3 ms·

Vaping has the potential to be qualitatively more harmful than any of the things you mention. Video games/facebook are just addictive mental feedback loops, add

Vaping has the potential to be qualitatively more harmful than any of the things you mention. Video games/facebook are just addictive mental feedback loops, added sugars are fairly simple compounds used in excess, cigarettes are fairly simple with not much room for technological optimization. Vaping, or unregulated vaping in the future, can consist of thousands of carefully optimized and artificially engineered chemicals delivered to the human lungs/bloodstream through an optimized hardware device. The addictive properties of such devices can surpass anything we have seen short of directly injecting similar chemicals into the bloodstream. In simple words, vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc), while masquerading as safe and socially acceptable. Therefore, they need to be regulated. An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc) Vaping itself doesn’t have any proven harmful affects. I’m not saying it definitely won’t turn out to have any at all, but nicotine is not carcinogenic, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same potential to harm as the narcotics you mentioned. This is really just speculation. > An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable. Sounds good to me. I’ve got no issue with the FDA making sure my food is safe to consume, nor any with this suggestion. It’s a sin tax or other ridiculous restrictions that seem unjustified to me. I expect the truth behind a lot of the regulation talk is really that the government doesn’t want to lose tobacco tax revenue. Which really just makes the whole thing even more tyrannical.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  I am not at all concerned about the medical harms of vaping in my post. Facebook also doesn't have any medical harms, but its addictive nature is why it is slowly being more and more regulated. The potential super-addictive nature of vaping (much greater than cigarettes or facebook), I argue, is why it needs to be regulated.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I don’t think any of the regulation directed at Facebook has any relation to addiction.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc) Vaping itself doesn’t have any proven harmful affects. I’m not saying it definitely won’t turn out to have any at all, but nicotine is not carcinogenic, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same potential to harm as the narcotics you mentioned. This is really just speculation. > An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable. Sounds good to me. I’ve got no issue with the FDA making sure my food is safe to consume, nor any with this suggestion. It’s a sin tax or other ridiculous restrictions that seem unjustified to me. I expect the truth behind a lot of the regulation talk is really that the government doesn’t want to lose tobacco tax revenue. Which really just makes the whole thing even more tyrannical.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I am not at all concerned about the medical harms of vaping in my post. Facebook also doesn't have any medical harms, but its addictive nature is why it is slowly being more and more regulated. The potential super-addictive nature of vaping (much greater than cigarettes or facebook), I argue, is why it needs to be regulated.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I don’t think any of the regulation directed at Facebook has any relation to addiction.