Heh... nice!ANTZ? I'm assuming not the movie![]()
Anti-Nicotine-Tobacco Zealots.
It's our "pet-name" for them.
Heh... nice!ANTZ? I'm assuming not the movie![]()
I'm a university professor (neuroscience), and in many of my classes I have extolled the virtues of nicotine when divorced from smoke.
What you are saying about smoking is that it's dependance on behaviors, not chemicals, even if it appears to be chemicals. That doesn't seem to explain why my cigs declined without effort 80% the first day of vaping but it may explain better how I could relapse after 10 years.
I could totally see that someone might like some nicotine in their body, helps with some medical conditions, etc.
However, vaping is harm reduction. There is still stuff going down your windpipe and into your lungs and we don't know all the effects yet, we know it is safer than smoking, but for a non-smoker........I dunno.
The other factor is that somebody who just wanted some nicotine, and did not want to fiddle, learn about technology a little, or have a new hobby, would really be better off just using a patch. IMHO.
Ex smokers NEED the "fiddle factor" of ecigs, as well as the blowing out of clouds, etc. cuz it approximates the ritual of smoking.
but if somebody never smoked, not sure why they would need that?
Again, I'm open to ALL forms of harm reduction, not just vaping.... so I would still recommend somebody who didn't smoke, and didn't need to do something with their hands like most smokers have gotten into habit of doing.....to just use a patch or gum or SNUS........I think it really depends on the individual!
A serious problem with the patch is one has no dosage control.
Well rock and roll professor, you've got a very interested and motivated audience here. We know things, you know things. Let's share. Good night.
They forgot to tell you that putting the patch ojn you testicles is not optimal placement mudramAs someone who tried the patch when Strongly encouraged to do so by a company physician, based on their at the time focus of smoke cessation in employees. While I have previously shown no proclivity towards sensitivity to anything, the patches caused a pretty uncomfortable reaction regardless of where placed. I was not successful needless to say. I don't know if the reaction was from the nicotine transfer or the adhesive of the patch. Each application site would develop visibly reddened area just slightly large than the area of the patch. Also there would be a mild tenderness and sometimes itching. Over time I have tried everything except Chantix (had even got a prescription filled for it but wife after a quick research on the web and based on possible side-effects said I COULD not take that) and had in the past never been able to abstain for any period of time. Vaping so far is promising to be a possibility to at least remove 9.6k combusted chemical vapors/smoke. I have at minimum replaced a horrible habit with a bad one, and at best made a great difference health wise.My tagline reflects my quit stats.
I could totally see that someone might like some nicotine in their body, helps with some medical conditions, etc.
However, vaping is harm reduction. There is still stuff going down your windpipe and into your lungs and we don't know all the effects yet, we know it is safer than smoking, but for a non-smoker........I dunno.
The other factor is that somebody who just wanted some nicotine, and did not want to fiddle, learn about technology a little, or have a new hobby, would really be better off just using a patch. IMHO.
Ex smokers NEED the "fiddle factor" of ecigs, as well as the blowing out of clouds, etc. cuz it approximates the ritual of smoking.
but if somebody never smoked, not sure why they would need that?
Again, I'm open to ALL forms of harm reduction, not just vaping.... so I would still recommend somebody who didn't smoke, and didn't need to do something with their hands like most smokers have gotten into habit of doing.....to just use a patch or gum or SNUS........I think it really depends on the individual!
A serious problem with the patch is one has no dosage control.
A serious problem with the patch is one has no dosage control.
I think it goes a little beyond that sofar. Let me tell you what work for me as far as the "cravings" go, and I've seen similar things stated from others. I initially told myself that if I wanted a some I would have one! On top of that I promised myself that before I had one I would vape for maybe 5 minutes and if I still wanted it I would have it. Within 3 days I was 0 cigs. That was despite the fact that I lowered my nic to 6% (.6) thinking I was doing a good thing.When you are more specific about what you have in mind for a paper I'll engage that but in the mean time,
When I started the quit smoking process, the day I start vaping, I see my cigs decline drastically without apparent effort, 80% control. I'm accessing something in me that's non verbal, manipulating it from a distance. I smoke when I want to avoid anxiety but I vape and vape and vape some more and observe my modified smoking behavior without trying to change it. After six weeks of dual use I'm still craving only 4 cigs a day. I'm ready to try zero cigs because my confidence in vaping has grown to the point where I'm certain the worst that can happen is relapse to 4 cigs a day. So as the days and weeks of no cigarettes stretch out my "cravings" are easier to endure because they are fading and because there is no anxiety about a total relapse. I believe that if I endure the discomforts, large or small, I'll win.
What ecigs did was not replace some chemical but increase my confidence, create an emotional firewall against failure that is on going, not temporary. (My last relapse was after 10 years.)
This whole 'harm reduction' argument is driving me bonkers. Yes, I suppose that more than 99% of the folks here are vaping for that reason, and I agree that it is incredibly valuable for that purpose. However, if you truly believe that there is potential 'harm' in vaping, then why vape at all? Personally, I think that 'harm amelioration' would be a better term for the long-term smokers. As for those of us in the minority (God, it feels great to, at last, be a member of the 1%) 'brain improvement' would be a better term!
HAHA...mosspa the 1%er...I picture you lecturing in a Sons of Anarchy vest sporting full sleeve tattoos!!This whole 'harm reduction' argument is driving me bonkers. Yes, I suppose that more than 99% of the folks here are vaping for that reason, and I agree that it is incredibly valuable for that purpose. However, if you truly believe that there is potential 'harm' in vaping, then why vape at all? Personally, I think that 'harm amelioration' would be a better term for the long-term smokers. As for those of us in the minority (God, it feels great to, at last, be a member of the 1%) 'brain improvement' would be a better term!
This whole 'harm reduction' argument is driving me bonkers. Yes, I suppose that more than 99% of the folks here are vaping for that reason, and I agree that it is incredibly valuable for that purpose. However, if you truly believe that there is potential 'harm' in vaping, then why vape at all? Personally, I think that 'harm amelioration' would be a better term for the long-term smokers. As for those of us in the minority (God, it feels great to, at last, be a member of the 1%) 'brain improvement' would be a better term!