Nicotine less addictive via vaping then smoking?

[VNeil]

If you were talking about vaping unflavored, I would not hesitate to agree with that.

Are there any facts that establish that flavors are harmful when ingested as a vape aerosol?

I'm not convinced that what happened in popcorn factories, with massive quantities of powdered material in the air, is factually connected to vaping in terms of potential harm. It is a worrisome unknown, but I haven't seen facts I am comfortable with. I have an open mind to it.

Removing the Flavorings, Artificial Sweeteners and Colorants does great Simplify things, Doesn't it.

But I wonder How Many Vapers use Unflavored regularly? <10%

That low percentage is certainly related to most vapers not seeing any factual evidence at the moment, and I'm one of them. If harm from flavoring was actually documented then that number would increase substantially.

 

[zoiDman]

I have just recently started making my mixes unflavored.... It's not as bad as I thought it would be.

I have Also. And have been Pleasantly surprised as to how Refreshing Unflavored actually Is. To Me of Course.

I also have been using what I call HOF (Hint of Flavor) on my "Brown" DIY e-Liquids. A couple of Drops of Regular Flavored e-Liquid in a Tank of Unflavored.

I might not be Illuminating my Da/AP intake completely. But I am Drastically Reducing it.

Once again, one could call that Harm Reduction. If a Person believes that Da/AP can cause Harm that is.

 

[AXIOM_1]

I have Also. And have been Pleasantly surprised as to how Refreshing Unflavored actually Is. To Me of Course.

I also have been using what I call HOF (Hint of Flavor) on my "Brown" DIY e-Liquids. A couple of Drops of Regular Flavored e-Liquid in a Tank of Unflavored.

Yes, I still get the feeling of smoking right along with the throat hit and all ........ I think I will keep it this way........ The way I see it, the less things that go into the juice, the less components go into my body, and the less the potential harm (harm reduction).

 

[zoiDman]

Yes, I still get the feeling of smoking right along with the throat hit and all ........ I think I will keep it this way........ The way I see it, the less things that go into the juice, the less components go into my body, and the less the potential harm (harm reduction).

I Can't find much of a Argument with that.

 

[DC2]

Are there any facts that establish that flavors are harmful when ingested as a vape aerosol?

I am no more "convinced" than you are.
But I have become more risk-averse as I age.

This is one thing that I don't want to play around with too much.
But that is just a decision I have made for myself, and I'm not willing to impose it upon others.

 

[VNeil]

Then if you believe that it is Not Valid to say that "Vaping is perfectly safe", why would you have a Problem if some refers to Vaping as "Harm Reduction" over Smoking?

Because, as I said previously, "Harm Reduction" is factually incorrect because it directly indicates there is a remaining element of harm. I think it is only factually accurate to simply state the facts: There are no known harms.

"Harm Reduction" is actually far worse than saying "we just don't know enough" because it directly suggests harm.

It is no more factually accurate to say "Harm Reduction" than it is to state with certainty "Harm Elimination".

 

[stevegmu]

Have you read thread after thread of vapers suffering health issues from vaping? I know on here it is almost always attributed to quitting smoking, but many of the posters quit long ago...

 

[VNeil]

You seem to think it is the media and propaganda affecting how vapers think. The reality it is common sense and independent thought for most, I believe...

It would be equally common sense to avoid wireless radio, and for that matter, all radio, because of the risks of brain cancer or diseases we aren't even thinking about. The long term epidemiological effects of that are equally unknown and potentially as worrisome. The only difference is that there is a huge monied interest in ensuring you don't think about that one. And that is just one risk of modern life we live with, without much concern.

 

[VNeil]

I am no more "convinced" than you are.
But I have become more risk-averse as I age.

This is one thing that I don't want to play around with too much.
But that is just a decision I have made for myself, and I'm not willing to impose it upon others.

And you have made a rational decision based on the unknown. But you responded to my statement of what facts are and are not known, thus interjecting your subjective thoughts there . I know you and I are basically on the same page on this.

 

[stevegmu]

It would be equally common sense to avoid wireless radio, and for that matter, all radio, because of the risks of brain cancer or diseases we aren't even thinking about. The long term epidemiological effects of that are equally unknown and potentially as worrisome. The only difference is that there is a huge monied interest in ensuring you don't think about that one. And that is just one risk of modern life we live with, without much concern.

Common sense tells me radio has absolutely nothing to do with vaping, other than to deflect the subject...

 

[VNeil]

Have you read thread after thread of vapers suffering health issues from vaping? I know on here it is almost always attributed to quitting smoking, but many of the posters quit long ago...

Most of those threads I read, a vaper has a respiratory or other issue. In many cases the OP comes back later disclosing s/he was in the early stages of a common cold or flu . In other cases, cause and effect is not something any of us can determine here, we can only speculate.

I am omitting the occasional allergy problem. The fact that some people are allergic to PG or some other component of the juice is not relevant to the discussion. Just like peanuts (and even wheat!) should not be tightly controlled by the gov't or considered evil because of the few with peanut or glutten allergies. And many of those threads are likely allergy issues.

 

[zoiDman]

Because, as I said previously, "Harm Reduction" is factually incorrect because it directly indicates there is a remaining element of harm. I think it is only factually accurate to simply state the facts: There are no known harms.

"Harm Reduction" is actually far worse than saying "we just don't know enough" because it directly suggests harm.

It is no more factually accurate to say "Harm Reduction" than it is to state with certainty "Harm Elimination".

I just don't see your Logic.

If someone Feels that Smoking is Harmful (and Most do), and if someone Feels that Vaping is Less Harmful than Smoking (and Most do), them Vaping is a Reduction of Harm over Smoking.

But Hey, you can see it Anyway you want.

 

[stevegmu]

Most of those threads I read, a vaper has a respiratory or other issue. In many cases the OP comes back later disclosing s/he was in the early stages of a common cold or flu . In other cases, cause and effect is not something any of us can determine here, we can only speculate.

I am omitting the occasional allergy problem. The fact that some people are allergic to PG or some other component of the juice is not relevant to the discussion. Just like peanuts (and even wheat!) should not be tightly controlled by the gov't or considered evil because of the few with peanut or glutten allergies. And many of those threads are likely allergy issues.

I read nearly all of them, and most seem to be perplexed as to why they are having breathing issues, or sores, rashes, tightness of chest...

Seems half of all vapers are allergic to PG. PG must be a pretty powerful irritant...

 

[DC2]

Seems half of all vapers are allergic to PG. PG must be a pretty powerful irritant...

From my understanding it is considered a mild irritant.
I think some (me) like that irritation, and others not so much really.

The real question is whether or not it does any harm.
And on that I'd have to say I'm in the "NO" camp.

Irritation<>Harm

 

[stevegmu]

From my understanding it is considered a mild irritant.
I think some (me) like that irritation, and others not so much really.

The real question is whether or not it does any harm.
And on that I'd have to say I'm in the "NO" camp.

I'm pretty sure constant irritation or inflammation of cells and tissues probably isn't good...
Then there's VG, which the other half seems to be 'allergic' to...

 

[VNeil]

I just don't see your Logic.

If someone Feels that Smoking is Harmful (and Most do), and if someone Feels that Vaping is Less Harmful than Smoking (and Most do), them Vaping is a Reduction of Harm over Smoking.

But Hey, you see it Anyway you want.

If you feel that vaping is "less harmful", that is an opinion. But then you said "then (sic) Vaping is a Reduction of Harm" and that is restating your opinion into fact.

If is fine to say "I think vaping is harm reduction because I think there is some harm to vaping".

That is very different than stating simply "Vaping is harm reduction"

And the reason I key into that so much is that I see that "Vaping is harm reduction" statement so often, and stated as fact and not as mere opinion. And just like Stalin is attributed to have said "a lie repeated over and over becomes fact", it is equally true that an opinion, stated over and over as fact, has the same propaganda effect of "becoming the truth". And it is that way in which the propagandists are winning, because even "we" do their work for them here. In the subtle ways in which we state things.

And remember that my entire discussion here is the subtle use or acceptance of propaganda, even by the truly devout.

 

[DC2]

I'm pretty sure constant irritation or inflammation of cells and tissues probably isn't good...
Then there's VG, which the other half seems to be 'allergic' to...

Well, I have my own opinion on most of the posts in the Health and Safety subforum.
But I don't want to post it here, because I don't want to offend anyone today.

 

[VNeil]

Common sense tells me radio has absolutely nothing to do with vaping, other than to deflect the subject...

It has everything to do with how we are propagandized about some unknown risks, but not propagandized about others. And about how we percieve risk of the unknown. I have no interest in debating the dangers of radio. It is a known "possibility" that is one of many unknown risks we take in modern life without undue concern.

 

[stevegmu]

It has everything to do with how we are propagandized about some unknown risks, but not propagandized about others. And about how we percieve risk of the unknown. I have no interest in debating the dangers of radio. It is a known "possibility" that is one of many unknown risks we take in modern life without undue concern.

I am not sure what propaganda you are referring to..

 

[VNeil]

I am not sure what propaganda you are referring to..

I've already done the best I can to explain it. You might want to go back and reread what I've already said here.