Vaping after we're dead

[damthisisfun]

There is enough crap in the air, water and food we use - IMO it is not wise to add vaping to one's life for a non smoker. To me it is similar if certain plants that are legal in Amsterdam were legalized here in the US - I wont be adding those to my lifestyle. Why?

 

[kristin]

Yes, it is quantity that makes it poison. So do you mind telling everybody the small amount of nic that makes it a poison compared to the rest of your list?

What is a "small amount?" The 30 - 60 mg dose of pure nicotine they say could kill an adult? I'd have to DRINK 3-6 bottles of my e-liquid for it to kill me and more than likely I'd throw it up first. (There is a reason why they don't make nicotine pills or syrups - it makes people vomit.)

So, what does it matter what dose makes nicotine poisonous when we would never be consuming anywhere near that amount? It's just like iron or fluoride or cashews or chili peppers - no one ever consumes enough to make them poisonous. That was my point - calling it "poison" is mere scare tactics usually used by ANTZ. It's absolutely pointless to point out that nicotine is poisonous or a pesticide unless you just want to unnecessarily scare people. FACT: not all pesticides are poisonous to humans. FACT: Nicotine is not toxic at the levels at which we consume it. So, what is the point of even mentioning those things when discussing health risks?

There are genuine (LOW) risks associated with nicotine use for some people (mainly for those already at risk for heart disease or hypertension,) so why not stick to those REAL risks rather than blowing other things way out of proportion? The fact that nicotine can be used as a pesticide means NOTHING to the health of a vaper. The fact that nicotine is poisonous at levels higher than we consume when vaping means NOTHING to the health of a vaper. (Not to mention that nicotine poisoning is rarely fatal or even damaging in the first place.) The fact is that ANY stimulant, including caffeine, increases health risks for people already at risk for hypertension and heart disease means something - but NOT to ALL vapers (just like anaphylactic shock is a far greater risk to those who have a peanut allergy and is ZERO risk for people without peanut allergies from eating peanuts.) I would absolutely agree to warning those already at risk for heart disease or hypertension not to consume stimulants such as nicotine or caffeine, so that would include e-cigarettes that contain nicotine.

The point is, if you're going to stress that e-cigarettes are not completely safe or healthy, at least use valid arguments instead of pointless scary words.

And trust me - CASAA is more than just a "club" and we HAVE looked at studies done earlier. We have become very good at assessing studies for what they really tell us and how researchers often have an agenda, which causes their "conclusions" to vary wildly from what the actual study showed. (And we are just as critical on pro-vaping studies as we are on anti-vaping studies.)

"To investigate, the researchers administered 1 milligram of nicotine via a nasal spray or cigarette smoke to 16 healthy long-term smokers, and then used ultrasound to examine the endothelium after 20 minutes. Nicotine-containing nasal spray was less damaging than cigarette smoke but still reduced blood flow inside the artery, the study found.

It is not clear how nicotine damages the endothelium but studies in animals indicate that chronic exposure to the compound leads to oxidative stress, or damage by free radicals. Other compounds in cigarette smoke may contribute to damage, however.

However, the precise mechanisms by which nicotine leads to this altered vascular reactivity remain unclear."

Seriously? A study of 16 (SIXTEEN) long term SMOKERS shows reduced blood flow in the brachial artery 20 minutes after use and this is supposed to be definitive that nicotine causes heart disease? What about an hour after use? Does the normal flow return after 20 minutes and it's a temporary effect that actually DOESN'T increase the risk of heart disease? My blood sugar spikes after eating something sugary (or any food,) but that doesn't mean I'm at risk of diabetes - it returns to normal after a short while, like it does for any normal non-diabetic. But if this group of researchers only checked my blood sugar 20 minutes after eating, they'd apparently conclude that the sugar in cookies CAUSES diabetes?

And the researchers even say "it's not clear how" it even does it and that actual smoking may exacerbate things. Sounds like pure guessing to me, especially based on such a small cohort. In the meantime, 30 years of studying snus use in Sweden and they have been unable to find an increased risk of heart disease in thousands of never-smoked snus users. (Snus use = nicotine exposure.)

I'm glad you are pro-vaping, but your arguments make you sound just like one of the ANTZ.

 

[Dr. Phill]

I vape because I have to, because I have a nicotine addiction that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Safe or not, it's still an addiction and at best case, has costed me thousands of dollars. I would not wish a nicotine addiction on anyone, so no, I really would rather non-smokers/dippers didn't vape, we all know how highly addictive nicotine is, which is why many of us are on this very forum right now.

 

[Lonnie]

I saw a video a year ago (?) and it was a plump mama blowing vapor into the face of her young daughter and advocating how it was safe. As a parent, I was appalled.

Smoking has been directly linked to other, more powerful drugs as a gateway. Vaping resembles smoking and thus the gateway again begins.

The bottom line - it's never a good idea to permit or condone the youth to accept anything less than exceptional body treatment.

Just my two...

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[username1970]

I thought this was going to be a thread about vaping in heaven (or perhaps hell).

The one big drawback to nicotine usage (assuming non-toxic* doses) is addiction. If a non-smoking adult wants to take up a nicotine habit they should be free to do so, but personally I think it's a hassle that I'd rather be without.

In some areas I feel we are moving towards greater freedom in what we (adults) can do with our bodies, but at the same time that freedom is shrinking in other areas. I think the best path we can take is to spread information and allow people to make their own choices.

 

[kristin]

The opposing side does make a very sound argument though; if your lifestyle choices make you sick, "we" have to pay for the treatment. Hence, "we" have some say over the choices you make.
It bugs me that I can't counter that argument more effectively - anyone care to have a go at it ?

First, smokers already pay higher insurance premiums and most have to pay for their health care, so no one (ie. taxpayers) has to pay for their treatment.

Second, if smokers really die 13 - 14 years earlier than non-smokers, then they are not using publicly-funded nursing homes, medicare and social security benefits, which is a cost savings for the taxpayers. Non-smokers live longer and they make up around 80% of the population (8 out of 10), therefore they'd use up far more of those public resources than smokers, who make up only 20% of the US population (2 out of 10 people.)

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the nation's total cost of smoking at $3,391 a year for every smoker ($6,782 per year for our two smokers mentioned above.)

The maximum annual benefit for social security is $30,156 and Medicare costs the government about $10,666 per person (43 Million People / 458 Billion per year.) So, for the non-smokers, that would be a cost of $40,822 per person, per year for every of the 13 - 14 years the 2 smokers were already dead.

$40,822 X 8 non-smokers = $326,576 X 14 years = $4,572,064 total "costs to society."

Take $4,572,064 divided by $6,782 costs per year for 2 smokers = what the 8 non-smokers spend in 14 years would take 674 year's worth of the 2 smoker's smoking-related expenses to equal the same "costs to society." (Not to mention the $1,143,016 the 2 smokers also didn't collect in social security and medicare for those 14 years.) So, society clearly spends far less on the smokers because, on average, they die earlier.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that smokers cost non-smokers anything at all or that the government-paid health costs for uninsured smokers is greater than the cost of non-smokers living longer. (Whenever you see "the costs of smoking," that always includes what smokers are paying for themselves and not just what taxpayer contribute towards smokers' health costs. I was unable to find an estimate of what non-smoking taxpayers contribute to smoking-related costs.)

So the argument that they have the right to tell us what to do because we are costing THEM money is complete BS.

 

[tnt56]

My personal opinion is that SMOKE-FREE nicotine use is no more dangerous than caffeine or alcohol use. The reason health groups wanted to treat nicotine addiction in the first place was not because of the harm caused by nicotine, but the hazardous METHOD of how people were getting that nicotine. If we all smoked tea leaves or coffee plants to get caffeine, it would be just as dangerous as smoking to get nicotine. But we steep and drink caffeinated plants instead, so the health risks are extremely low and no one really gets pressured to quit caffeine. Coffee drinking is more than just a morning pick-me-up now. There are coffee connoisseurs! How are coffee fanboys, with their French presses, fancy grinders and specialty beans any different from avid vapers? In fact, they are putting caffeine into more and more products every day!

So, just as we don't really give little kids caffeine drinks or encourage youth to use it, we obviously wouldn't be giving them nicotine products or encouraging youth to use it. But we also have to be realistic that certain kids are going to start using caffeine and nicotine products, as they always have. Therefore, I find it extremely likely that there will continue to be a recreational use for e-cigarettes and they won't be used only by existing, long-term smokers. E-cigarettes will be regulated as recreational tobacco products and NOT as a treatment for nicotine therapy. Thank goodness or else they'd all be banned for sale even to adult smokers right now.

The last time I went to my lung doctor ( can't spell the big word sorry). I was told when I showed him what I was using, and I mean I took the bottles from 4 different USA vendors along with me. He said that the amount of nic I was using was no more harmful than caffiene in a cup of coffee. Something I haven't seen yet is the " Addiction from hand to mouth" If vaping 0mg helps an obese person lose weight then I'm all for it. I am repeating what what was said my a professional MD. If a person can lose weight with it and not take in the nic then I'm all for it. Smokers are forced to leave the property for their health and others. Why do they not make the obese walk farther. They are no more addicted then we are to a habit. Sorry for the rant.

 

[kristin]

Smoking has been directly linked to other, more powerful drugs as a gateway. Vaping resembles smoking and thus the gateway again begins.

There is no scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is causative rather than correlative when it come to youth doing other drugs. They have not been able to show that drug users wouldn't have started using those drugs even if they never smoked. It stands to reason that people with addictive personalities would start with the "easiest" drug to get (tobacco) and then graduate from there. But that doesn't mean that smoking CAUSES the drug use or that all (or even most) smokers will start using stronger drugs. Smoking is as much of a gateway to drug abuse as beer is to alcoholism. Most alcoholics probably drank beer at one time but not all people who drink beer become alcoholics.

The idea that someone who started with a pleasant-tasting and mild product like e-cigarettes would (for no reason whatsoever, since they already are getting a smoking-like experience and nicotine) switch to harsh and more hazardous cigarette smoke makes no sense.

 

[klynnn]

I'm afraid I have enough trouble worrying about myself let alone everyone else. I wouldn't want to see more getting the addiction to nicotene, but I gave up saving the world long ago. People do what they do. JMHO.

 

[LifeLongJoyRide]

Let's make it simple.
Smoking-Bad
Vaping-Better
Neither-Obviously Best
Yay...something we can all agree on.

No reason to keep chasing this discussion's tail in an angry circle. About the only true FACT is that NONE of us know what the long term effects of vaping will be. We will find out together as we become the first group of long term vapers. I am 4 years older than when I started, yet probably feel 5 to 10 years younger. I think that most all of us would generally agree that we have traded up.

 

[mandycat1234]

I personally will still try to keep my children away from picking up any tobacco substance, as this is still a habbit with small amounts of chemicals entering our system. I advocate it more for those looking to quit smoking and find a alternative to inhaling 4.000.00 chemicals in one cigarette.

 

[Racehorse]

I don't want to see it become fashionable, although I guess if it's 0 nic, it might become a passing fad.

It's not that I even think nicotine is bad for you. It's just that there is a whole RITUAL involved with puffing, inhaling, blowing out clouds, etc. THAT is a habit, so to speak. I guess I could just think of better "habits" to acclimate to but then again, stress levels being what they are in the U.S. maybe it's not a bad idea. I mean,, people "self medicate" with all kinds of behavior, including over-indulgence with food, too many sedentary hours of escapism in front of the TV, etc.

Again, though, I could think of something bettter, i.e., meditation for instance.

I'm on the fence about this. I guess if pushed I'd say "rather not."