Tv news video vapingzone.com

Status
Not open for further replies.

SloHand

Eh?
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 8, 2011
763
808
Kingston, Ontario
The tone seems to be changing on these reports .... in our favor. I have a question though. I've heard this from these goofball doctors before ... the " .... concern about becoming more addicted". How is that even possible? you either are or you're not and if there is an in between then ???? Just doesn't sound right?
 

AgentAnia

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2013
3,739
9,455
Orbiting Sirius B
The tone seems to be changing on these reports .... in our favor. I have a question though. I've heard this from these goofball doctors before ... the " .... concern about becoming more addicted". How is that even possible? you either are or you're not and if there is an in between then ???? Just doesn't sound right?

I didn't see (or hear) the interview w/ vaping Zone, but do have an opinion on the "becoming more addicted" issue. Which is that these doctors don't understand nicotine and are spouting the ANTZ party line. Whether nicotine is physiologically (vs. behaviorally) addictive or not (by itself, separate from tobacco cigarettes) has not even been determined, depending on how one defines "addictive." But the real issue with these doctors is they don't seem to understand that nicotine users self titrate. Each nicotine user has a "preferred" level, which they reach by whatever means and then stop, until the level lowers and they "renew" it by vaping or chewing or smoking or whatever.

It's not the same as opiate addiction, where the user develops a tolerance to a certain level and must increase that level to achieve the same satisfaction.

So the answer is, in my opinion, that "becoming more addicted" to nicotine is an imaginary concept, and the doctors who preach it are ignorant of the real issue.
 

mgmrick

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 12, 2010
2,813
2,369
66
New York
Interesting point... I read users lower there nic level but never needing to increase their nic level. I am not too concerned about my nic level but after vaping 3 years I lowered from 36mg nic at start to 20 mg nic level now

I didn't see (or hear) the interview w/ Vaping Zone, but do have an opinion on the "becoming more addicted" issue. Which is that these doctors don't understand nicotine and are spouting the ANTZ party line. Whether nicotine is physiologically (vs. behaviorally) addictive or not (by itself, separate from tobacco cigarettes) has not even been determined, depending on how one defines "addictive." But the real issue with these doctors is they don't seem to understand that nicotine users self titrate. Each nicotine user has a "preferred" level, which they reach by whatever means and then stop, until the level lowers and they "renew" it by vaping or chewing or smoking or whatever.

It's not the same as opiate addiction, where the user develops a tolerance to a certain level and must increase that level to achieve the same satisfaction.

So the answer is, in my opinion, that "becoming more addicted" to nicotine is an imaginary concept, and the doctors who preach it are ignorant of the real issue.
 

2coils

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 29, 2012
1,504
2,500
New Jersey
I didn't see (or hear) the interview w/ Vaping Zone, but do have an opinion on the "becoming more addicted" issue. Which is that these doctors don't understand nicotine and are spouting the ANTZ party line. Whether nicotine is physiologically (vs. behaviorally) addictive or not (by itself, separate from tobacco cigarettes) has not even been determined, depending on how one defines "addictive." But the real issue with these doctors is they don't seem to understand that nicotine users self titrate. Each nicotine user has a "preferred" level, which they reach by whatever means and then stop, until the level lowers and they "renew" it by vaping or chewing or smoking or whatever.

It's not the same as opiate addiction, where the user develops a tolerance to a certain level and must increase that level to achieve the same satisfaction.

So the answer is, in my opinion, that "becoming more addicted" to nicotine is an imaginary concept, and the doctors who preach it are ignorant of the real issue.
To add to your point. I find it much easier to stay off my e-cig compared to staying away from a traditional cigarette. I remember chomping at the bit to light up if I were in a place where I couldn't smoke. If I am in a situation where I can't vape (though this doesn't happen often) I am never really thinking about it! I suspect that blend of chemicals with the Nic in the stinkys has something to do with this. IMHO family doctors definitely don't understand nicotine addiction let alone vaping nicotine versus combustible cigs.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
The tone seems to be changing on these reports .... in our favor. I have a question though. I've heard this from these goofball doctors before ... the " .... concern about becoming more addicted". How is that even possible? you either are or you're not and if there is an in between then ???? Just doesn't sound right?
It continues to amaze me how clueless these people are.
Vapers have a lot of real world knowledge to provide, if they were willing to listen.
 

AgentAnia

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2013
3,739
9,455
Orbiting Sirius B
It continues to amaze me how clueless these people are.
Vapers have a lot of real world knowledge to provide, if they were willing to listen.

"Willing to listen" being a great big IF!

It doesn't surprise me that most people are more willing to listen to a "scientist" or a "researcher" or a "doctor" than to a vaper. What astounds me continually is that (seems to me) a lot more vapers know a lot more about smoking and nicotine and ecigs than a lot of scientists etc. who think they know it all. :glare:
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, June 2-5, 1975 (New York, USA)
“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

THE ‘BLUEPRINT’ SUMMARY:

Demonize the tobacco industry. Eradicate all industry advertising. The tobacco industry will be portrayed as always evil, public health as always good. Public health is always right - anyone questioning public health will be smeared (argument ad hominem) as a tobacco industry shill or sympathizer/apologist, i.e., wrong by association.

Smoking will be punished through taxation and the removal of smoking-permitted areas. Any reference to smoking/smokers will always be negative and never positive. Smoking will always be referred to as abnormal behavior. Smoking will be depicted as a non-normal or abnormal behavior. Smokers would be depicted, in a wholly derogatory sense, as ‘nicotine addicts’: Smoking would be ‘reduced’ to no more than nicotine addiction. In short, nonsmokers are ‘superior’, smokers are ‘inferior’.

Those in education and public health will be the first to be brainwashed into antismoking, and should be ‘exemplars’ of ‘normal’, nonsmoking behavior. Those choosing to smoke should have their employment terminated in these ‘exemplar’ industries, to begin with.

Most interesting is that in the ensuing three-plus decades since the Godber Blueprint, the research themes, ‘findings’, ‘interpretations’, re-definitions, and policy demands ALL magically align, one by one, with the Blueprint.

Notice how the addiction angle is needed to depict smokers as dirty, rotten scoundrels.

Many claims/conclusions made at the 3rd World Conference were anything but scientifically ‘settled’. A pertinent question, then, is who authorized denormalization/abnormalization/stigmatization of smokers? Who decided that it was ‘the way to go’? Who decided that ‘elimination of cigarette smoking’ was a coherent goal? It seems that it was this antismoking group at the 3rd World Conference that manufactured all the conclusions. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, and under the banner of “Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”, this small group led by Godber (a WHO representative) decided that it had a definitive view of the world and smoking - the issues were “settled” - establishing a ‘blueprint’ for action. The overriding goal of the ‘blueprint’ was to eradicate smoking from public (indoor and outdoor) places through denormalization of smoking/smokers.
 
Last edited:

AgentAnia

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2013
3,739
9,455
Orbiting Sirius B
Very much like this, from the link vocalek posted [emphasis added]:

The antismoking crusade has mangled the edicts of scientific enquiry and coherent statistical and causal inference beyond recognition. It has manipulated the psychology, sociology, morality, and politics of nations around the world. As a scientific undertaking, antismoking is a fake. As a scholarly undertaking, antismoking is a fake. As health promotion, it is a fake, being a comprehensive attack on, at least, psychological, social, moral, and political health. As a moral crusade, it is a fake, relying almost exclusively on chicanery, dishonesty, impropriety, self-interest, haughtiness and greed. Inflammatory antismoking propaganda has produced enmity and social division between family members, between spouses, between parents and children, between colleagues, and between strangers. Remember that antismoking billed itself as the ‘good’ in the mythological battle between good and evil - another lie. The antismoker cult assumed the moral high ground which it neither has nor merits. Yet, in three-decades, it has never been called in official circles on this entirely questionable assumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread