Vaping vs Smoking
- Thread starter Exchaner
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Many people probably think of "ANTZ" as evil villains who sit around plotting how to eliminate vaping and tobacco, and some of them probably are. I would like to think though, that at least in the beginning, some of it started from a genuine concern over people's health.
The "ANTZ-like" thinking and policies come into play when you extend what seems like a good, altruistic concern, into our political environment.
Let's say there is a health concern about X. Someone says, if you only use X in "this" way, it's fine so we should make sure people know that. Then someone else says, anyone who sells X should make sure people know only to use it "this" way. Then someone says, we need to ensure that X is ONLY used "this" way, so we need to regulate, and so on. While I do agree that this is the basic idea of a slippery slope fallacy, it is also exactly what happens, and has happened, with vaping.
Many ideas that seem great, and for the benefit of the public, are taken so far to the extreme that they become something entirely different.
For example: vapor products should be regulated so that people are as safe as they can be, vapor products should be regulated as tobacco products, vapor products as tobacco products are regulated nearly out of existence. You can call that a slippery slope fallacy, I call it reality.
The "ANTZ-like" thinking and policies come into play when you extend what seems like a good, altruistic concern, into our political environment.
Let's say there is a health concern about X. Someone says, if you only use X in "this" way, it's fine so we should make sure people know that. Then someone else says, anyone who sells X should make sure people know only to use it "this" way. Then someone says, we need to ensure that X is ONLY used "this" way, so we need to regulate, and so on. While I do agree that this is the basic idea of a slippery slope fallacy, it is also exactly what happens, and has happened, with vaping.
Many ideas that seem great, and for the benefit of the public, are taken so far to the extreme that they become something entirely different.
For example: vapor products should be regulated so that people are as safe as they can be, vapor products should be regulated as tobacco products, vapor products as tobacco products are regulated nearly out of existence. You can call that a slippery slope fallacy, I call it reality.
This specific topic is also addressed in this thread Vaping and the immune system?.
My concern right-now is the hardness of gathering the true facts over the illusion of truth... Scientists/researchers are viewed as masters/chiefs of the truth because we assume that they have experimentally tested their claims... However, we often cannot understand or even access the experimental results leading to these claims, leaving us only with the vulgarized conclusions shown in the mass media, without any material to verify or contest the claim. Note that all these type of articles start with "researchers have found...", so we assume that they have the experimental results that support their claims, but nothing can be found, including the article in this thread, and even when we find something, we often discover that the experimental data don't support the claim or that the claim is an outrageous exaggeration of the experimental data... Lets not be naive though, we are (as people) broadly manipulated either for individual interests, which is clearly the case with the present article, or for global corporate interests but certainly not for our heath interests. The scientific facts, as far as I'm exploring them, are overwhelmingly showing that vaping is safer than smoking. Now, we should not deny the existence of inherent heath risks in vaping. To date, my commitment has been to use the relevant scientific data to make vaping as safe as possible for myself, not relative to smoking, which is already an established fact, but relative to vaping itself. I believe that's a personal, a collective and an economical responsibility for the sake of all. Because the vaping community integrate a broad range of very valuable and relevant skills worldwide, a constructive and viable way to gather these skills together toward common ethical goals, would make huge differences. I know that it sounds quite idealistic but significant progress have already been made and we also have the American Vaping Association. I'm confident that with dedication, commitment to that principle, and honesty we can manage the heath risk in vaping to rock bottom.
My concern right-now is the hardness of gathering the true facts over the illusion of truth... Scientists/researchers are viewed as masters/chiefs of the truth because we assume that they have experimentally tested their claims... However, we often cannot understand or even access the experimental results leading to these claims, leaving us only with the vulgarized conclusions shown in the mass media, without any material to verify or contest the claim. Note that all these type of articles start with "researchers have found...", so we assume that they have the experimental results that support their claims, but nothing can be found, including the article in this thread, and even when we find something, we often discover that the experimental data don't support the claim or that the claim is an outrageous exaggeration of the experimental data... Lets not be naive though, we are (as people) broadly manipulated either for individual interests, which is clearly the case with the present article, or for global corporate interests but certainly not for our heath interests. The scientific facts, as far as I'm exploring them, are overwhelmingly showing that vaping is safer than smoking. Now, we should not deny the existence of inherent heath risks in vaping. To date, my commitment has been to use the relevant scientific data to make vaping as safe as possible for myself, not relative to smoking, which is already an established fact, but relative to vaping itself. I believe that's a personal, a collective and an economical responsibility for the sake of all. Because the vaping community integrate a broad range of very valuable and relevant skills worldwide, a constructive and viable way to gather these skills together toward common ethical goals, would make huge differences. I know that it sounds quite idealistic but significant progress have already been made and we also have the American Vaping Association. I'm confident that with dedication, commitment to that principle, and honesty we can manage the heath risk in vaping to rock bottom.
I rarely got colds when i was smoking tbh. Haven't noticed a change in frequency. I might be in the minority though, as i didn't really notice any adverse health effects from smoking.
Last edited:
ANTZ policies are the quintessential examples of slippery slopes. When I first signed onto ECF, I though FDA regulations would be okay, because they would probably be reasonable. (I was kinda naive back then. Still I was addressing idea of them being banned, which to this day, I don't see the FDA doing. States, on the other hand....)
Their desire to regulate is clearly a desire to implement a de facto ban. Thus an actual slippery slope and not just a logical fallacy.
Other prime example, that some in vaping community give into, rather easily is the notion that you ought to never vape indoors where you are disallowed to smoke. The whole anti-smoking policies around not smoking indoors were prime example of slippery slope meeting reality. Early on in our forum discussions (circa 2012), it was very few places that one might argue for places not to vape indoors. Now, the slope has slid so much that it is considered inherently rude to vape everywhere indoors by some people. Ask them to back this up with anything related to science and well, that's asking for way too much. It's just the comparison to smoking is all they have, and seemingly not recognizing a) those policies are over zealous wrt smoking and b) SHV is comparable to room air, according to science.
So, if you're going to go onto a vaping forum (of all places) and try to make the argument of no vaping publicly indoors, with nothing to back that up other than not allowed to smoke there, then IMO, it is wholly deserving of being called out as ANTZ rhetoric.
You (general 'you') are tired of hearing the term ANTZ on open forum?
Yeah, well I'm tired of hearing ANTZ rhetoric on a vaping forum. If that rhetoric stops, I'll be sure to stop using the ANTZ term in my posts, as it may apply to any member's rhetoric.
... people generally feel better and are healthier, less prone to respiratory infections/disease, colds, flu virus, ect. when they quit smoking versus because they are vaping.
I have never understood the logic behind "You shouldn't vape where you can't smoke, because then they'll ban vaping where you can't smoke."
Yes, but wouldn't it be logical to assume(although not scientifically proven of course) that if vaping caused similar, or in fact more pronounced, immunological effects to smoking that those benefits would not manifest?
Well, that's good news.
I'd really like to know if you are in a minority. I did thread on this, and it had maybe 12 people respond. 9 were reporting far less colds than before, 3 were reporting 'about the same.' Since doing that thread, I feel like I've read about 12 other people reporting far less colds than before. But that leaves around 9 million plus people that haven't chimed in on this.
I do think if vaping is producing far less colds by its users that it is really really huge news, and plausibly relates to this topic. Whether getting far less colds is a benefit in the long run or not is in the category of uncertainty. But, in the short term, I do think anecdotal evidence will far outweigh supposition by scientific types/media personnel who are otherwise anti-vaping.
I think it would have to be really really bad thing that happens in the long term for it to lead to mass avoidance. It's not like life long medications aren't going to take a toll and catch up to someone over the long (and short) term. If person vapes from age 20 to 70, and has 1 to 20 chance of something horrible happening because of not getting any colds during that time frame, I think there will still be many who think that is a great tradeoff, especially when put into perspective of how the use of other life long habitually substances (i.e. food, medication) will take a toll on your system.
No
Immune suppression is just one of the many effects that smoking has on your system.
Not true in my experience of going cold turkey. I had one episode of going cold turkey (for over a year) where there were many months I had wished I was still smoking as the condition at the time was worse than what smoking was doing to my body. But in interest of being fair, the first time I went cold turkey (for 8 years), I did have a good year or so where I felt incredibly great. Though I don't know if I got colds less, and for sure know that after about a year, I was back to regular pattern of averaging 2 colds a year. At one point, I got a virus that is the worst illness I've had to date. I think as a smoker, I averaged 4 colds a year. As a vaper, it is less than 1 cold a year, and more like 1 every 4 years.
O.K. I guess I will just go back to my corner and lurk like usually do. Just thought I could add to this discussion. Guess not.
I am compelled to also add that as a dual user, I'm still smoking. So if theoretically smoking makes one more prone to colds, infections, what have you, and I'm not getting those as a dual using vaper, that kinda tells me something. Whether or not anyone else wishes to understand it or argue against it, is a discussion I'm interested in, but I hope you can come at it with more than maybes and perhaps.
This thread is too long for me to continue reading. I'm gonna stop for now, and quoting your post makes it easier, because it sums up my feelings about the press release.
...and smoking related immune suppression has been greatly linked to nicotine.
When studying autoimmune conditions smoking is attributed as a high risk factor in acquiring quite a few of them, but, in the absence of smoking nicotine as a stand alone has shown to be a promising treatment in many of those same autoimmune disorders due to it's immunosupression and anti inflammatory properties.
MS is a good example
When studying autoimmune conditions smoking is attributed as a high risk factor in acquiring quite a few of them, but, in the absence of smoking nicotine as a stand alone has shown to be a promising treatment in many of those same autoimmune disorders due to it's immunosupression and anti inflammatory properties.
MS is a good example
Isn't the premise of this article that the immune suppression caused by vaping, which appears to be greater than that of smoking, could lead to more sickness among vapers? Am I not understanding something?
I think you misunderstood
I am not doubting your observations, I just found it surprising that your daughter and you (the only vapers ) where the only ones in your community to be immune from whatever virus was going around, and that both smokers and non-smoker/non-vapers caught the virus. Just a little note of caution not to automatically assume that vaping boosted your immune system. For example, it could be a specific gene you and your daughter have in common that made you more resistant to that particular virus. I still found the observation interesting.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked