY supplies, to cut pre mix or mix from scratch. The economics are irresitable. The tobacco in a cigarette has about 20 mg of nic but only 1 mg survives combustion. All the nic in vaping survives because there's no combution. A $50 liter of 100mg nic has 100,000 mg of nic. That's the same as the yield from 5,000 packs of cigarettes. Wouldn't that be the deal of the century?

Ickshnay on the ecobay-omnics-ay benifits.
ANTZ might be reading,er,nevermind.

Mike​

 

[schatz]

First, as an aside, it wouldn't have to be a toxic compound. A non-toxic compound could do the job. In principle. I am saying that I *DO NOT KNOW WHY*. I don't have to know "why" in order to believe the observational evidence. Evidence stands by itself, it does not have to have a known WHY to make the observations valid.

If you search around here you will find some theories as to why nic is so much more addictive in cigs. But they are theories. The fact is that there is precious little research done on nicotine, at least research released to the public domain. BT surely knows many of these answers but they aren't talking.

Interestingly, and amazingly, no one has ever commissioned a study specifically to study nicotine addiction in NRTs and other non-tobacco delivery systems. What is known was more or less learned "by accident" as a byproduct of the mental health benefit studies. Nor are there any public studies on the other tobacco alkaloids in cigs, particularly those used in WTA. It's as if no one in a position to fund wants to know the answers. They'd rather spend money on junk science looking for trace elements in vape juice. My guess is they do not want to publish anything positive about nic, and they already know the answers.

If nicotine was thought to be highly addictive in NRT form, how could those studies have ever passed ethical standards? You can't get your test subjects hooked on highly addictive substances. It would be a violation of ethics, so I suspect that this behavior of nicotine had to be well understood before the studies I referred to could have been made.

I really like,like this. Why not, I have pondered this for a while now.

 

[sofarsogood]

Slight issue with your numbers: My understanding is that the 1mg/cigarette that's on the side of the pack is what's actually delivered to the body. There's about 20x that much nicotine present in the cigarette before it's smoked, much of which is destroyed in the process of combustion. Then there's also the question of hour much of the nic in our juice is actually absorbed by the body vs. still in the vapor when we exhale it. I suspect this depends tremendously on one's vaping style.

So it might be more fun to look at nicotine gum, where if you chew a piece long enough, all the nic in it is delivered to the body. 100-pk of 4mg sells for about $30. That's 400 mg, so an ounce of nic bought that way would only cost ~$2125.

I'm aware of the difference between what is in the tobacco and loss due to combustion. In the eliquid forum I asked how many mg of nic people consumed daily and found some at 20-25 mg who used to be pack a day smokers. So I think it's possible to make some equivalency between the nic in cigs and in vapor. I'm downing about 70 mg a day and can feel there's more nic in me than when I was smoking. I'm not worried about that but why not get to 25 mg. My stash will last a lot longer. At $7,500 an ounce I shouldn't be wasteful. There could be brand names like Acapulco gold.

 

[VNeil]

First, as an aside, it wouldn't have to be a toxic compound. A non-toxic compound could do the job. In principle. I am saying that I *DO NOT KNOW WHY*. I don't have to know "why" in order to believe the observational evidence. Evidence stands by itself, it does not have to have a known WHY to make the observations valid.

If you search around here you will find some theories as to why nic is so much more addictive in cigs. But they are theories. The fact is that there is precious little research done on nicotine, at least research released to the public domain. BT surely knows many of these answers but they aren't talking.

Interestingly, and amazingly, no one has ever commissioned a study specifically to study nicotine addiction in NRTs and other non-tobacco delivery systems. What is known was more or less learned "by accident" as a byproduct of the mental health benefit studies. Nor are there any public studies on the other tobacco alkaloids in cigs, particularly those used in WTA. It's as if no one in a position to fund wants to know the answers. They'd rather spend money on junk science looking for trace elements in vape juice. My guess is they do not want to publish anything positive about nic, and they already know the answers.

If nicotine was thought to be highly addictive in NRT form, how could those studies have ever passed ethical standards? You can't get your test subjects hooked on highly addictive substances. It would be a violation of ethics, so I suspect that this behavior of nicotine had to be well understood before the studies I referred to could have been made.

A further thought on the above, leading to a critical question...

ANTZ (including gov't) continually asserts that vaping will "lead to addiction of legions of youngsters and young adults". Presumably those that never smoked and presumably those people would never ever smoke (hehe).

That flies in the face of all the scientific evidence I mentioned above, that nic delivered without tobacco is not very addictive.

Now the question: Don't you think the Powers That Be, that are relying on these assertions, would like to know the truth? Shouldn't there be studies commissioned to test the hypothesis that vaping by never smokers will rarely lead to nicotine dependence, similar to NRTs? What is the reason for the lack of studies?

The only logical explanation is that those PTB know the answer and do not want such truths splashed across the media.

And those that still would like to believe that there is some science behind these studies have to answer that too. My own conclusion is that there is zero interest in scientific research here. The objective is solely to plaster negative news on vaping across the media, and to create a body of patently false, and engineered "scientific research" to base policy on. There is just no science here if the PTB are afraid of any good news coming out of vaping research.

 

[VNeil]

I'm aware of the difference between what is in the tobacco and loss due to combustion. In the eliquid forum I asked how many mg of nic people consumed daily and found some at 20-25 mg who used to be pack a day smokers. So I think it's possible to make some equivalency between the nic in cigs and in vapor. I'm downing about 70 mg a day and can feel there's more nic in me than when I was smoking. I'm not worried about that but why not get to 25 mg. My stash will last a lot longer. At $7,500 an ounce I shouldn't be wasteful. There could be brand names like Acapulco gold.

I would agree that in my experience and what I read here that the 1mg per cig seems to relate well to what people actually vape. I have no way of determining if my nic levels or anyone else's is higher or lower after switching to vaping. I just don't have a real sense of that.

I smoked about 50 cigs a day, and as best I can guess I probably consume 50-70mg of nic a day. When I first quit though, it may have been closer to 100 (~4ml x 24mg) and I have yet to try to even measure what I vape a day because I use multiple devices and multiple flavors. I just have a sense that I probably vape around 15ml a day, vaping mostly 3mg most of the time, but 6mg at odd moments during the day, for no particular reason (I don't really get cravings anymore unless I can't vape at all and I suspect much of my "cravings" are behavioral). I think I could go to 0mg all or most of the day without much issue as long as I could vape all I wanted (which I mostly can). But fact is I don't Except for short term "tests" I've done.

 

[skoony]

A further thought on the above, leading to a critical question...

ANTZ (including gov't) continually asserts that vaping will "lead to addiction of legions of youngsters and young adults". Presumably those that never smoked and presumably those people would never ever smoke (hehe).

That flies in the face of all the scientific evidence I mentioned above, that nic delivered without tobacco is not very addictive.

Now the question: Don't you think the Powers That Be, that are relying on these assertions, would like to know the truth? Shouldn't there be studies commissioned to test the hypothesis that vaping by never smokers will rarely lead to nicotine dependence, similar to NRTs? What is the reason for the lack of studies?

The only logical explanation is that those PTB know the answer and do not want such truths splashed across the media.

And those that still would like to believe that there is some science behind these studies have to answer that too. My own conclusion is that there is zero interest in scientific research here. The objective is solely to plaster negative news on vaping across the media, and to create a body of patently false, and engineered "scientific research" to base policy on. There is just no science here if the PTB are afraid of any good news coming out of vaping research.

I have said as much in the past. I have always said the newer studies concerning the use of nicotine
for medicinal purposes blow the whole new generation of addicted users argument right out of
the water. Without the protect the chilln' argument they have nothing. Zilch,nunya,goose egg
followed by a big fat zero.
They have yet to find any harm being caused. Only near hysterical hypothetical long term
risks that will get longer as time goes on. I for one fail to see why this isn't the biggest gun
in our arsenal of pro-vape talking points. I get the impression from ex-smokers that vape
that they can't let go of the evil addiction that evil BT laid upon them if in fact they were ever
dependent at all to smoking. The I was addicted too crowd doesn't seem to understand the
importance of what the newer studies concerning nicotine mean.

Regards
mike

 

[VNeil]

I have said as much in the past. I have always said the newer studies concerning the use of nicotine
for medicinal purposes blow the whole new generation of addicted users argument right out of
the water. Without the protect the chilln' argument they have nothing. Zilch,nunya,goose egg
followed by a big fat zero.
They have yet to find any harm being caused. Only near hysterical hypothetical long term
risks that will get longer as time goes on. I for one fail to see why this isn't the biggest gun
in our arsenal of pro-vape talking points. I get the impression from ex-smokers that vape
that they can't let go of the evil addiction that evil BT laid upon them if in fact they were ever
dependent at all to smoking. The I was addicted too crowd doesn't seem to understand the
importance of what the newer studies concerning nicotine mean.

Regards
mike

I am unaware of any relevance of these studies to smoker dependence. Only never smokers.

With that said there is a very interesting perspective on this in a thread titled Vaping for nicotine advantages. When I get back to my computer I will paste a link but it should be easy to find. The OP is "mosspa" if I got that right. A very interesting and well educated guy to say the least.

 

[VNeil]

I am unaware of any relevance of these studies to smoker dependence. Only ever smokers.

With that said there is a very interesting perspective on this in a thread titled Vaping for nicotine advantages. When I get back to my computer I will paste a link but it should be easy to find. The OP is "mosspa" if I got that right. A very interesting and well educated guy to say the least.

Here's the link...

Vaping for nicotine advantages?

To try to explain my quoted response here, I don't believe that it is correct to assume that never smokers react the same to nicotine as smokers. So I don't think any conclusions from those reports, taken in isolation, can be applied to smokers. Just like it is wrong to assume that nicotine is "addictive" when vaped by never smokers because of the effects of cigarettes on smokers. It cuts both ways.

However, I think you will find that mosspa, the OP, in the linked thread here may be of like mind to you because he puts a bunch of different pieces of the puzzle together in a way that suggests nicotine is not even the dependency creating agent in cigarettes. He believes it is primarily behavioral. He also believes that the relief most of us get from nicotine in our vape is probably a placebo. I hope I explained that accurately, it's been a while since I read the thread. I think this thread is a must read for anyone seriously interested in delving into nicotine dependency.

 

[mattiem]

I smoked for 45 years. I managed to survive having smoking parents and yes, they smoked in the house and car while I and my 6 siblings were with them. A lot of us want to blame someone for our choices. I don’t blame my parents since they exposed me to smoking in the first place. I was 18 before I started so was considered an adult and it was completely my choice as an adult.

This was well before the anti smoke crowd convinced so many that the kids would suffer greatly if they were exposed to our evil habit. It was well before kids were convinced that smoke was evil and it was their job to shame their parents into either quitting or hiding the fact that they smoked. Not the kids fault. It was what they were being taught in the classrooms. (sometime in place of actually educating them but that is a discussion for another time)

Along comes something that truly does have the power to end a lifelong habit and there are those that are still not happy. We now have something that may make cigarette smoking a total thing of the past. The naysayers can't see that future generations that would have started smoking and choose vaping instead will not have the problems we that started smoking have had. From all I have been able to find, the consensus is that it isn't the nicotine in cigarettes that is the problem with being able to put them behind us. It is a mix of 1000's of other chemicals.

The ANTZ say, It looks like smoking so let's demonize it and shame folks just like we did when they were smoking. They have, in fact, accomplished their goal, if getting folks to stop smoking was their original goal. Sadly, that isn't good enough for them. Now they want to stop the demon vape.

Big Pharmacy is saying. The problem we are seeing is they are no longer getting sick. They are no longer buying our over priced over the counter or prescription drugs. They are no longer buying our NRT products. They are living longer and much healthier without us. We have got to do something about that. How about we fund a study that says exactly what we want it to say. Yep, that should work because some of them will believe us.

Big tobacco is seeing their bottom line going down. What can we do to get them back to buying our products. How about we reformulate our products to make them more addictive so we can sink that hook in even more firmly to the ones that are just starting out. We have to make sure that we keep a steady flow of lifelong customers. We need to budget in truck loads of cash to make sure that the studies say just what we want them to say. If we can keep them afraid of this new life saving technology we will keep more of our customers.

Big government is the winner though if enough studies come out against this life saving technology. Just follow the money and even those with blinders on should be able to see what is happening. Let's help fund studies and make sure they say what we want them to say. We don't care if they aren't factual as long as we can keep them believing that we know what is best for them. We know better but we are losing money and we aren't going to stand for it.

I am NOT saying that what we vape is 100% safe. No one is saying that but it is much much better than the alternative. If we so choose we can choose to omit those thing that we deem unsafe. I am not convinced by all that I have read so far that any of it is. That isn't something we could do when we smoked. With vaping the choices are endless and there is something for everyone.

 

[skoony]

I am unaware of any relevance of these studies to smoker dependence. Only ever smokers.

With that said there is a very interesting perspective on this in a thread titled Vaping for nicotine advantages. When I get back to my computer I will paste a link but it should be easy to find. The OP is "mosspa" if I got that right. A very interesting and well educated guy to say the least.

It's relevant and important when it comes to the future deeming regs and the
and the reasons for them. If the chillin' can´t become dependent on e-cigs
there no new generation of nicotine addicts to take care of. If the growth
predictions concerning e-cigs is true at some point there will be more
New non-smoking vapers than smokers switching to vaping
Regards
Mike

 

[classwife]

As the legislative process kicks in on vaping things will get a whole lot nastier so more and more dubious threads will be started and tempers will fray, as it's increased in honesty I've started pulling back from forums

Sadly that is the goal. Spreading FUD and frustration. Divide and conquer.

I know Watt but I say what I mean whether it's popular or right lol and some of the blatent one's annoy the hell out of me I believe in being straight and honest not deceptive and full of it and don't do well dealing with it. Better to pull back then get banned for getting too fed up and unloading on someone easier for me easier for mods just better all round and yeah I know that's something they rely on and yes that annoys me too but the gutter is theirs I never liked the smell so won't lower to it.

I know the feeling. Certainly not judging you for being fed up. Have to admit it's getting to me, too.

Maybe we should have a montly non-profanity-filter day to vent

When I find a thread that makes me roll my eyes...I just move on to one of interest.
Interesting thought...
If you don't post in a thread, it soon falls behind

 

[Falconeer]

I can only say as one who was well hooked on smoking by the time he left school and who has tried two Smoking Cessation courses with Nicotine Repalcement Crapology and been through two major doses of the flu when he couldn't even get one drag of his pipe without coughing himself to death and having his teeth containing the said pipe fly out but who managed to consume industrial quantities of nic chewing gum during those epeisodes...and still spent every waking moment obsessing about "NOTSMOKING" - the nicotine addiction thing is rubbish.

Had I been as I thought addicted to nicotine, I'd have been fine with BIG PHARMA'S junk - no vaping was the answer for me because I still got the ACTIVITIES of smoking but wasn't actually smoking.

AS a 50 year plus smoker I absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt that Vaping is the only way to quit.

 

[DC2]

I personally do not mind if the government wants to regulate Vaping for our own good. It's proven that "addicts" cannot make a racional decision based on there addiction so let's put it in to someone's hands we can trust like a highly respected medical institute to determine if it is safe for us or not.

I know you didn't mean to be funny, but that's about the funniest thing I've heard in a while.


I immediately looked at your "join date" after reading your post.
And my suspicions were quickly confirmed.

Give it about a month on here and you'll be singing a much different tune.

 

[mattiem]

I know you didn't mean to be funny, but that's about the funniest thing I've heard in a while.


I immediately looked at your "join date" after reading your post.
And my suspicions were quickly confirmed.

Give it about a month on here and you'll be singing a much different tune.

One can only hope @DC2 Hopefully they came here with an open mind

 

[VNeil]

It's relevant and important when it comes to the future deeming regs and the
and the reasons for them. If the chillin' can´t become dependent on e-cigs
there no new generation of nicotine addicts to take care of. If the growth
predictions concerning e-cigs is true at some point there will be more
New non-smoking vapers than smokers switching to vaping
Regards
Mike

I misunderstood something in what you said there, so scratch my comment about relevancy.

 

[jQuack]

Inhaling anything has a possible health risk minimizing that risk is smart. From now on I'm concentrating on liquids that have third party testing and as organic as possible. These sources are surpisingly rare for now but IMO are the future of vaping.

 

[jQuack]

dupe