8 ms·

Are you implying they're much less terrible? I am not sure your point. Ultimately not consuming nicotine is good and any form of nicotine consumption is very ba

by pclark 4y ago

Are you implying they're much less terrible? I am not sure your point. Ultimately not consuming nicotine is good and any form of nicotine consumption is very bad, with combustible cigarettes being far worse than vaping. I like to say that vaping is slightly less terrible than combustible cigarettes because it is very clear that you. should. not vape. unless. you. smoke. cigarettes.

unmole 4y ago
> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad Oh, really? What exactly is very bad about nicotine gum?
- helsinki 4y ago
  Fucks up your throat, over time.
jowsie 4y ago
Why is consuming nicotine very terrible? Do you feel the same way about caffeine?
- pclark 4y ago
  Because with public health policy all nuance gets lost. If you say "well actually nicotine doesnt harm you but the tar in combustible cigarettes does so if you vape you're really doing no harm" people will render that as "nicotine does not harm you thus cigarettes are fine" this is literally how we got into this situation. There can be no grey area: if you do not smoke combustible cigarettes do not vape. Btw all addictive substances are bad for you by definition.
  - ddingus 4y ago
    I would suggest that loss of nuance is true in some societies and not others. We can and should be working to increase the fidelity of communication as well as make policy less of a blunt instrument. Education can work wonders as can honest, real, considerate conversations. All of these things benefit all of us. Things are different today when compared to our young experiences. Younger people have far more information than anyone making these policy decisions does. People did make that poor leap. Yes. Will they do it again? I doubt many of them will, and the ones who might are likely to be using pot and will combust and inhale. Society has far different norms and can handle nuance far better today. We need to recognize these changes and treat people better. They can and will respond. They have tech and the body of common knowledge continues beyond what it was two decades ago. This kind of "we know better for you" communication packs a lackluster punch and may do more harm than good.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Which makes it insanely hard to change things for the better, normal cancersticks (now without menthol!) will continue to be made and sold at extreme tax rates whereas something that isn't perfect but is better will get banned.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Which makes it insanely hard to change things for the better, normal cancersticks (now without menthol!) will continue to be made Maybe not current “normal cancersticks”; FDA is targeting those, too: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-plans-proposed-rule-reduce-addictiveness-cigarettes-and-other-combusted-tobacco https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-anno...
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  According to this paper nicotine has a wide array of negative impacts on various systems in the body: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - morsch 4y ago
    Well, that's not something you want to read while chewing a nicotine gum...
rngname22 4y ago
What's your stance on nicotine gum or pills/lozenges? As far as my understanding went, it wasn't clear those things were exceptionally unhealthy, although I'd love to update my stance if someone can provide me with evidence.
- pclark 4y ago
  They're very good (I initially said wonderful but I want to be clear that you shouldn't use these products unless you smoke combustible cigarettes because they're comically addictive) products because underage people do not want to use them! There is some regulatory nuance I believe that makes them harder to buy than regular vaping products but I forget what it is — a simple fact though is that the social aspect of smoking breaks, smoking at bars, the habit of smoking is a huge draw and it's hard to replicate that with gum. The best product to solve the nicotine crisis is a smart device that gradually lowers the nicotine invisibly to the user over a 3-6-12 month period. This isn't a super hard problem, the FDA and the market is just too non technical to execute.
  - Zak 4y ago
    > a smart device that gradually lowers the nicotine invisibly to the user People who want to taper off nicotine using vapes can do this manually, and many do. I find this proposed solution overengineered. Of course it could be enforced. "Smart" vapes could be regulated as medical devices, available only by prescription and used under the supervision of doctors. I think that would greatly reduce their appeal as a smoking replacement with a low barrier to entry though; other nicotine delivery systems to aid in quitting smoking were available decades before vaping.
    - throw10920 4y ago
      > I find this proposed solution overengineered. Is it, though? The psychology of knowing vs not knowing that your nicotine concentration is being ramped down over time could be significant. For instance, I can easily imagine being far more willing to vape more on a hard day of work because "my nicotine is being ramped down anyway, so it's not as bad".
Bayart 4y ago
> Are you implying they're much less terrible? It's outright benine. No need to frame it in a negative way (« much less terrible »). > I like to say that vaping is slightly less terrible than combustible cigarettes because it is very clear that you. should. not vape. unless. you. smoke. cigarettes. Sure. And vaping shouldn't be made to look dubious or suspicious to smokers who would otherwise wildly profit from switching off cigarettes. Drawing an equivalency relationship between smoking and vaping is really bad from a public health perspective.
- pclark 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is but i'll just repeat: if you do not smoke combustible cigarettes do not vape. People can debate if vaping or nicotine is good or bad or moot from a health point of view but a simple salient fact is: A small percentage of people who never smoked cigarettes before start to vape and then switch to combustible cigarettes. That is bad.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    That is a truly miniscule group of the population, to the point where I would wager that those people would have eventually ended up smoking even in a world where vaping didn't exist. The benefits of vaping over smoking even ignoring health concerns are simply massive. It doesn't smell nearly as offensive, it's vastly more palatable, you don't need to litter or look for an ever-dissapearing batch of ashtrays, there's vastly less social stigma, and if you're so inclined you can get much heavier nicotine hit.
  - Bayart 4y ago
    I'm sure it happens. But I'm not sure it's statistically relevant and deserves tailoring public discourse around. It just sounds like « think of the children » nonsense to me. I've certainly never seen it happen. In fact I've never seen anybody vape who wasn't previously a smoker, that just doesn't exist in my area. That's anecdotal, but I doubt you're basing your opinion off broad empirical data either.
    - 4y ago
Hellbanevil 4y ago
Nicotine has been so vilified, it's never been properly studied. I do know people with certain psychological disorders (I believe Schizophrenics) crave nicotine, and Psychiatrists don't have a clue why, like most of there art. Nicotine appears to calm them down? I had a friend who smoked 4-5 packs of cigarettes a day. If he was vaping, I bet he would still be around today? (To those that cannot stop smoking cigarettes. I got down to 3 packs a year. Instead of just stopping, I use a tiny amount of tobacco daily, or when ever the urge hits hard. In my case 2x weekly. I buy a rolling papers, and roll tiny cigarettes. In one cigarette I can roll five tiny cigarettes. I would buy loose tobacco, but the taxes are worse than filtered cigarettes. My point is use your vice in moderation. Most of you can. This black/white attitude towards drugs in America is troubling.)
hash07e 4y ago
Nicotine has it uses and benefits. The abuse of that or the "cigarretization" is the problem. One thing is to get real organic tabbaco and smoke in small quantities not inhalling only getting nicotine thru gum line. About the benefits in cognition [1][4] alzheimers and parkinson [2], helping with covid [3] and even testosterone [5] Cigarretes + additives are *very* bad you can see the difference here [6]. Is tobbaco bad? yes. Is nicotine bad maybe. Is cigarrete bad? Yes very Is Cigar bad? Yes but not as cigarrete. TlDr -> Go for pure nicotine or cigars if you need neuroprotection. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1579636/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1579636/ [2] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ [3] - https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/7/2/00713-2020 https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/7/2/00713-2020 [4] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006184/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006184/ [5] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24457405/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24457405/ [6] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29459935/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29459935/
- pclark 4y ago
  I don't believe in conflating academic debates about the alleged complicated unproven merits of nicotine with the chronic public health policy failure of how the world has regulated cigarettes, vaping and wider nicotine products. Sorry, I don't want my parent comment to be construed as being pro nicotine. If you don't smoke combustible cigarettes don't vape or touch nicotine. I feel a moral burden to be really clear about these topics as someone that briefly worked in this industry.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  >Is nicotine bad maybe. Minor nootropic effect aside, nicotine is absolutely terrible for the human body. Most people don't realize this because public health campaigns highlighting issues with tobacco products include statements about negative health outcomes caused by nicotine, but neglect to separate these issues from those that are linked to tobacco specifically. Nicotine consumption is linked to: -accelerated tumor growth: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0701_833 https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0701_833 -vascular calcification: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13077 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13077 -arteriosclerosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805015/ -mutagenesis/various cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ -reduced alveolar function and bronchoconstriction, miscellaneous pulmonary injury: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3097432/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3097432/; https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung.00564.2017 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung.005... -peridontal disease: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/omi.12228 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/omi.12228
ddingus 4y ago
Ok, ex smoker here. Been itching to talk about this some, and now is the time! I got started in the military. Flat out, smokers got more breaks and some considerations that others didn't, and so yeah. Light 'em up! And I was in during the late 80's when smoking was basically everywhere. Smoked for many years, and was on strong cigarettes. Very hard to quit, and I tried a few times. The impact was noticable later in life, I was easily winded and had some minor league emphysema beginning. Not good. I had by chance mostly tried a vape. And it sort of worked, but did not deliver the levels I needed. Nicotine salt does. I did one vape on that formulation, and that was it. No more smokes. Some years later, my recovery has been dramatic! Some basic damage is not going to heal, but most everything else has and I feel great! Can do what I should be doing too. And the benefits continue to accrue. Coughed up bits of tar for a long time. On another whim, I did inversion, and gakked out a ton of the stuff. Recommended, if you've got clogged up lungs. Just make sure you've got a spotter and someone to assist you in the process. I needed that due to the exertion. Moving on... Vapes are seriously good harm reduction, assuming someone is using gear that isn't damaging somehow. There is a lot of crap out there. Sadly, rather than regulate it all and maximize the benefit, the pressure to get rid of vaping altogether is winning out here in the US. Too bad JUUL was run so badly. Their core mission is a good one, and tons of people are going to benefit very significantly. Nicotine itself isn't that big of a deal. It's a stimulant and is addictive like similar compounds are. What really maxxes out it's addictive nature is the inhalation delivery method. Taking it orally, for example, isn't quite the same thing, unless the method is intended to pass through the skin, like chew does. Nicotine is not cancerous. The real danger in smoking is tar & particulates damaging the lungs, and cancer caused by the tons of byproducts of the combustion chemistry. The nicotine comes along for the ride and again, by itself isn't such a big deal.
- cma 4y ago
  > The real danger in smoking is tar & particulates damaging the lungs, and cancer caused by the tons of byproducts of the combustion chemistry. The nicotine comes along for the ride and again, by itself isn't such a big deal. With no combustion, tobacco causes mouth cancer all the time. It is simply cancerous (though nicotine isn't). I'm sure tar etc. makes it worse, but something else is bad in tobacco.
guelo 4y ago
Vaping has wiped out 20 years of reductions in teen smoking so that plan isn't working. Juul's marketing was never about a healthier cigarette replacement. https://tobacco21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/teen-vaping-graph-vox.jpg https://tobacco21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/teen-vaping... (couldn't find a graph newer than 2018)
- stonogo 4y ago
  Your own graph shows that smoking is still going down. You're conflating vaping and smoking, which is disingenuous.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If your desire is to destroy tobacco products and to prevent people from consuming nicotine, that's one thing (and Mormons are perfectly happy to sign on to that.) If your desire is to improve public health, there's nothing to do but celebrate. It's impossible for vaping to have wiped out reductions in teen smoking with a rise in vaping, because vaping is not smoking. I speak as someone who doesn't vape, doesn't like vaping, and will never vape. What I want is for people who want to quit smoking to be able to, and the way you enable that for the most people is to give them a far less dangerous alternative that involves the fewest lifestyle changes. The antismoking industry long ago became a self-sustaining, self-protecting bureaucracy who cares less about health and more about civil suits and fundraising on new legislation.
  - guelo 4y ago
    My desire would be for teens not to get hooked on an incredibly addictive money pit.
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      How do you feel about the legalization of pot?
      - guelo 4y ago
31835843 4y ago
> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad, “Very bad” is too strong. Nicotine is a drug that does not have therapeutic value. It does not cause cancer. It is addictive. It has mild nootropic effects, as well as other effects like appetite suppression. Here’s a good, easy to read rundown: https://elemental.medium.com/your-brain-on-nicotine-668c0b6a079e https://elemental.medium.com/your-brain-on-nicotine-668c0b6a... We should be careful to differentiate smoking/vaping from nicotine use.
- johnisgood 4y ago
  > Nicotine is a drug that does not have therapeutic value. That is false. > Nicotine in tobacco brings illness and death to millions of people. Yet nicotine in its pure form has the potential to be a valuable pharmaceutical agent. Nicotine fairly specifically binds to the cholinergic nicotinic gating site on cationic ion channels in receptors throughout the body. This action stimulates the release of a variety of neurotransmitters including especially catecholamines and serotonin. When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) reduction of body weight, (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against; (5) Parkinson's disease (6) Tourette's disease (7) Alzheimers disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound.[1] Plus, you even said it yourself: "It has mild nootropic effects, as well as other effects like appetite suppression". Sounds like it could pretty much be therapeutic for cognition and weight loss. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/
ddingus 4y ago
I also want to speak to vaping overall. "should not be" covers a ton of activities medical people would prefer we don't do. What you are doing here is attempting to put additional weight behind your moral assessment of vaping by implying it's more dangerous than it actually is. I suggest your opinion would carry far more weight when bolstered with the many potent, rational arguments against vaping, all of which I personally agree with. Those are all true, do not require manipulation in the form of misrepresentation; namely, overstating risk either. Misrepresenting things is how we get bad law and bad norms. People do not respect bad law and tend to reject bad norms. Look at the whole theft argument used for media works. What actually happens is people infringe, and had we actually discussed all that word means, we would likely have better law today and people with a far better understanding of the issue. But theft sells, and is a sexy, if untrue argument very similar to the one you are making about vaping right now. This means you may actually do more harm than good, despite obviously well meaning and in your view, considerate intent! And no judgement here. I am not going to tell you what to do or say. Nor should I. That is all, just wanted to put a different take here and ask you to think about all that some.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is making a moral assessment of vaping, just a quantitative one. Vaping is bad for you. It is less bad for you than smoking cigarettes.
  - jlmorton 4y ago
    That's not a quantitative assessment, that's a qualitative assessment, and that's what the other commenter is objecting to. If you quantify the risk associated with one activity as 100, and you quantify the risk of another activity as 5, and you then describe the first activity as bad, and the second as less bad, while that might be perfectly true, you've lost a lot of information in the assessment.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
Clearly you shouldn’t vape unless you are trying to quit smoking. But yes, vaping is much less terrible than smoking. Also, Nicotine is not at all the part of the cigarette that is bad for you, it’s just the addictive chemical that keeps you hooked. Nicotine is just bad for your gums and is similar to caffeine as a stimulant.
JamesBarney 4y ago
The UK assessment on vaping said it probably is about 5% as bad as cigarettes. (Cigarettes are really bad for you, more than 3x as bad being obese) So an entire day of heavy vaping probably takes about 9 minutes off your life, a little less time than eating a piece of bacon, a hot dog, or driving for half an hour.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > a little less time than eating a piece of bacon, a hot dog Sources for these? I've never heard this one before...
  - srrr 4y ago
    The 5% (or rather 95%) comes from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-e...
    - throw10920 4y ago
      I was specifically curious about the evidence that bacon/meats are that bad for you, any source for that?
      - JamesBarney 4y ago
        There isn't really much evidence that meats in general are bad for you. There is some evidence fatty meats or red meats aren't good for you. There is more evidence that fatty red meats are bad for you. And there is a lot of evidence that heavily processed(specifically cured) red meats such as hot dogs and bacon are bad for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon Or you can just google cured meats mortality, bacon mortality, etc...
pessimizer 4y ago
> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad With full knowledge that nicotine is is a poison; widely used in pesticides; that if you swallow one cigarette it'll make you sick, two and they will make you sick and kill all of your internal parasites, and swallowing three might kill you; and that nicotine addiction is harder to break than heroin addiction: is there any actual evidence that smoking nicotine (alone) is physically harmful?
- fsn4dN69ey 4y ago
  to be fair, caffeine is also a pesticide. their effects are to destroy the vascular systems of bugs that eat the plants - hence why the two evolved as plant defense mechanisms to begin with.
ctoth 4y ago
> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad Actually, this is inaccurate[0] and I think it's rather incredible that it was accepted uncritically. It seems that you particularly dislike vaping, but aren't very familiar with the science. Personally I would not be telling people what they "should. not. be" doing without even a basic understanding of the subject. [0]: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
- pclark 4y ago
whimsicalism 4y ago
Sorry I thought the reason we didn't like smoking was the cancer, I didn't realize it was some moral thing about nicotine. I actually thought everyone was on the same page on this one.
- gedy 4y ago
  It's turned into a gut reaction that "smoking" of all sorts is bad, no matter the logic behind it.

by pclark 4y ago

unmole 4y ago

> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad Oh, really? What exactly is very bad about nicotine gum?

helsinki 4y ago
Fucks up your throat, over time.

jowsie 4y ago

Why is consuming nicotine very terrible? Do you feel the same way about caffeine?

pclark 4y ago
Because with public health policy all nuance gets lost. If you say "well actually nicotine doesnt harm you but the tar in combustible cigarettes does so if you vape you're really doing no harm" people will render that as "nicotine does not harm you thus cigarettes are fine" this is literally how we got into this situation. There can be no grey area: if you do not smoke combustible cigarettes do not vape. Btw all addictive substances are bad for you by definition.
- ddingus 4y ago
  I would suggest that loss of nuance is true in some societies and not others. We can and should be working to increase the fidelity of communication as well as make policy less of a blunt instrument. Education can work wonders as can honest, real, considerate conversations. All of these things benefit all of us. Things are different today when compared to our young experiences. Younger people have far more information than anyone making these policy decisions does. People did make that poor leap. Yes. Will they do it again? I doubt many of them will, and the ones who might are likely to be using pot and will combust and inhale. Society has far different norms and can handle nuance far better today. We need to recognize these changes and treat people better. They can and will respond. They have tech and the body of common knowledge continues beyond what it was two decades ago. This kind of "we know better for you" communication packs a lackluster punch and may do more harm than good.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Which makes it insanely hard to change things for the better, normal cancersticks (now without menthol!) will continue to be made and sold at extreme tax rates whereas something that isn't perfect but is better will get banned.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Which makes it insanely hard to change things for the better, normal cancersticks (now without menthol!) will continue to be made Maybe not current “normal cancersticks”; FDA is targeting those, too: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-plans-proposed-rule-reduce-addictiveness-cigarettes-and-other-combusted-tobacco https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-anno...
idiotsecant 4y ago
According to this paper nicotine has a wide array of negative impacts on various systems in the body: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- morsch 4y ago
  Well, that's not something you want to read while chewing a nicotine gum...

rngname22 4y ago

What's your stance on nicotine gum or pills/lozenges? As far as my understanding went, it wasn't clear those things were exceptionally unhealthy, although I'd love to update my stance if someone can provide me with evidence.

pclark 4y ago
They're very good (I initially said wonderful but I want to be clear that you shouldn't use these products unless you smoke combustible cigarettes because they're comically addictive) products because underage people do not want to use them! There is some regulatory nuance I believe that makes them harder to buy than regular vaping products but I forget what it is — a simple fact though is that the social aspect of smoking breaks, smoking at bars, the habit of smoking is a huge draw and it's hard to replicate that with gum. The best product to solve the nicotine crisis is a smart device that gradually lowers the nicotine invisibly to the user over a 3-6-12 month period. This isn't a super hard problem, the FDA and the market is just too non technical to execute.
- Zak 4y ago
  > a smart device that gradually lowers the nicotine invisibly to the user People who want to taper off nicotine using vapes can do this manually, and many do. I find this proposed solution overengineered. Of course it could be enforced. "Smart" vapes could be regulated as medical devices, available only by prescription and used under the supervision of doctors. I think that would greatly reduce their appeal as a smoking replacement with a low barrier to entry though; other nicotine delivery systems to aid in quitting smoking were available decades before vaping.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > I find this proposed solution overengineered. Is it, though? The psychology of knowing vs not knowing that your nicotine concentration is being ramped down over time could be significant. For instance, I can easily imagine being far more willing to vape more on a hard day of work because "my nicotine is being ramped down anyway, so it's not as bad".

Bayart 4y ago

> Are you implying they're much less terrible? It's outright benine. No need to frame it in a negative way (« much less terrible »). > I like to say that vaping is slightly less terrible than combustible cigarettes because it is very clear that you. should. not vape. unless. you. smoke. cigarettes. Sure. And vaping shouldn't be made to look dubious or suspicious to smokers who would otherwise wildly profit from switching off cigarettes. Drawing an equivalency relationship between smoking and vaping is really bad from a public health perspective.

pclark 4y ago
I'm not sure what your point is but i'll just repeat: if you do not smoke combustible cigarettes do not vape. People can debate if vaping or nicotine is good or bad or moot from a health point of view but a simple salient fact is: A small percentage of people who never smoked cigarettes before start to vape and then switch to combustible cigarettes. That is bad.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  That is a truly miniscule group of the population, to the point where I would wager that those people would have eventually ended up smoking even in a world where vaping didn't exist. The benefits of vaping over smoking even ignoring health concerns are simply massive. It doesn't smell nearly as offensive, it's vastly more palatable, you don't need to litter or look for an ever-dissapearing batch of ashtrays, there's vastly less social stigma, and if you're so inclined you can get much heavier nicotine hit.
- Bayart 4y ago
  I'm sure it happens. But I'm not sure it's statistically relevant and deserves tailoring public discourse around. It just sounds like « think of the children » nonsense to me. I've certainly never seen it happen. In fact I've never seen anybody vape who wasn't previously a smoker, that just doesn't exist in my area. That's anecdotal, but I doubt you're basing your opinion off broad empirical data either.
  - 4y ago

Hellbanevil 4y ago

Nicotine has been so vilified, it's never been properly studied. I do know people with certain psychological disorders (I believe Schizophrenics) crave nicotine, and Psychiatrists don't have a clue why, like most of there art. Nicotine appears to calm them down? I had a friend who smoked 4-5 packs of cigarettes a day. If he was vaping, I bet he would still be around today? (To those that cannot stop smoking cigarettes. I got down to 3 packs a year. Instead of just stopping, I use a tiny amount of tobacco daily, or when ever the urge hits hard. In my case 2x weekly. I buy a rolling papers, and roll tiny cigarettes. In one cigarette I can roll five tiny cigarettes. I would buy loose tobacco, but the taxes are worse than filtered cigarettes. My point is use your vice in moderation. Most of you can. This black/white attitude towards drugs in America is troubling.)

hash07e 4y ago

Nicotine has it uses and benefits. The abuse of that or the "cigarretization" is the problem. One thing is to get real organic tabbaco and smoke in small quantities not inhalling only getting nicotine thru gum line. About the benefits in cognition [1][4] alzheimers and parkinson [2], helping with covid [3] and even testosterone [5] Cigarretes + additives are *very* bad you can see the difference here [6]. Is tobbaco bad? yes. Is nicotine bad maybe. Is cigarrete bad? Yes very Is Cigar bad? Yes but not as cigarrete. TlDr -> Go for pure nicotine or cigars if you need neuroprotection. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1579636/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1579636/ [2] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ [3] - https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/7/2/00713-2020 https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/7/2/00713-2020 [4] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006184/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006184/ [5] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24457405/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24457405/ [6] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29459935/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29459935/

pclark 4y ago
I don't believe in conflating academic debates about the alleged complicated unproven merits of nicotine with the chronic public health policy failure of how the world has regulated cigarettes, vaping and wider nicotine products. Sorry, I don't want my parent comment to be construed as being pro nicotine. If you don't smoke combustible cigarettes don't vape or touch nicotine. I feel a moral burden to be really clear about these topics as someone that briefly worked in this industry.
sithadmin 4y ago
>Is nicotine bad maybe. Minor nootropic effect aside, nicotine is absolutely terrible for the human body. Most people don't realize this because public health campaigns highlighting issues with tobacco products include statements about negative health outcomes caused by nicotine, but neglect to separate these issues from those that are linked to tobacco specifically. Nicotine consumption is linked to: -accelerated tumor growth: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0701_833 https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0701_833 -vascular calcification: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13077 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13077 -arteriosclerosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805015/ -mutagenesis/various cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ -reduced alveolar function and bronchoconstriction, miscellaneous pulmonary injury: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3097432/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3097432/; https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung.00564.2017 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung.005... -peridontal disease: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/omi.12228 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/omi.12228

ddingus 4y ago

Ok, ex smoker here. Been itching to talk about this some, and now is the time! I got started in the military. Flat out, smokers got more breaks and some considerations that others didn't, and so yeah. Light 'em up! And I was in during the late 80's when smoking was basically everywhere. Smoked for many years, and was on strong cigarettes. Very hard to quit, and I tried a few times. The impact was noticable later in life, I was easily winded and had some minor league emphysema beginning. Not good. I had by chance mostly tried a vape. And it sort of worked, but did not deliver the levels I needed. Nicotine salt does. I did one vape on that formulation, and that was it. No more smokes. Some years later, my recovery has been dramatic! Some basic damage is not going to heal, but most everything else has and I feel great! Can do what I should be doing too. And the benefits continue to accrue. Coughed up bits of tar for a long time. On another whim, I did inversion, and gakked out a ton of the stuff. Recommended, if you've got clogged up lungs. Just make sure you've got a spotter and someone to assist you in the process. I needed that due to the exertion. Moving on... Vapes are seriously good harm reduction, assuming someone is using gear that isn't damaging somehow. There is a lot of crap out there. Sadly, rather than regulate it all and maximize the benefit, the pressure to get rid of vaping altogether is winning out here in the US. Too bad JUUL was run so badly. Their core mission is a good one, and tons of people are going to benefit very significantly. Nicotine itself isn't that big of a deal. It's a stimulant and is addictive like similar compounds are. What really maxxes out it's addictive nature is the inhalation delivery method. Taking it orally, for example, isn't quite the same thing, unless the method is intended to pass through the skin, like chew does. Nicotine is not cancerous. The real danger in smoking is tar & particulates damaging the lungs, and cancer caused by the tons of byproducts of the combustion chemistry. The nicotine comes along for the ride and again, by itself isn't such a big deal.

cma 4y ago
> The real danger in smoking is tar & particulates damaging the lungs, and cancer caused by the tons of byproducts of the combustion chemistry. The nicotine comes along for the ride and again, by itself isn't such a big deal. With no combustion, tobacco causes mouth cancer all the time. It is simply cancerous (though nicotine isn't). I'm sure tar etc. makes it worse, but something else is bad in tobacco.

guelo 4y ago

Vaping has wiped out 20 years of reductions in teen smoking so that plan isn't working. Juul's marketing was never about a healthier cigarette replacement. https://tobacco21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/teen-vaping-graph-vox.jpg https://tobacco21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/teen-vaping... (couldn't find a graph newer than 2018)

stonogo 4y ago
Your own graph shows that smoking is still going down. You're conflating vaping and smoking, which is disingenuous.
pessimizer 4y ago
If your desire is to destroy tobacco products and to prevent people from consuming nicotine, that's one thing (and Mormons are perfectly happy to sign on to that.) If your desire is to improve public health, there's nothing to do but celebrate. It's impossible for vaping to have wiped out reductions in teen smoking with a rise in vaping, because vaping is not smoking. I speak as someone who doesn't vape, doesn't like vaping, and will never vape. What I want is for people who want to quit smoking to be able to, and the way you enable that for the most people is to give them a far less dangerous alternative that involves the fewest lifestyle changes. The antismoking industry long ago became a self-sustaining, self-protecting bureaucracy who cares less about health and more about civil suits and fundraising on new legislation.
- guelo 4y ago
  My desire would be for teens not to get hooked on an incredibly addictive money pit.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    How do you feel about the legalization of pot?
    - guelo 4y ago

31835843 4y ago

> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad, “Very bad” is too strong. Nicotine is a drug that does not have therapeutic value. It does not cause cancer. It is addictive. It has mild nootropic effects, as well as other effects like appetite suppression. Here’s a good, easy to read rundown: https://elemental.medium.com/your-brain-on-nicotine-668c0b6a079e https://elemental.medium.com/your-brain-on-nicotine-668c0b6a... We should be careful to differentiate smoking/vaping from nicotine use.

johnisgood 4y ago
> Nicotine is a drug that does not have therapeutic value. That is false. > Nicotine in tobacco brings illness and death to millions of people. Yet nicotine in its pure form has the potential to be a valuable pharmaceutical agent. Nicotine fairly specifically binds to the cholinergic nicotinic gating site on cationic ion channels in receptors throughout the body. This action stimulates the release of a variety of neurotransmitters including especially catecholamines and serotonin. When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) reduction of body weight, (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against; (5) Parkinson's disease (6) Tourette's disease (7) Alzheimers disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound.[1] Plus, you even said it yourself: "It has mild nootropic effects, as well as other effects like appetite suppression". Sounds like it could pretty much be therapeutic for cognition and weight loss. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/

ddingus 4y ago

I also want to speak to vaping overall. "should not be" covers a ton of activities medical people would prefer we don't do. What you are doing here is attempting to put additional weight behind your moral assessment of vaping by implying it's more dangerous than it actually is. I suggest your opinion would carry far more weight when bolstered with the many potent, rational arguments against vaping, all of which I personally agree with. Those are all true, do not require manipulation in the form of misrepresentation; namely, overstating risk either. Misrepresenting things is how we get bad law and bad norms. People do not respect bad law and tend to reject bad norms. Look at the whole theft argument used for media works. What actually happens is people infringe, and had we actually discussed all that word means, we would likely have better law today and people with a far better understanding of the issue. But theft sells, and is a sexy, if untrue argument very similar to the one you are making about vaping right now. This means you may actually do more harm than good, despite obviously well meaning and in your view, considerate intent! And no judgement here. I am not going to tell you what to do or say. Nor should I. That is all, just wanted to put a different take here and ask you to think about all that some.

idiotsecant 4y ago
I don't think anyone is making a moral assessment of vaping, just a quantitative one. Vaping is bad for you. It is less bad for you than smoking cigarettes.
- jlmorton 4y ago
  That's not a quantitative assessment, that's a qualitative assessment, and that's what the other commenter is objecting to. If you quantify the risk associated with one activity as 100, and you quantify the risk of another activity as 5, and you then describe the first activity as bad, and the second as less bad, while that might be perfectly true, you've lost a lot of information in the assessment.

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

Clearly you shouldn’t vape unless you are trying to quit smoking. But yes, vaping is much less terrible than smoking. Also, Nicotine is not at all the part of the cigarette that is bad for you, it’s just the addictive chemical that keeps you hooked. Nicotine is just bad for your gums and is similar to caffeine as a stimulant.

JamesBarney 4y ago

The UK assessment on vaping said it probably is about 5% as bad as cigarettes. (Cigarettes are really bad for you, more than 3x as bad being obese) So an entire day of heavy vaping probably takes about 9 minutes off your life, a little less time than eating a piece of bacon, a hot dog, or driving for half an hour.

throw10920 4y ago
> a little less time than eating a piece of bacon, a hot dog Sources for these? I've never heard this one before...
- srrr 4y ago
  The 5% (or rather 95%) comes from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-e...
  - throw10920 4y ago
    I was specifically curious about the evidence that bacon/meats are that bad for you, any source for that?
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      There isn't really much evidence that meats in general are bad for you. There is some evidence fatty meats or red meats aren't good for you. There is more evidence that fatty red meats are bad for you. And there is a lot of evidence that heavily processed(specifically cured) red meats such as hot dogs and bacon are bad for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon Or you can just google cured meats mortality, bacon mortality, etc...

pessimizer 4y ago

> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad With full knowledge that nicotine is is a poison; widely used in pesticides; that if you swallow one cigarette it'll make you sick, two and they will make you sick and kill all of your internal parasites, and swallowing three might kill you; and that nicotine addiction is harder to break than heroin addiction: is there any actual evidence that smoking nicotine (alone) is physically harmful?

fsn4dN69ey 4y ago
to be fair, caffeine is also a pesticide. their effects are to destroy the vascular systems of bugs that eat the plants - hence why the two evolved as plant defense mechanisms to begin with.

ctoth 4y ago

> any form of nicotine consumption is very bad Actually, this is inaccurate[0] and I think it's rather incredible that it was accepted uncritically. It seems that you particularly dislike vaping, but aren't very familiar with the science. Personally I would not be telling people what they "should. not. be" doing without even a basic understanding of the subject. [0]: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

pclark 4y ago

whimsicalism 4y ago

Sorry I thought the reason we didn't like smoking was the cancer, I didn't realize it was some moral thing about nicotine. I actually thought everyone was on the same page on this one.

gedy 4y ago
It's turned into a gut reaction that "smoking" of all sorts is bad, no matter the logic behind it.