3 ms·
It seems fairly obvious and in line with most research that has come out that #1) vaping is far less dangerous than smoking cigarettes, #2) vaping is not harmle
by llamataboot 8y ago
It seems fairly obvious and in line with most research that has come out that #1) vaping is far less dangerous than smoking cigarettes, #2) vaping is not harmless and the true extent of the risks probably won't be known for a generation because there are just no longitudinal studies possible yet, #3) vaping is a great alternative to smoking cigarettes in terms of harm reduction - both in terms of effects on the vaper and effects on bystanders (not to mention it doesn't cause entire rooms and all things in them to stink) #4) The extent that vaping will lead to more nicotine addicts later becoming cigarette smokers is unknown, but seems anecdotally unlikely but worth keeping an eye on (ie; someone that never would have started smoking starts vaping because it is less harmful but then eventually becomes a cigarette addict) #5) Prohibition doesn't in general work with any substance and there is absolutely no moral justification for not making safer ways of delivering substances available while still being open-eyed about their possible risks
Personal bias - smoked heavily starting at age 13/14 until my 30s. Switched to vaping heavily and saw marked improvements in my health. Eventually weaned down nicotine levels while vaping over the course of many months. Quit vaping with some difficulty, but not the difficulty level of quitting cigarettes. Now don't use nicotine at all, but will never be able to use it in moderation.
- otabdeveloper1 8y ago> Prohibition doesn't in general work Wow, good point, I guess we should legalize rape then! (Or do the weasel-words "with any substance" mean that you will only make ad-hoc exceptions when your personal vice of choice is impacted? Should rape addicts get a free pass then, because feelings and stuff?)
- llamataboot 8y agoHappy to let someone else address this false equivalence in depth. All I will say is that substance use is a personal choice, there's no evidence that the legality of a substance makes it more/less likely the use thereof will impact oneself or others in negative ways (indeed, alcohol is probably one of the worst substances in terms of addictive potential, anti-social effects while intoxicated, likelihood of eventual physical/biological damage because of frequent use, etc), and indeed all the evidence we have so far shows that making substances legal and also making resources to help those that have substance abuse problems widely available decreases negative personal and social effects of substances while also, from a moral/ethical standpoint, allowing people the freedom to alter their consciousness and body and way they want to, so a win win.