5 ms·

Yes ok, it’s a bad batch of juice (probably), it won’t effect most vapers (probably), better regulation will solve the problem (maybe). But I have got to ask...

by Gatsky 7y ago

Yes ok, it’s a bad batch of juice (probably), it won’t effect most vapers (probably), better regulation will solve the problem (maybe). But I have got to ask... was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? It’s cigarettes all over again. Who benefits except the people selling it? Yes freedom, yes whatabout other pointless harmful things in the world, but vaping has already caused more harm than we should accept, I think.

girvo 7y ago
> was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? If it's saved significantly more than that, there's a decent argument that "yes it might have been". But that's specifically for nicotine e-cigs, in my opinion. They have a clear harm reduction purpose; slightly less clear when talking about THC carts, I think? Thought I'm likely incorrect about my assumptions on that.
brennebeck 7y ago
The people formerly smoking cigarettes that switched have likely benefited quite a bit, or will.
mquander 7y ago
Have you ever done anything you enjoyed, even though it entailed greater than literally zero chance of your death? Like showering? Or walking down the street? You see, for people who enjoy vaping, it's sort of like that.
seattlebarley 7y ago
> It's cigarettes all over again No, no, no, no. It's generally recognized as a safer alternative to smoking. Sure, long-term effects are unknown, but I can breathe a whole lot easier since I switched to an e-cig. Go tackle the obesity crisis first. Or how about HIV in the homosexual community? Haven't enough people died from contracting HIV from gay sex? Isn't it about time we outlaw that?
cgriswald 7y ago
You say, “yes freedom,” as if freedom is a valueless proposition if people use it to do things you consider pointless.
dieFledermaus 7y ago
>...was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? This is a reduction to absurdity that I can't quite grasp: People die of all sorts of maladies every year and a single person dying from vaping is your apex priority because, "it could've been prevented by banning vaping"? This almost seems like a variation of the "won't someone think of the children" argument. To whit: What of all of the vehicular deaths every year? Or deaths via trains or planes? Should we just ban all life because it will result in death at an astounding success rate of 100%?
- newswasboring 7y ago
  I am not on anyone's side here, but didn't you just answer a logical fallacy with another? Namely whataboutism?
  - brianpgordon 7y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum is similar to whataboutism, but it's not the same. Whataboutism is more like an abrupt detour off into a different issue to try to confuse the conversation or transform the topic of discussion into a referendum on the personal morals/motivations of the involved parties. The appeal to extremes does have to ask the question "what about x" but it's relevant because it's done to demonstrate the logical consequences of the other person's line of argument. It's not trying to deflect, it's getting to the heart of the issue.
chroma 7y ago
Something like 400,000 people a year die in the US due to smoking. Vaping is mostly a substitute for smoking. But even if millions of non-smokers start vaping, it's a net positive.
- Kiro 7y ago
  Not when it turns out vaping is even more deadly than smoking.
  - chroma 7y ago
    If vaping is that deadly then fog machines should be killing people all over the place. It's the same technology. The only time vaping causes more harm than smoking is when people use dangerous solvents (eg: not propylene glycol) or when batteries explode.
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    Vaping is not more deadly than smoking cigarettes.
    - Kiro 7y ago
      We'll see.
      - chroma 7y ago
        Are you willing to bet money on that? I'm willing to bet any amount up to 1 BTC (≈10,000 USD) that in the next decade, there will not be a year in which the CDC attributes more deaths to vaping than smoking. I'm also willing to bet on similar statements that would be true if vaping is more harmful than smoking. If you want, we can find a neutral arbiter to determine the outcome of our predictions, though they may want a percentage of the stakes.
        Kiro 7y ago
        https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/11/health/vaping-lung-illness-illinois-teen-profile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/11/health/vaping-lung-illnes...

by Gatsky 7y ago

girvo 7y ago

> was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? If it's saved significantly more than that, there's a decent argument that "yes it might have been". But that's specifically for nicotine e-cigs, in my opinion. They have a clear harm reduction purpose; slightly less clear when talking about THC carts, I think? Thought I'm likely incorrect about my assumptions on that.

brennebeck 7y ago

The people formerly smoking cigarettes that switched have likely benefited quite a bit, or will.

mquander 7y ago

Have you ever done anything you enjoyed, even though it entailed greater than literally zero chance of your death? Like showering? Or walking down the street? You see, for people who enjoy vaping, it's sort of like that.

seattlebarley 7y ago

> It's cigarettes all over again No, no, no, no. It's generally recognized as a safer alternative to smoking. Sure, long-term effects are unknown, but I can breathe a whole lot easier since I switched to an e-cig. Go tackle the obesity crisis first. Or how about HIV in the homosexual community? Haven't enough people died from contracting HIV from gay sex? Isn't it about time we outlaw that?

cgriswald 7y ago

You say, “yes freedom,” as if freedom is a valueless proposition if people use it to do things you consider pointless.

dieFledermaus 7y ago

>...was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? This is a reduction to absurdity that I can't quite grasp: People die of all sorts of maladies every year and a single person dying from vaping is your apex priority because, "it could've been prevented by banning vaping"? This almost seems like a variation of the "won't someone think of the children" argument. To whit: What of all of the vehicular deaths every year? Or deaths via trains or planes? Should we just ban all life because it will result in death at an astounding success rate of 100%?

newswasboring 7y ago
I am not on anyone's side here, but didn't you just answer a logical fallacy with another? Namely whataboutism?
- brianpgordon 7y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum is similar to whataboutism, but it's not the same. Whataboutism is more like an abrupt detour off into a different issue to try to confuse the conversation or transform the topic of discussion into a referendum on the personal morals/motivations of the involved parties. The appeal to extremes does have to ask the question "what about x" but it's relevant because it's done to demonstrate the logical consequences of the other person's line of argument. It's not trying to deflect, it's getting to the heart of the issue.

chroma 7y ago

Something like 400,000 people a year die in the US due to smoking. Vaping is mostly a substitute for smoking. But even if millions of non-smokers start vaping, it's a net positive.

Kiro 7y ago
Not when it turns out vaping is even more deadly than smoking.
- chroma 7y ago
  If vaping is that deadly then fog machines should be killing people all over the place. It's the same technology. The only time vaping causes more harm than smoking is when people use dangerous solvents (eg: not propylene glycol) or when batteries explode.
- sdinsn 7y ago
  Vaping is not more deadly than smoking cigarettes.
  - Kiro 7y ago
    We'll see.
    - chroma 7y ago
      Are you willing to bet money on that? I'm willing to bet any amount up to 1 BTC (≈10,000 USD) that in the next decade, there will not be a year in which the CDC attributes more deaths to vaping than smoking. I'm also willing to bet on similar statements that would be true if vaping is more harmful than smoking. If you want, we can find a neutral arbiter to determine the outcome of our predictions, though they may want a percentage of the stakes.
      - Kiro 7y ago
        https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/11/health/vaping-lung-illness-illinois-teen-profile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/11/health/vaping-lung-illnes...