Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive

[skoony]

I myself am not for age restrictions as they are now. I am for age restricting.
Allowed use only with parental authority and only purchased by the parent.
Make it perfectly clear that the parent assumes all reliability by law.
Of course this won't happen because they want to protect the chillin'.
They won't allow it because it will start them down the road of returning
parental control to the,wait for it,wait for it,....THE PARENT.

Regards
Mike

 

[Lessifer]

Just another thought, the definition of a bargaining chip is something that you hold on to, something that you can then give up when presented with an equally valuable concession from the other side. Walking in the door and handing something to the other side saying "here, take it, it's yours" is not effective bargaining.

 

[Kent C]

Just about everybody who first shows up in the newbie forum at least *mentions* "lowering nicotine level," as if that's something imperative that must be done or else one isn't a "real" quitter.

And not knowing they will be lessening focus/concentration, lung capacity, resistance to colds, and increasing the probability of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia, Rh. Arthritis, etc.

BUT... they learn soon enough :- )

 

[Kent C]

the definition of a bargaining chip is something that you hold on to, something that you can then give up when presented with an equally valuable concession from the other side.

Not only that, it really isn't a bargaining chip at all.

IF (and this would never happen of course) one offered up the 'children chip', you might get a response from an ANTZ regulator like:

"LOL, oh, you thought we were really concerned about children?? That is just being used to control you! "

 

[AndriaD]

And not knowing they will be lessening focus/concentration, lung capacity, resistance to colds, and increasing the probability of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia, Rh. Arthritis, etc.

BUT... they learn soon enough :- )

Well it's certainly natural for people to think that nicotine is the root of all evil; I showed up here in Jan '14 thinking nicotine was "the most addictive substance known to man," and considering how easily I quit the "c" white powder, and that I had managed, with great difficulty, to finally get sober and stay that way, but could not quit cigarettes no matter what I tried -- I knew nothing except how hard and how often I had tried to quit smoking, but could not, and all I knew of cigarettes' contents was nicotine. But after reading Rolygate's site, my eyes were opened and outrage commenced, at how we've all been lied to, and how egregiously, and for how long. Now that I've discovered *for myself* how easy it is to decrease one's use of nicotine, I'm fit to be tied, at all this nicotine-calumny, when it does seem to be a VERY useful drug for a HOST of problems! And quite aside from all the really bad stuff in cigarettes, some of which is added to increase their addictiveness, I understand a lot better now that people get a lot of benefits from smoking, way above and beyond staving off the trauma of withdrawal. And now, it's possible to get those nicotine benefits without the dangers of smoking -- the fact that the ANTZ want to eliminate THAT, just completely enrages me, to the point that I would gladly consider violence as a reasonable way of dealing with ANTZ.

Andria

 

[DC2]

Compromise SHOULD be limited to those who are wrong.
And we are not wrong.

 

[Kent C]

Compromise SHOULD be limited to those who are wrong.
And we are not wrong.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty.... Ayn Rand

 

[englishmick]

Notice how many folks still pop up here at ECF who are CONVINCED that nicotine causes cancer??? I know it's not true, you know it's not true, but combatting 50 yrs of disinformation is a real PITA!

Just about everybody who first shows up in the newbie forum at least *mentions* "lowering nicotine level," as if that's something imperative that must be done or else one isn't a "real" quitter. And most of them also throw in the "obligatory" "of course kids shouldn't have access..." as if that's perfectly obvious to any fool. I guess it must be obvious to FOOLS who have bought into the ANTZ party line for 50 yrs, but it's really getting OLD.

I know that emperor is buck nekkid, but so many people admire his gorgeous garments... I don't know how we're going to erase all that disinformation when so many people are so absolutely convinced of it.

Andria

Yeah, it ain't easy. I joined this forum knowing that I had been addicted nicotine for 50 years and that nicotine was probably going to kill me. I took me several months to get past that. And I'm pretty well educated and well read, and I don't think I'm particularly dogmatic in terms of clinging to what I believe today. I'm old enough to have changed my mind on almost everything I ever believed.

 

[DC2]

IMO, the best way to go about affecting change is through unrelenting education, not single-issue voting.

I have to say that I do believe education is our strongest weapon.
The problem is that we need the media to help us out.

Instead, they seem to be mostly trying to help snuff us out.

Getting sick from nicotine overdose (JUUL comes with 50 mg/ml cartridges), malfunctioning batteries, melting chargers. We have enough adults getting in trouble as is.

It might be worth considering that "nicotine overdose" is not necessarily a bad thing.
No one really ever dies from it, comparatively speaking.

But such an experience would certainly leave a lasting impression.
And maybe discourage such use.

I hope that, everytime someone says they stopped smoking by vaping, and now they're going to quit vaping. I'd like to get to a point where I'm a *casual* vaper, not a needful one, but vaping just for the enjoyment of it is a long way from "I must quit everything enjoyable because somebody says so."

As someone who has reached the point of being a casual vaper...
I can attest that it's a good place to be.


But not everyone may be able to do that for various physiological reasons.
Or even psychological or habitual reasons.

I've even gotten to the point where I can smoke a cigarette if I feel like it.
Which is very rare, and becoming more rare by the year.

That's freedom.

 

[AndriaD]

Yeah, it ain't easy. I joined this forum knowing that I had been addicted nicotine for 50 years and that nicotine was probably going to kill me. I took me several months to get past that. And I'm pretty well educated and well read, and I don't think I'm particularly dogmatic in terms of clinging to what I believe today. I'm old enough to have changed my mind on almost everything I ever believed.

What's really interesting to me is that although a lot of folks start at a fairly high nic level, most of them find that they need to lower that either gradually or drastically, in *some* (varying) period of time, just to stay comfortable -- as if, in the absence of all the cigarette toxins, we actually begin to *lose* tolerance to nicotine -- I don't know ANY other drug that exhibits that characteristic! Not ONE!

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

As someone who has reached the point of being a casual vaper...
I can attest that it's a good place to be.


But not everyone may be able to do that for various physiological reasons.
Or even psychological or habitual reasons.

I've even gotten to the point where I can smoke a cigarette if I feel like it.
Which is very rare, and becoming more rare by the year.

That's freedom.

That sort of freedom is exactly what I'm aiming for. To be perfectly honest, given my all-encompassing addictive biology, nature, and personality, I think it will be remarkable if I ever can achieve that sort of freedom... but that just makes it all the more attractive as a goal. Certainly that's what every alcoholic would wish for, to be able to enjoy alcohol without losing one's self to it, but with alcohol, it's just not possible -- with vaping, it just might be.

Andria

 

[DC2]

What's really interesting to me is that although a lot of folks start at a fairly high nic level, most of them find that they need to lower that either gradually or drastically, in *some* (varying) period of time, just to stay comfortable -- as if, in the absence of all the cigarette toxins, we actually begin to *lose* tolerance to nicotine -- I don't know ANY other drug that exhibits that characteristic! Not ONE!

That's an EXTREMELY important and entirely valid point for many of us.
An "addictive drug" is supposed to, over time, work towards increasing your intake.

This is not true with nicotine at all from what this forum has shown us over the years.

Yes, there are some that have a hard time reducing nicotine.
But they are NOT the majority here.

There could be many discussions to be had regarding why some and not others.
But that is a thread in and of itself.

What really bothers me, though, is those that have trouble reducing the nicotine...
And then claiming that what is true for them must be true for all.

The ability to walk in another's shoes is a hard thing to master.
Some don't even bother to try.

 

[Kent C]

I joined this forum knowing that I had been addicted nicotine for 50 years and that nicotine was probably going to kill me.

I thought of it in terms of smoking rather than nicotine but basically the same - resigned to die of cancer which would give me more time to get things 'in order' vs. a heart attack or stroke. A personal and intentional choice. (Carl P would disagree :- ) He's wrong lol ). I loved smoking. And it was a cost-benefit thing.

It might be worth considering that "nicotine overdose" is not necessarily a bad thing. No one really ever dies from it, comparatively speaking.

But such an experience would certainly leave a lasting impression.
And maybe discourage such use.

When I was around 10, I opened my grandfathers 'tobacco cabinet' looking around. Mainly he smoked a pipe but had other stuff as well. Also made beer, wine, whiskey in the cellar Anyway, I grabbed a package of chew and he said "do you want to try it?" I said "yes". And did. And threw up. He laughed and later said, if I didn't smoke before I was 16, he'd give me his squirrel rifle. (of course all of this now would have appalled Child Services). I never 'chewed' and never started smoking until the Army - 22yr old (unless you include inhaling a girlfriend's smoke while kissing (I know TMI :laugh) although that may have been the 'hook' )

Lasting impressions: Never liked 'wintergreen' anything.

 

[AndriaD]

That's an EXTREMELY important and entirely valid point for many of us.
An "addictive drug" is supposed to, over time, work towards increasing your intake.

This is not true with nicotine at all from what this forum has shown us over the years.

Yes, there are some that have a hard time reducing nicotine.
But they are NOT the majority here.

There could be many discussions to be had regarding why some and not others.
But that is a thread in and of itself.

What really bothers me, though, is those that have trouble reducing the nicotine...
And then claiming that what is true for them must be true for all.

The ability to walk in another's shoes is a hard thing to master.
Some don't even bother to try.

All psychoactive chemicals affect the biochemistry of the brain -- the human brain, the most powerful, sophisticated, and still almost-entirely mysterious organism that has ever existed or probably will ever exist -- and yes, STILL, very little of what it does is truly and deeply understood. Amplify that lack of understanding by the what, 7 billion versions of it running around this planet... It's really no surprise that there are so many different reactions to all the different psychoactive chemicals that humans might ingest.

You're right though, it's a quirk of human nature that we will always tend to use ourselves as exemplary specimens, providing our own "anecdotal" evidence as if that means anything to anyone else -- it very often doesn't! We are each unique, with unique perceptions, understandings, and consciousness of the world and everything in it -- including ourselves.

The point of all that philosophical rambling is that nicotine is evidently a very different chemical to everyone who uses it -- there are some commonalities -- like, too much of it will make you barf -- but the amount which is "too much" is EXTREMELY individual: I've never been able to use more than 10.5mg without suffering nausea, and I actually quit smoking while vaping 6mg -- extremely unusual! But it happened to me, so it's just as valid as those who start at 36mg and never manage to get below 18-24mg. It really just depends on how our brains respond to it and use it, and one way is not necessarily either better or worse than any other way. Whatever is right for *oneself* is the only guideline that really pertains.

Andria

 

[englishmick]

And not knowing they will be lessening focus/concentration, lung capacity, resistance to colds, and increasing the probability of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia, Rh. Arthritis, etc.

BUT... they learn soon enough :- )

It was the Alzheimer's angle that finally got my attention. Lot of that in my family tree. Once I read that I started absorbing all the information out there about nicotine. Looking back I don't even recall hearing anything about nicotine not being the villain in the story. It's not like I heard people say nicotine wasn't the culprit and didn't take them seriously. I'm pretty sure I just never even heard it.

Since then I've had the conversation with a couple of smokers I know. Their eyes glazed over like they do when I warn them about the Greys.

The next step down the road for me might be to reconsider the dangers of second hand smoke. I've gone from sure to agnostic on that one. Then there's the question of whether smoking causes diseases. And on some distant horizon there's the virus theory.

Whatever, persuading people to question their beliefs is hard. A lot of folks are really adamant about their belief system. If it's challenged they start erecting defenses. I know I do that.

 

[YoursTruli]

That's an EXTREMELY important and entirely valid point for many of us.
An "addictive drug" is supposed to, over time, work towards increasing your intake.

This is not true with nicotine at all from what this forum has shown us over the years.

Yes, there are some that have a hard time reducing nicotine.
But they are NOT the majority here.

There could be many discussions to be had regarding why some and not others.
But that is a thread in and of itself.

What really bothers me, though, is those that have trouble reducing the nicotine...
And then claiming that what is true for them must be true for all.

The ability to walk in another's shoes is a hard thing to master.
Some don't even bother to try.

but are most really reducing their total nicotine intake?
What has also happened over the years is the delivery devices (AVPs/Mods/attys) have become way more efficient in delivering nic into the system actually forcing a lot of vapers to reduce their mg/ml because newer equipment/higher v/w/subohm was making them nic-sick at their "usual" mg/ml, but, that does not really equate to less total nicotine intake, it equates to less mg/ml to achieve what older gear could only deliver at higher levels of mg/ml.

 

[Lessifer]

but are most really reducing their total nicotine intake?
What has also happened over the years is the delivery devices (AVPs/Mods/attys) have become way more efficient in delivering nic into the system actually forcing a lot of vapers to reduce their mg/ml because newer equipment/higher v/w/subohm was making them nic-sick at their "usual" mg/ml, but, that does not really equate to less total nicotine intake, it equates to less mg/ml to achieve what older gear could only deliver at higher levels of mg/ml.

Not sure about "most" but I know I have. I started at 24mg at around 8 watts, and I was going through 3-5ml/day. Now I vape 12mg at about 25 watts, but only about 2-3ml per day. More efficient and less nicotine. I don't foresee another big reduction any time soon, though I do occasionally vape lower mg liquids.

 

[DC2]

It was the Alzheimer's angle that finally got my attention. Lot of that in my family tree. Once I read that I started absorbing all the information out there about nicotine. Looking back I don't even recall hearing anything about nicotine not being the villain in the story. It's not like I heard people say nicotine wasn't the culprit and didn't take them seriously. I'm pretty sure I just never even heard it.

Since then I've had the conversation with a couple of smokers I know. Their eyes glazed over like they do when I warn them about the Greys.

The next step down the road for me might be to reconsider the dangers of second hand smoke. I've gone from sure to agnostic on that one. Then there's the question of whether smoking causes diseases. And on some distant horizon there's the virus theory.

Whatever, persuading people to question their beliefs is hard. A lot of folks are really adamant about their belief system. If it's challenged they start erecting defenses. I know I do that.

Outstanding summary of the "intellectual journey" that many new members take.
How long that journey takes has many factors...

--How brainwashed are they by decades of anti-tobacco or anti-nicotine propaganda
--How open-minded are they to challenge what they've been fed
--How much do they see with respect to the various studies and such regarding vaping
--How well do they understand the various studies and such that have been reported on so far
--How well do they understand the factors at play
--How well do they understand the money involved
--How well do they understand the goals of the big money players

It's really a hard thing to sell to the random vaper.
But it usually doesn't take too long when intelligent folks start following the money.

 

[Kent C]

@englishmick

Understand completely and agree.

Whatever, persuading people to question their beliefs is hard.

You got that right. Each person whether they know it or not has a 'pyramid of knowledge' (some would call it a reverse/inverted pyramid), where all the blocks that form it are supposed to be rationally connected. Sometimes the 'mortar' is deficient It's their personal philosophy whether based on reason, experience, religion, music lyrics, old wives tales, unicorns or a combination of all. :- )

But if you challenge one block and the person sees the rationale clearly, the whole pyramid can fall. They think: "if that's wrong, then maybe others are wrong too - OMG!!" lol. The anatomy of a psychotic break (or the beginning of a rethinking process). There are built in "protections" (ignoring stuff, rationalizations) to keep that from happening and usually and unfortunately, they win over reason.

 

[Jman8]

Now that I think of it, I can't think of another (allegedly addictive) drug where after using it, you seek to have either same strength or less, over time. Perhaps alcohol would be an example, but even with that, people who really enjoy alcohol want harder amounts at times. With nic, it seems people are very okay with strength they have comfort level with, and don't suddenly wake up one day with desire to go higher / gain more potency.

It's kinda odd really, cause with nicotine even while you might use it very often throughout the day, you are (or I am) seeking to stay at moderate level of potency on a highly consistent basis. With all other drugs I've ever tried (including sugar), I am all over the map in terms of potency that I may want at a given time, depending on mood and many other factors.