All I can tell you is I was in civics class (yeah, high school, back when we rode dinosaurs
) when I had my first "nicotine fit". I knew
exactly what it was and what I wanted. And I wanted it very, very, very much. And that was early on. Like the first week I ever had a cigarette.
It would seem to me that in your case you became addicted quickly. The first "nicotine fit" I had was at a much later age than high school. I was at work, at the time, and was work induced. I was about 21 at the time, and had to deal with some particularly nasty customers. You know the type you just want to put your foot up their backside.
I am so addicted to nicotine that I had resigned myself to the health consequences. Whatever they were. Cancer didn't sound that bad up against those quit attempts.
(Bet you think I'm kidding. I'm not. If they take vaping away, I will smoke. End of story.)
Actually I don't think you're kidding at all. Given my long term use of nicotine, 20+ years now, if I couldn't vape, I will smoke. I am addicted to nicotine, I have no problems admitting that. It would seem to me that you and I are in the same boat, though it perhaps took me longer to get in the same position.
Well, see, I remember reading about those studies back in pre-Katrina New Orleans and I probably squirreled the papers or articles away but I had an actual office back then which did not make the transition gracefully. In short, I could be digging until my first Social check arrives. So I'm not much help there.
Its not a problem. If you find them please forward them to me. As I said previously I'm interested in the science behind the question we are discussing.
Still, it wasn't "pop sci" crap. I've always been something of an academic by nature and was doing post-grad work in anthro at the time. Didn't have much use for the popular press. About the closest I got back then to "popular" publications was SciAm.
I wouldn't call myself an academic, I am, however, very interested in truth. It is also my view that where science can explain a phenomena it should be used instead of philosophy, belief, or conjecture.
And predisposition is just that. Predisposition is not predestination. The ANTZ may want to oversimplify and use the research as a club as they seem to get some weird emotional satisfaction out of "punching downward" and need somebody to look down on but genetics is more complex than that.
Yes well my personal hypothesis is that many if not most of the ANTZ are in fact persons who have pathological reasons for their "punching downward". In my experience they are the type of people who need someone to hate, and it is no longer acceptable to hate people based on their race, ethnicity, age, religion or sexual orientation any more. Their form of "tobacco control" is not related to public health (Education on the topic has handled that), nor is it about prevention or cessation concerns (or they would support THR). Rather it seems to me that the ones that are involved in so-called tobacco control is about scapegoating smokers for their own sick desires to have someone who can be a second or third class citizen.
That said, yes I agree that predisposition is quite different than predestination. For example given my family's history my mother would have a predisposition to nicotine addiction, yet she has never smoked or used any other form of nicotine.
Their thinking was that they could purchase 0 nic eliquid and use the sweet flavors to fend off cravings for sweets. While it does help me personally not to eat as many sweets, I hate the idea that they are doing this! OTOH, I intend to get my nic to 0 (and if my blood pressure doesn't come down quick, it will happen sooner rather than later, and I have also just ordered my first 0 nic juice). Once my nic is at 0, I don't want to stop vaping! I still love the hand to mouth habit...I would miss vaping,so being at 0 nic and still vaping is my win-win.
