3 ms·

adding just to counteract some very odd takes in here from I presume currently vapors or wildly uneducated non-nicotine addicts. Nicotine addiction owned my li

adding just to counteract some very odd takes in here from I presume currently vapors or wildly uneducated non-nicotine addicts. Nicotine addiction owned my life for years. Nothing like it. I still have dreams about relapsing dip and then saying “f-it” and spending a day in my dreams going wild with Cope. Quitting meant trying to taper, trying the gum, trying pouches vs loose dip, and if vapes were around I’d prob have tried those too. All that adds up to is you’re still addicted, just to a different form, and your day shifts when leaving the house from “keys, wallet, tin of dip, spitter bottle” to “keys, wallet, nicotine gum/vape/we.” You’re still owned by the chemical haha. Only thing that worked for me and others I knew who quit for good was cold turkey and an awful 90 days, at which point the habit and the chemicals are basically broken. Which brings me to my point: The amount of free marketing Juul and co is getting in this thread from nicotine addicts and their supporters over how Juul is fine and much much different from the good ol’ American diet cigs and dip is disappointing and not surprising. The 10-20 y/o brand new chemical that is extremely addictive and associated with centuries of health problems is now totally fine? Where have I heard that one before……? At least make Philip Morris’s job hard, please.

billfruit 2y ago
Atleast vaping doesn't make people ingest the very harmful products of combustion, tars and other nasty products of the burning that happens inside normal cigarettes. Don't you think that is an important reduction of harm from smoking cigarettes?
- dogman144 2y ago
  No I don’t, I think that perspective is an incredible amount of rationalization of marketing and data out an industry that continually proves itself to be public health crisis 101 and repeatedly and litigiouslg deceptive in its discussion about it. In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”
  - billfruit 2y ago
    I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. Normal cigarettes does that, and vaping does not. Thus vaping is a significant reduction in harm as compared to cigarettes. While I don't deny that vaping companies and their corporate cheer leaders may have made the same argument, what exactly is the problem with this argument on merit?
    - dogman144 2y ago
      Where does popcorn lung etc fit on your spectrum of healthy consequence free vaping? Or a nicotine addiction in a middle schooler because of the ease of access and child marketing.
      - billfruit 2y ago
        I didn't say vaping was consequence free, but only that it is a significant reduction in harm. Vaping seems to have much lesser consequences than smoking cigarettes due to the reasons mentioned above. Thus vaping is a reduction in harm compared to smoking cigarettes.
        dogman144 2y ago
        Going to have to add in “addicting middle schoolers en masse” to your harm reduction logic chain. After decades of that going away (I literally remember the “smokers corner” in high school and how there were 5 peole there), you now have 1950’s style teen vaping/nicotine addictions again. You’ve failed to acknowledge or consider the consequences of this even once.

billfruit 2y ago

Atleast vaping doesn't make people ingest the very harmful products of combustion, tars and other nasty products of the burning that happens inside normal cigarettes. Don't you think that is an important reduction of harm from smoking cigarettes?

dogman144 2y ago
No I don’t, I think that perspective is an incredible amount of rationalization of marketing and data out an industry that continually proves itself to be public health crisis 101 and repeatedly and litigiouslg deceptive in its discussion about it. In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”
- billfruit 2y ago
  I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. Normal cigarettes does that, and vaping does not. Thus vaping is a significant reduction in harm as compared to cigarettes. While I don't deny that vaping companies and their corporate cheer leaders may have made the same argument, what exactly is the problem with this argument on merit?
  - dogman144 2y ago
    Where does popcorn lung etc fit on your spectrum of healthy consequence free vaping? Or a nicotine addiction in a middle schooler because of the ease of access and child marketing.
    - billfruit 2y ago
      I didn't say vaping was consequence free, but only that it is a significant reduction in harm. Vaping seems to have much lesser consequences than smoking cigarettes due to the reasons mentioned above. Thus vaping is a reduction in harm compared to smoking cigarettes.
      - dogman144 2y ago
        Going to have to add in “addicting middle schoolers en masse” to your harm reduction logic chain. After decades of that going away (I literally remember the “smokers corner” in high school and how there were 5 peole there), you now have 1950’s style teen vaping/nicotine addictions again. You’ve failed to acknowledge or consider the consequences of this even once.