On the contrary, I was a one pack a day smoker of light cigarettes, and my level of addiction was not at all uncommon.
If you had a less severe addiction, then perhaps it was YOU that was the extremely rare exception.
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
Should Electronic Cigarettes be Regulated as a Medicine? Like the Nicotrol Inhaler or the Nicotine Patches and Gums?
- Thread starter guyvelella
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
On the contrary, I was a one pack a day smoker of light cigarettes, and my level of addiction was not at all uncommon.
If you had a less severe addiction, then perhaps it was YOU that was the extremely rare exception.
any regulation should be towards the labeling of ejuice contents/ingredients for accuracy and/or truthfulness.
maybe there should be an upper limit on nicotine but cigs dont have that so why should ejuice.
im addicted to caffeine does not mean that caffeine should be regulated or treated like a drug
maybe there should be an upper limit on nicotine but cigs dont have that so why should ejuice.
im addicted to caffeine does not mean that caffeine should be regulated or treated like a drug
Last edited:
We agree on vaping should not be suppressed, but apparently disagree on the reason why. I do think this impacts our fight going forward. I would not go to a vape rally or be on board with a CTA that sought to make points about vaping by disparaging smoking/smokers. Instead, I'd enter into a friendly discussion with those vapers.
I do not think there will be deaths as a result of vaping that are solely attributable to vaping. I think there will be those among us (aka ANTZ) that will say it is mostly to solely because of vaping. I think there will be ex-vapers who will join the ANTZ crowd and who will carry that torch.
The deaths you have cited as related are not really from vaping. Would be like me saying "water kills" with implication that if you drink water, you will die. Someone disputes this, and then I bring up a case of people that drowned in water and say I told you water kills. Here is a verifiable report about it, and you doubted me. How wrong you were.
If vaper stops vaping and picks up smoking, that will be by their choice. This is where we have what appears like profound disagreement. If vaping was banned and I started drinking bleach by the gallon and died, could I say that the vaping ban caused me to drink bleach? I bring up the ridiculous, because I see it as ridiculous to say the only option is to go back to smoking. Saying this is actually giving fuel to the idea that vaping is a gateway to smoking. If vaper who used to smoke but stops smoking because of vaping (in their mind) and swears they will never have a cigarette again, I would say in that moment that they are less likely to smoke than a never-smoking minor. But if that same vaper goes back to smoking because they can't vape, then how would anyone be able to argue that never-smokers wouldn't first go to vaping and possibly be interested in smoking, especially if they are somehow denied ability or access to vaping (as a minor might be)? Perhaps not my best counter point as I actually see you agreeing with that, saying the ban is what caused the person to smoke. I would just note that there are many choices available to people in general if a) they are one that enjoys vaping nicotine and b) they are denied access to vaping. To put forth that smoking is the only choice seems impossible to defend. To say one is forced to smoke strikes me as immature comment. Like a child might say if you don't let me watch TV today, I'll be forced to sneak out of the house and watch TV at that guy's house that you say is a bad person. I would think caring, reasonable parent would show that child that there are more choices than that available to them.
I'll go along with agree to disagree as I do think there may be no budging. But will just note that there is a split in the vaping community on politics going forward. And that split has some vapers who are aligned with ANTZ rhetoric and some who are very willing to confront that with reason and all available science, not just the kind ANTZ want to tout.
Yes. But that idea was implanted for the purpose of "making good" on it.
Silly people think they have their own ideas these days...
Sent from my device.
Sgt.Rock said:
I see EXACTLY what you did there.No. Actually, they should be banned. No coffe machine makes several cups of coffe with "consistent doses" of caffeine.
Too bad others aren't seeing it yet.
But in time they will.
Hopefully not before it is too late.
Right, I should not have used the word "untaxed" without qualification. Pretty much nothing sold openly, in high volume anywhere is truly untaxed. What I meant was untaxed by the local jurisdiction, where the tax rate is so high that it makes sense find a way to buy the same product taxed at a lower rate somewhere else and "import" it. Such a jurisdiction can be quite small, like a city, or as large as an entire country.
BTW, see what I did there? I mis-used a word. I got called out on it, and admitted that I was wrong in my useage.
You exercise substantial control and regulation Rossum!
What a dastardly devious equation.
Dunno where I'd top out at. But I've settled around 4,000. Oye...
Sent from my device.
what you are describing is not the substantial harm referred to in
relation ship to addiction. a major annoyance yes. i'll give you
that.
regards
mike
from what i gather from here and other places more people are cutting
down on nicotine and or vaping quite naturally..especially those over thirty.
even in the smoking world a pack a day smoker would only be in the top
15th percentile.i smoked for 38 years 2 packs or more a day full strength
menthol hundreds. i switched to vaping in one day with no apparent
difficulty. after a year and a half i find my vaping is naturally cutting back
on its own even though i haven't adjusted my nic intake at all.
from what i have read on his forum this appears to be the norm
not the exception.
regards
mike
Just Trying in Inject some Dimensionality into this "Discussion".
Because there are a Lot of people out there that the "Save the Children" card is Very Meaningful.
You Can't really call them ANTZ. Because they Don't Care what you do with Nicotine. They just Don't Want their Kids Doing it. So people like Diane F and Boxer appeal to them. Because they see someone Doing Something about what they Don't want their Children to do.
Hoping to be worthy of this t-shirt. lol. Never attempted it yet though but have heard of people who do.Do I see a competition brewing for highest nic and power combo?
Sent from my device.
http://www.giantvapes.com/i-sub-ohm-24mg-t-shirt/
Vaping Myth #25
Pesticide Reregistration Status | Pesticides | US EPA
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm
Also, the second document goes into some detail as to what it would take to get a nicotine pesticide approved.
It would probably be easier and cheaper to get it approved as a tobacco product.
Last edited:
Yes, you're right, I do agree with that. And, I do believe that it's possible for a never-smoker to start vaping, start using nic, get hooked on nic, and then make a transition to smoking either because of a vaping ban, or just because they suddenly decide that they want to dual use. So, yes, I don't entirely disagree with the possibility that vaping can be a "gateway drug" to smoking. I just believe (with no evidence either way at this point), that the percentage of time this happens will be extremely low compared with the percentage of time that a smoker transitions to vaping and reaps long-term health benefits as a result. So, once again, I view this as a net benefit for purposes of public policy.
See, here's why I think our disagreement is important (though not resolvable). By viewing any claims that smoking causes long-term damage to people's healths as mere ANTZ rhetoric, you undercut your own credibility. Claiming that smoking doesn't cause death makes you appear to be delusional to a large majority of the population, including many vapers and smokers. I personally don't think that perception will help us when public sentiment is important. The whole notion that smoking is not harmful is so patently absurd to most people that anything you say after that is automatically dubious. It's like those people who claim they were abducted by aliens or claim that the holocaust never happened. Even if you're right (which I don't think is really provable one way or the other at this point), you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of many potential supporters by making those claims.
Ah, that makes sense. The difference is that I'm only 154 days into it, and haven't cut back as much as you have yet. If I was unable to vape starting tomorrow, I would be screwed.
It's Funny how the Amount of Time since a person has Switch can Dramatically Influence their Views on things. In the Same way having Not Quit Smoking can.
As long as your Desire to Smoke is Gone, then you are doing Fine.
Agreed. I'd probably be one of those concerned citizens if I hadn't quit smoking by vaping.
Sent from my device.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
