It doesn't matter what they "believe". Even if they set policies according to those believes that doesn't make those beliefs true. It may affect us but it will never be fact until it's proven to be fact.
Are you doubting the evidence that nicotine has neurological benefits?
The fact is the federal government, its agencies and many politicians believe vaping leads to smoking. You don't believe that? They are the ones who will decide the fate of vaping...
I believe that they believe it, but I don't believe it.
Cmon VNeil, you have zero facts as well. Peer Review, research and whatever other buzz words you pull are meaningless. Nobody is buying. The argument that nicotine is not nicotine is just as foolish. Nicotine action on brain chemical is at the crux. You have no facts or proof it in non addictive to never smokers.That is correct. NRTs were invented specifically for smokers. We all know that so I'm not sure why you bother with meaningless straw man arguments. Unless you simply disagree with the facts but can't refute them with facts.
If nicotine by itself were addictive then NRTs would still be prescription only. Unless you can point to evidence that the vast majority of NRT users are never smokers AND are now dependent on their NRT, this line of argument is nonsensical. The straw man arguments here are truly tiring.
And maybe pigs will fly, get ingested into commercial jet engines, killing thousands.Maybe the vaping fad wore off and they started smoking, but just not at school?
I have this study, cited a few posts above:Cmon VNeil, you have zero facts as well. Peer Review, research and whatever other buzz words you pull are meaningless. Nobody is buying. The argument that nicotine is not nicotine is just as foolish. Nicotine action on brain chemical is at the crux. You have no facts or proof it in non addictive to never smokers.
And when did fetuses vaping come into the discussion?That nicotine has potential neurological benefits and it is still unknown whether any benefits persist over long periods of time or provide meaningful improvement ....nicotine has also been shown to have negative neurological effects on developing fetuses.
Cmon VNeil, you have zero facts as well. Peer Review, research and whatever other buzz words you pull are meaningless. Nobody is buying. The argument that nicotine is not nicotine is just as foolish. Nicotine action on brain chemical is at the crux. You have no facts or proof it in non addictive to never smokers.
I have this study, cited a few posts above:
"There was no reportof subsequent nicotine dependence in never smokers who were treated with nicotine for ulcerative colitis, aphtous ulcers and sleep-disordered breathing [18,19,20,21]. The short-term effect of the nasal spray was also tested in never smokers, with no report of never smokers getting addicted to this fast delivery product [22,23,24]. In a previous survey, 0.3% of adolescent never smokers reported past daily use of NRT, but none was reported as being addicted to NRT [25]. In two surveys in the USA, 2.7% and 4.6% of school drug counsellors indicated that nicotine patches and gums were abused by adolescents, but these “NRT abusers” were mainly smokers who used NRT while smoking, and only 7% to 16% of these “NRT abusers” were never smokers [27]. The latter study did not report any case of NRT dependenceinadolescent never smokers [27]."
But that is not enough for you, is it? YOU are not buying, you do not want to hear the facts, but don't speak for everyone.
That is actually the foundation of the anti-vape arguments here.My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.![]()
Exactly, no facts. The debunking of all your posted links to all your bunk facts is a waste of anybodys time.My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts. [emoji23]
....nicotine has also been shown to have negative neurological effects on developing fetuses.
They are not anti vaping arguments. They are in response to the OPS premise that why shouldn't a never smoker become a vapor.That is actually the foundation of the anti-vape arguments here.
If you are strenuously suggesting he not vape, I do believe that is an anti-vaping argument.They are not anti vaping arguments. They are in response to the OPS premise that why shouldn't a never smoker become a vapor.
Nope, just saying he could be playing with fire in the form of nicotine. That's all.If you are strenuously suggesting he not vape, I do believe that is an anti-vaping argument.
Well, I won't play games with you over semantics. We'll agree to disagree on what constitutes "anti-vaping arguments"Nope, just saying he could be playing with fire in the form of nicotine. That's all.
Nope, just saying he could be playing with fire in the form of nicotine. That's all.
How about a lifetime of nic addiction. Is that worse? Not saying that will happen but. How about when he slides into a pack of Marlboro Reds, would that be worse? Like you say, nothing you can do. I am not speaking to your specific situation. I am speaking to the context of this thread. I have 3 kids two boys and a girl. The two boys both smoke.My son who turned 18 in May is vaping now, with nic. He never smoked first. I've got him set up with one of my Reo's and I'm teaching him what he needs to know. There is nothing I can do about this no matter what my opinion of it is, the same way my parents would never have been able to stop me from starting smoking. Would I prefer that he not vape? Yes I think so. I'd also prefer he not buy the motorcycle he wants or go off to boot camp June 2016. I don't believe for even a second that nic will hurt him in any way. It may help his ADD, I guess we'll see. If it becomes habit forming for him I still believe all is well. There are worse things than nic addiction.