3 ms·

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 cigar

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.

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.