lol. mohawkx seems like a guy always on the defensive. I bet he punches old ladies just for looking at him wrong.
never smoked an analog, but vaping is awesome!
- Thread starter stillalive
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I suppose they have you on one of the newer antidepressants?
I'm seriously starting to suspect the new antidepressants aren't nearly as effective as the old tricyclic drugs. I see a lot of posts here from folks who claim they get little relief of their symptoms from their medication. I've been taking Imipramine since 1986 and it definitely changed and saved my life.
Not to mention that it's also inexpensive since it's been on the market since the 50's.
I think you should raise hell with your doctor over your medication. If your doctor doesn't want to help you with your ADD find another doctor.
Good luck with vaping.
Imipramine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imipramine - PubMed Health
I'm not sure I was addressing you at all. But what I wrote and comparing that to passing them out to little kids on the playground are two totally different things.
Nothing is harmless in excess or used incorrectly, we all know that. My point is if someone is of adult age and going to pick up one or the other I would rather see them picking up an ecig. And honestly I think it would be cooler of anyone to do that than the other. Why would you if you didn't smoke first? I don't know. But the whole world would be better off and healthier with a larger "vaping community" than a world full of smokers.
Congrats on your addiction, I'm glad the combination of peer pressure and electronic cigarettes made that possible!
As far as depression and other diseases, you should find another doctor, because they obviously don't know how to do they're job.
And might I add, I like the encouragement in this thread.....
As far as depression and other diseases, you should find another doctor, because they obviously don't know how to do they're job.
And might I add, I like the encouragement in this thread.....
Perhaps your well meaning in your sarcarm, but if you have a point just state it plainly, and it will be more effective.
I suppose they have you on one of the newer antidepressants?
I'm seriously starting to suspect the new antidepressants aren't nearly as effective as the old tricyclic drugs. I see a lot of posts here from folks who claim they get little relief of their symptoms from their medication. I've been taking Imipramine since 1986 and it definitely changed and saved my life.
Not to mention that it's also inexpensive since it's been on the market since the 50's.
I think you should raise hell with your doctor over your medication. If your doctor doesn't want to help you with your ADD find another doctor.
Good luck with vaping.
Imipramine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imipramine - PubMed Health
This is true. The new DSM-IV has weakened the standards for diagnosing depression... the old anti-depressants had to be effective on severely depressed people. The new anti-depressants are considered to be 'as effective' as the old ones, but they got that reputation by being effective for a whole new class of depressed people.
If you REALLY want to blow your mind when it comes to anti-depressants, check out Tianeptine. Tianeptine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its works exactly opposite to SSRIs, its as effective as SSRIs, and it has more tolerable side effects.
I cant quite decide if this is a troll post or a genuine post!! e-ciggs do look pretty cool with all the bling and every smoker telling people they are safe so I guess some non-smokers are going to be curious and maybe try them, i know this is a very sensitive area in the vaping world and I'm guessing one day we will have to address this, maybe this post, troll or not will help us to start facing our fears! we all know its one of the reasons they could ban them!!!
Which brings me onto something I heard recently, my son(15) told me that one of the kids that goes down the bmx ramps where he hangs out was vaping with an ecigg, I asked him how old was the kid and he told me he is 15!! My son told me the kid was trying to quit smoking and his parents bought it for him!!! Now I dont know what to think of this as personally im glad the kid is not smoking.....but this worries me that e-ciggs are spreading rapidly through all areas of our society, I for one would be gutted if e-ciggs were banned, I have almost completed 5 weeks without a smoke!!!
Roo
Which brings me onto something I heard recently, my son(15) told me that one of the kids that goes down the bmx ramps where he hangs out was vaping with an ecigg, I asked him how old was the kid and he told me he is 15!! My son told me the kid was trying to quit smoking and his parents bought it for him!!! Now I dont know what to think of this as personally im glad the kid is not smoking.....but this worries me that e-ciggs are spreading rapidly through all areas of our society, I for one would be gutted if e-ciggs were banned, I have almost completed 5 weeks without a smoke!!!
Roo
Strange how some vapers seem to have the same moralist mindset as the antis.
Last edited:
I dont think we all have the same moralist mindset, but one of the reasons eciggs could be banned is because non smokers could take up the habit, I know its all down to our freedom of choice as adults but I dont think it will work that way!!
me personally I think if people want to vape let them vape! If they want to take up vaping let them vape!!! what worries me is they might take my vaping stick away :-(
I think it's silly to ask "why would non-smokers vape". Why would non-smokers smoke? We all have our reasoning/justifications. And most of us were non-smokers at one time.
And btw, I love the story of the guy who loves the nic gum!! Hilarious!!
And btw, I love the story of the guy who loves the nic gum!! Hilarious!!
People pick up habits. Somehow I ended up smoking/drinking/blowing (hey, I'm Dutch. Sue me.). Considering this, I think picking up the ecigs ain't that bad.
yes I'm with you one hundred percent e-ciggs are our salvation, but there seems to be a lot of anti-vapourists out there and we need to do all we can not to give them any help in banning our lovely vaping habit!!
In all honesty, I don't care what the anti vapourists think. Just like I don't care what the anti smokers think. I could mention some other groups of people with a strict and well defined mindset, but that would get me into trouble. What I mean to say, these are not nice people. You can recognize them by the fact that their eyes have fallen back into their skulls because there's no brains to hold them back. I don't want to waste my time with them.
How is it strange? Are anti's any less or more human than vapers?
The only common trait (besides being human beings) that vapers share is that we vape. I find it far stranger that you would somehow think that there should be some Vaper mindset. Is that being any less the moralist than those vapers who tell people not to smoke?
It's not like the anti's don't generally have the science backing them up. Only a fool would consider smoking unharmful. From a rational standpoint the only thing we can say about vaping is that there is a probability of it being less harmful than smoking.
At the very minimum we do know that nicotine increases heart rate which at a minimum increases the wear and tear on our hearts potentially shortening our lives.
I think the position that many of us hold (including to some extent myself) is that if one isn't already addicted to nicotine that it would be foolish to start vaping. After all we don't know what the long term affects are. We think it will be less harmful but we don't really know.
Hell what I tell people is that it will probably still kill me in the long run but at least I won't stink in the meantime.
So they have a pretty damned good point.
The only thing that stops me from agreeing 100% with this principle is that nicotine has quite a bit of potential as a treatment for certain psychological conditions particularly if it's freed from most of the negative health affects related to tobacco use. And a PV could be an interesting delivery system in this case.
The can of worms however is that should people start using it as such it really does become a medical device which would give the FDA authority over it.
This is one of those places where regulation to protect us can actually have a negative unintended consequence.
And honestly if smoking was not so harmful I'd be all for the FDA blocking this product until it could be thoroughly vetted and tested. As it stands as a 40 year old who smoked for better than 2 decades I simply don't have time to wait for that testing.
This is definitely a case where for a smoker the potential risks of vaping are outweighed by the certain risks of smoking.
That being said their is definitely a potential downside to vaping, so I would never suggest or support a non-smoker taking up the activity. Honestly the nicotine is the least worrisome aspect of the technology to me. I'm far more concerned about the flavorings and potential risks of contamination low QC and inhaling other chemicals including trace elements from the atomizers.
So I wouldn't even suggest this activity to a non-nicotine addict even with 0 nic juice there are just too many unknowns at this point and too many potential downsides to make that a reasonable risk.
I think that until the science comes in, it is in our best interests as vapers to try to limit the activity to those who are actually nicotine addicts. After all if we can't quit cancer sticks any other way we really have nothing to lose.
Because if a lot of non-smokers pick up vaping because they think it looks cool or is fun then that is going to provide ammunition to those anti's who oppose anything other than abstinence and would be likely to pull a whole bunch of fence sitters who don't really give a rats ... one way or the other into the anti camp.
So I think it's perfectly understandable that some people might react in a way you find to be moralizing in this circumstance.
How exactly? It is an interesting thread and I was just trying to bring in some humor. Thanks for treating a new member oh so kindly.
There's the don't encourage non-smokers to vape because its bad for them camp.
There's the don't encourage non-smokers to vape because its bad for us camp.
There's the vape if you want as long as you make an informed decision camp.
They aren't exclusive... I agree with all these points. As a general rule, people are better off not using a tobacco product. If people choose to use one anyway for whatever reason (a poor choice or a well informed decision) then its better they vape than smoke.
The non-smoker not vaping because its bad for us camp isn't the moral camp. Its the most immoral one. Unconcerned for their health, and unconcerned for their freedom... only concerned about its negative consequences for e-cig users.
There's the don't encourage non-smokers to vape because its bad for us camp.
There's the vape if you want as long as you make an informed decision camp.
They aren't exclusive... I agree with all these points. As a general rule, people are better off not using a tobacco product. If people choose to use one anyway for whatever reason (a poor choice or a well informed decision) then its better they vape than smoke.
The non-smoker not vaping because its bad for us camp isn't the moral camp. Its the most immoral one. Unconcerned for their health, and unconcerned for their freedom... only concerned about its negative consequences for e-cig users.
This topic is one that will get bigger and bigger.
For:
-- People are always going to start smoking and there is absolutely no way to stop that.
--When tobacco cigarettes are long gone, and electronic cigarettes and Snus etc are the norm, then everyone will start via e-cigarettes or Snus.
-- If you're going to start smoking in any form, a way that is thousands of times less harmful than cigarettes seems a good idea.
-- Some people find that nicotine is highly beneficial. Others, not so much. You should at least be able to choose.
-- There is a powerful argument that an organic substance present in our diet for at least the last hundred thousand years might be a better solution to some medical conditions than synthetic drugs.
-- Everybody tests positive for nicotine even if they are non-smokers and never go anywhere near smokers - it is a natural constituent of many vegetables. On a scale of 0 to 300, a smoker might score about 200-250 and a non-smoker about 3. It may even be one of those trace materials that is needed, or needed by some.
-- Nicotine in higher doses is addictive for many people. Some find it no problem to quit. Some find they are better off not quitting as they don't function at 100% without it. People should have the right to choose.
-- Nicotine is starting to be prescribed for some medical conditions. Strangely, it seems less prevalent than 'mary jane' for this purpose, which one might have thought far less attractive to the medical profession.
-- There are one or two medical conditions where some might say the best therapy of all is nicotine.
Against:
-- Nicotine is addictive for most people, so it is not a good idea to start.
-- It's not a good idea to start on anything like this that is not really needed - if you are simply a leisure user.
-- Inhaling anything other than pure mountain air is not good for you. Every step you take nearer to polluted urban air, low air quality working conditions or inhalation of non-vital substances is a step toward poorer health. There is an argument that this is the price of modern life, but it should still be possible to minimize such risks.
-- Our detractors will use use this against us in some way.
Looks like what we need is an Ethics Committee. Oh, sorry, I forgot - this is it, here
Other points:
-- It seems less problematic when older people start up in this way, but that may just be our perception of the issue.
-- It will be 25 years before there are any worthwhile statistics on the safety aspect. We know this because of the Snus experience. However, even when after 25 years it is proven beyond doubt that Snus are virtually harmless, it has made absolutely no difference at all to the establishment's view of them.
For:
-- People are always going to start smoking and there is absolutely no way to stop that.
--When tobacco cigarettes are long gone, and electronic cigarettes and Snus etc are the norm, then everyone will start via e-cigarettes or Snus.
-- If you're going to start smoking in any form, a way that is thousands of times less harmful than cigarettes seems a good idea.
-- Some people find that nicotine is highly beneficial. Others, not so much. You should at least be able to choose.
-- There is a powerful argument that an organic substance present in our diet for at least the last hundred thousand years might be a better solution to some medical conditions than synthetic drugs.
-- Everybody tests positive for nicotine even if they are non-smokers and never go anywhere near smokers - it is a natural constituent of many vegetables. On a scale of 0 to 300, a smoker might score about 200-250 and a non-smoker about 3. It may even be one of those trace materials that is needed, or needed by some.
-- Nicotine in higher doses is addictive for many people. Some find it no problem to quit. Some find they are better off not quitting as they don't function at 100% without it. People should have the right to choose.
-- Nicotine is starting to be prescribed for some medical conditions. Strangely, it seems less prevalent than 'mary jane' for this purpose, which one might have thought far less attractive to the medical profession.
-- There are one or two medical conditions where some might say the best therapy of all is nicotine.
Against:
-- Nicotine is addictive for most people, so it is not a good idea to start.
-- It's not a good idea to start on anything like this that is not really needed - if you are simply a leisure user.
-- Inhaling anything other than pure mountain air is not good for you. Every step you take nearer to polluted urban air, low air quality working conditions or inhalation of non-vital substances is a step toward poorer health. There is an argument that this is the price of modern life, but it should still be possible to minimize such risks.
-- Our detractors will use use this against us in some way.
Looks like what we need is an Ethics Committee. Oh, sorry, I forgot - this is it, here
Other points:
-- It seems less problematic when older people start up in this way, but that may just be our perception of the issue.
-- It will be 25 years before there are any worthwhile statistics on the safety aspect. We know this because of the Snus experience. However, even when after 25 years it is proven beyond doubt that Snus are virtually harmless, it has made absolutely no difference at all to the establishment's view of them.
- Status
Similar threads
