Hyperbole much? There are only ~16 million posts on the entire forum since inception. If every last one of them had a vaper bashing on smoking, you'd only have enough for around 50 PMTAs.
They are saying: Stop signing stupid petitions!
- Thread starter KrausAldo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- petition politicians vapers
- Status
Disagree they are worlds apart. They both occur in shared / observed reality, and I've experienced both. I experienced both when I went cold turkey. I wanted both A and B when I went cold turkey, and was aware of ways to not invoke (b) while accomplishing (a). As stated before, (a) doesn't automatically / necessarily lead to harm elimination. I would argue it for sure does not. Therefore (a) is part of harm reduction, and surely not the only part / method / chosen course of action.
Then there's the whole tangential, and clearly related, argument regarding honest assessment of "harmful effects of smoking." I began with this in previous post on this thread, and is oh so very related to the current debate, larger debate of this thread, and even larger debate of this forum/vaping in general. Let me know when we get around to fully honest assessment of those harms/risks along with actual benefits.
Related to this point is my current choice to moderately smoke. I would say there is desire there to negate the harmful effects of (abusive) smoking and from one who has gone cold turkey, I can tell you it is on par with what vaping provides, and has benefits that cold turkey doesn't provide, though risks, albeit moderate, that cold turkey doesn't include.
Anecdotal and to my moderate smoking self, tells me you clearly don't understand....
Hyperbole much? There are only ~16 million posts on the entire forum since inception. If every last one of them had a vaper bashing on smoking, you'd only have enough for around 50 PMTAs.
I said "felt the need," I didn't say posted the need (on this specific site).
Addiction Counseling: Abstinence Versus Harm Reduction
Very similar but different... all our views vary here, I'll quote this from that site...
We're all different.
Last edited:
Agreed that too much focus on it (say on vaping forum) is ANTZ-like. Glad I mentioned that earlier. ANTZ, in my observations, would be employing shaming tactics and/or FUD to make it seem like it is only viable option. You think a guy who now moderately smokes sees it as 'only viable option?' Your concession on "certainly it can be included as one of several options' is most I think I can hope for in this recurring debate we have. On so much else, we see eye to eye, and on this we do not. But I'll sure as heck take the concession.
Btw, abstinence to me is not the perfect. I'd actually say moderation is, as long as it stays in authentic mode of moderation. But this of course is just my bias. I've done cold turkey for a decade plus, and while the liberation experience is amazingly great in the early going (for those who seek/desire that), I found it wears off. Besides, it is inherently restrictive. Add shaming into the mix and having just one leads to disappointment / depression. Moderation doesn't follow such nonsense, while disallowing the addiction to take over.
I have no argument with this. I can obviously stand abstinence and can find contentment there. I feel the better choice is moderation, but to each their own. I am glad vaping affords the opportunity to engage in moderate smoking, but also understand, quite acutely, that willpower plays ultimate role.
Vaping is not smoking is not a fantasy. Will a plastic bag fuel your car because its a derivative of oil? (the newer bio-degradable
are an exception)
I smoked for 38 years. I can certainly say I was addicted to cigarette smoke, however
considering today's understanding of the role nicotine may have in all of this leaves me
uncertain exactly what it was I was addicted too. As early as the 1964 Surgeon General's
Report on Smoking it was noted that dependency rate of cigarette smokers who typically
inhaled smoke into their lungs was roughly 30%. Dependency rates of chewers and, pipe and
cigar users who typically didn't inhale were 5% or less. The report also noted that nicotine
in and of itself was not considered a serious risk to health. Current clinical studies testing
nicotine for medicinal purposes have shown life time non-tobacco users to not develop a
dependency to nicotine.
So why is vaping to instrumental in helping us quit smoking? I haven't a clue. Perhaps one's
body recognizes the nicotine and fools itself into thinking you are smoking. That along
with the ritualistic component of physically mimicking smoking may be more powerful than
believed.
I do not see us from switching from nicotine addiction in one form to the same addiction
in another form. There's something else going on I can't quite put my finger on. I will note
that after two and a half years of vaping I have naturally reduced my vaping and nic content
of the juice I use. When I still smoked I was consuming 2 packs a day or more heading towards
a three pack a day habit I believe I would be at today if I still smoked.
Regards
Mike
Vaping is not smoking is not a fantasy. Will a plastic bag fuel your car because its a derivative of oil? (the newer bio-degradable
are an exception)
I smoked for 38 years. I can certainly say I was addicted to cigarette smoke, however
considering today's understanding of the role nicotine may have in all of this leaves me
uncertain exactly what it was I was addicted too. As early as the 1964 Surgeon General's
Report on Smoking it was noted that dependency rate of cigarette smokers who typically
inhaled smoke into their lungs was roughly 30%. Dependency rates of chewers and, pipe and
cigar users who typically didn't inhale were 5% or less. The report also noted that nicotine
in and of itself was not considered a serious risk to health. Current clinical studies testing
nicotine for medicinal purposes have shown life time non-tobacco users to not develop a
dependency to nicotine.
So why is vaping to instrumental in helping us quit smoking? I haven't a clue. Perhaps one's
body recognizes the nicotine and fools itself into thinking you are smoking. That along
with the ritualistic component of physically mimicking smoking may be more powerful than
believed.
I do not see us from switching from nicotine addiction in one form to the same addiction
in another form. There's something else going on I can't quite put my finger on. I will note
that after two and a half years of vaping I have naturally reduced my vaping and nic content
of the juice I use. When I still smoked I was consuming 2 packs a day or more heading towards
a three pack a day habit I believe I would be at today if I still smoked.
Regards
Mike
Conditioning, agreed. I believe social dynamics always played a greater part in our habituation than nicotine. Although we definitely respond physiologically as you suggest it's a reinforcing signal. However it's interesting to consider how significant chem utilized to promote brand identity (customer retention) may play in this. It's likewise a confirmation signal. Does nic invoke habituating brain chemistry or is stress relieved by release of brain chem in response to the activity? Are we creating the reaction or is nic? How do you isolate it? Tell you what, what's the most common pursuit of us vapers tryin' to kick? What gets us over? Finding the right flavor profile. That says a lot. If there's an addiction it's the pursuit of that input and biochemical response. Might as well blame eating. That's addictive too.
Good luck all.
Last edited:
I have a problem with what I see as a contradiction in your complaints. The term "THR" - "Tobacco Harm Reduction" has the same flaw, as it implies that tobacco is the problem, rather than combustion. Can we change that term to "Smoking Harm Reduction"?
It's all a big mess.
Legally the definition for exclusion from being a drug device is that it's a "tobacco product" that does not make any therapeutic claims.
For inclusion in the FSPTCA it's a "tobacco product" or "derived from tobacco." So, legally, nicotine is a tobacco product, as it is derived from tobacco. Some have even suggested that "derived from" could be extended to "conceptually derived from" meaning the hardware itself is "derived from" a cigarette.
My position is sometimes mistakenly taken as wanting to be distanced from tobacco itself. I have no moral objections to tobacco use. What I object to is vaping being subject to Tobacco Control. If Tobacco Control is to mitigate the harms from smoking, vaping should not be subject to the same regulations. Neither should smokeless tobacco, but that's a different, albeit related, fight.
I believe it was Carl Phillips who coined the phrase tobacco harm reduction. I do remember there was a discussion on his blog when the same issue was brought up but I can't recall his answer, but I will give mine.
The term tobacco harm reduction makes sense in that it implies that there are ways of using tobacco that have less risk. It means exactly what it says. Tobacco can be very risky (inhaling smoke), or vanishingly low risk depending on how it is used.
Smoking harm reduction implies that there are ways of smoking that are less risky (actually there is if you smoke a pipe or cigar and don't inhale, but that is a different issue). There really is no way of inhaling smoke from tobacco that would lower the risk by any measurable amount.
If we're gonna delve into the real nitty-gritty of it all...
There really isn't much meat to the idea of tobacco harm reduction.
It's not about tobacco, and it never should have been about tobacco.
It's really all about SMOKE reduction.
But yeah, generally from SMOKING tobacco all day and every day.
:shrug:
I see your point about "smoking harm reduction". (BTW, decades ago, there was a public health media campaign to reduce risk, by not smoking cigarettes too far down. They suggested drawing a line halfway between the filter and the tobacco end, and not smoking them past that line.)
I would think that for most people, hearing "tobacco harm reduction" would reenforce their impression that all tobacco use is extremely dangerous. Putting the issue in terms of harm reduction is really important, but I'm struggling to find a better way than "THR". I use the THR terminology, but am uneasy about it.
I remember that ad campaign. Be great if they cut your taxes in half if you turned in all those half smoked ciggies! But that ain't going to happen
Also remember a factoid from the late 60s early 70s that smoking four or fewer cigarettes per day and the benefits of smoking would outweigh the disadvantages. No idea where that came from but gleefully shared it with my parents prior to my becoming a smoker myself.
If only wishing could make things come true.... but only in fairy tales.
A few hard facts. If the deeming happens with essentially the same as the proposed deeming its all over but the law suits and black market. If the deeming fails and is kicked back to the FDA there will be a large amount of legislation pushed on all levels, and that would likely happen pretty quickly. That would still be preferable to the deeming by a very large margin, but it won't be pretty. One other option is that the deeming happens but HR 2058 is passed, but that is still only a hope and a prayer. Which ever way it turns vaping is tied to tobacco and will be regulated that way.
Well stub I think you're right. They have decided that anything derived from IS tobacco, even a battery cell, if they so deem it. And by extension we [believe, accept] succumb to the premise that they are justifiably [inferred] attempting to regulate nicotine. Further then that because they really should (should they?) control nicotine (for the children?) we must somehow accept they steamroll over half the Bill of Rights.
I don't accept that nicotine is necessarily harmful.
I don't accept gov has a lawful right to regulate nicotine or any organic.
I don't accept that anything containing nicotine is tobacco.
I don't accept that anything derived from tobacco is nicotine.
I don't accept that vaping is combustion.
Where is the legal basis for Congress or anyone to regulate the consumption of nicotine?
And where is the proof that gov in its rightful role constructs laws against it (or any other related facet, e.g.) vaping for the broad beneficial social purpose other than ensuring its own revenue? Where is the evidence be it GA, etc. or the feds?
Why are we on the defensive? Why do we allow them to use words to take what is now, this moment, irrefutably ours.
Prove the rational benefit to society that categorically necessitates government's intervention. Most of all incorporate the rational argument in statute so it can be challenged and retracted if false. Otherwise, it's clearly not law serving the public good but empowering their own authority, incumbency and revenue.
Nicotine is not tobacco.
Vaping is not combustion.
Prove the harm.
Good luck all.
Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it, good and hard. If all that's required to regulate or ban something is to prove a rational benefit to society, then all sorts of things can be banned on that basis, starting with sugar. Think of all the diabetes we could prevent! IMO, it's a huge mistake to accept "benefit to society" as a justification to restrict an individual's pursuit of his happiness when that pursuit harms no other individual.
I hear ya. Understand where you're coming from insofar as claims of benefit. Anyone can claim anything, write anything, propose anything. That's the rationale of the functionary. They stand my argument on its head. I agree it's the lowest standard. But it certainly isn't the only responsible standard to justify legislation. Only perhaps the lowest standard for an [legal] objection. There are other theories of argument, i.e. Can only gov accomplish it? What's significant is that gov re vaping doesn't even rise to do that! This lowest standard. Worse, when challenged today whether it's our federal government or states we are simply dismissed…we'll know what it says when it when it passes. Shoot ros, think that pretty much says it all…we have no rule of law because there is no accountability as to their purposes. No sense that government is answerable…for frivolously enacted legislative takings of authority.
But I guess the best answer to you is that a rational benefit is the criteria for law making such that the restriction of right must be reasonable in its basis and objective. Believe were talking about the same thing. A rational benefit is not its opposite, the speculative assumption of benefit (we will be safer if only cops have guns), no matter how beneficial that might seem to some. To be truly of value to the public interest, it must be so. Ah, that cumbersome ugly word, TRUE. It must be observable, demonstrable...reasonable to the average person.
The fact that reasonableness can be taken in just the opposite direction as you suggest. Yes that's true. It certainly is, we're seeing it. And that's my point.
We both have the same objection, i.e the excess of legislation without proof, basis, tangible or discernible benefit to society as a whole. I merely thought to introduce this basic principle as demonstrative of the lack of regard law makers are exhibiting not only to us but due process, the property right, equal protection, etc. In the utopia of their own minds they must all think they're Ferris Bueller justified by a fictional note from Mom.
The right is ours. They're not giving us anything. They don't have the power to.
Good luck.
But I guess the best answer to you is that a rational benefit is the criteria for law making such that the restriction of right must be reasonable in its basis and objective. Believe were talking about the same thing. A rational benefit is not its opposite, the speculative assumption of benefit (we will be safer if only cops have guns), no matter how beneficial that might seem to some. To be truly of value to the public interest, it must be so. Ah, that cumbersome ugly word, TRUE. It must be observable, demonstrable...reasonable to the average person.
The fact that reasonableness can be taken in just the opposite direction as you suggest. Yes that's true. It certainly is, we're seeing it. And that's my point.
We both have the same objection, i.e the excess of legislation without proof, basis, tangible or discernible benefit to society as a whole. I merely thought to introduce this basic principle as demonstrative of the lack of regard law makers are exhibiting not only to us but due process, the property right, equal protection, etc. In the utopia of their own minds they must all think they're Ferris Bueller justified by a fictional note from Mom.
The right is ours. They're not giving us anything. They don't have the power to.
Good luck.
- Status
Similar threads
