Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

4. The social aspect is favorable. I was just in Vegas last weekend, and at the karaoke bar I was at, 7/10 people smoking there used vapor. So even in places where it is perfectly acceptable to smoke, people are switching over. Here in my office those of us with personal offices are allowed to vape away all day. If anything we're more productive as we don't need to go outside and stop working as often.

Yes, but if you were allowed to SMOKE in your personal offices, which do you think they would choose? Because I will bet my left hand the answer is overwhelmingly smoke.

My office has about 12 people who "smoke" including myself. Of them, only 1 still uses cigarettes and the rest use vapor. And not a single one of those vaping miss a damn thing about smoking. The benefits of vapor over smoking are immense.

First off, talk like this:

 Yodhrin wrote:

you are necessarily taking a moralistic, neo-puritan position,

Just makes it clear that you are a person with an ax to grind and are just interested in repeating your position over and over again without addressing any of the points I have made while also misrepresenting what I have actually said. Especially when you say stuff like:

you are advocating that we limit the freedom of individuals to engage in an activity they enjoy

Which I have not done, and you will be unable to find that I have advocated that position.

with minimal risks to themselves and none to others,

Feel free to link to the studies that show the long-term effects of smoking e-cigarettes to the uses and also studies that show that there is zero risk to others.

I agree that the risk is less for current smokers, but it is still greater than for people that do not smoke at all right now and it has unknown effects of second-hand exposure to e-cigarette smoke.

Now you keep on saying this:

But you have missed mine, it seems.

The justification for the stigma existing in the first place are the health problems it causes the individual(and the fiscal results for the state/insurance companies that follow), and the potential for a smoker to inflict those risks to health on unwilling third parties.

Which is true, we don't want people to start smoking because of these risks. And it has been effective. People have become addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)" at a a decreasing rate.

Those justifications do not apply to vaping, but still exist and are applicable to tobacco smoking regardless of how many people choose to vape nicotine solution,

That only matters if you refuse to realize that smoking e-cigarettes (I see you have made the strategic decision to switch to "vaping" to further distance yourself from the fact that people who smoke e-cigarettes are engaging in the exact same activity as people who smoke regular cigarettes but with a different product) creates two new groups of people.

We have had these two groups:

1) People who are addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)" and smoke cigarettes.
2) People who are not addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)" and don't smoke cigarettes.

Now e-cigarettes create two new groups of people

3) People who are already addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)" who are choosing a less risky (but not risk free like you insist) activity. On the surface this seems like a good think but we should continue to study it to make sure it is safer for everybody involved. This is the group that you focus on. It's a beneficial group, I have not denied this.

4) People who have never smoked because the social stigma has worked. They have never been exposed to the damaging effects of cigarettes. Now these people are addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)" and are doing everything other smokers do except light a traditional cigarettes. This is the group I am focusing on. Smoking something with less risk to yourself and an unknown risk to others is worse than not smoking at all.

so there is no rational argument that we must transfer the social stigma over to vaping

Except that you are creating new addicts when somebody that has never smoked due to the existing social stigma chooses to smoke e-cigarettes. So you go from zero risk to minimal (but unknown) risk by having people go from not-smoking to becoming addicted and then there is a risk that you are going to engage in traditional smoking once you are addicted to the "mental and physical components of nicotine addiction (hand to mouth action, drawing, "throat hit" on inhalation, delivery of the chemical itself)"

- if you're vaping, you're not(to the best current evidence) harming yourself, costing the state anything, or risking harm to others, and so are doing nothing worthy of stigma;

You are engaging in an activity that is worse than not smoking and an activity that has an unknown effect on others as well.

if you stop vaping and start smoking, you are harming yourself and you are risking the health of others, and there's no reason to believe people would be any less harsh on those behaviours just because someone first began using nicotine by another method.

But there is reason to believe that the current process of "Not smoking --> become addicted to something with a social stigma" has been a good deterrent and that the new process of "not smoking --> become physically and mentally addicted to an activity that has more risks than not-smoking and less risk than regular smoking --> overcoming the social stigma of regular smoking because you are already addicted to every single activity of smoking other than physically lighting a traditional cigarette" has a higher potential risk of creating smokers of traditional cigarettes than not smoking e-cigarettes.

So in order to make the argument that we should use legal regulation and social stigma to prevent people from vaping at all, you are necessarily taking a moralistic, neo-puritan position, because you are advocating that we limit the freedom of individuals to engage in an activity they enjoy with minimal risks to themselves and none to others, on the basis that you disapprove of that activity. It's no different to people who argue that we should, through regulation and stigmatisation, not simply encourage people to drink alcohol in moderation and in a responsible manner, but to stop drinking at all.

No. I'm making the argument that nicotine is treated the same as alcohol in your example. Even though we know that people are perfectly capable of drinking alcohol in moderation and in a responsible manner we still have restrictions on advertisement and areas of use. So even though people can smoke e-cigarettes in moderation and in a responsible manner we can still regulate advertisement and areas of use. Because, just like alcohol, once you become addicted the risk for abuse increases. People who know that there is a social stigma against alcoholism don't just become alcoholics. They are stopped by the social stigma, but we realize that even casual drinking could potentially lead to addiction and we address that through regulations in marketing and access. Once people are addicted to alcohol, the jump across the social stigma becomes more likely. Same with nicotine addiction. Once you become physically and mentally addicted to smoking (even if it is a safer alternative) you are more likely to make the jump across the social stigma.

We, as a society, can distinguish between the person who goes down the pub for a couple of pints and walks home, and the person who slams a litre of vodka and then goes out behind the wheel of a car; we have found a balance that allows individuals to enjoy their vice, while still penalising the expressions of that vice which cause serious harm to themselves or to others,

And both activities are already regulated: There are restrictions for advertising alcohol that affects both the user and the abuser, there are restrictions of where the user and the abuser can drink, there is a recognition that using is less harmful than abusing and more harmful than not using at all.

why is that balance impossible with nicotine?

You would have to ask yourself because your idea of balance is "regulate the stuff with known bad effects for everybody" and "no regulation and stigmatization of any kind of the activity with unknown health effects to self and others and that could lead to an increased rate of abuse".

But since I've said the same thing 3 times in a row now, and you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again without actually addressing any of the point, I'm going to try to make it pretty simple:

Here is your position:

Being addicted to smoking cigarettes bad --> being addicted to smoking e-cigarettes is less bad
Quit trying to make e-cigarettes seem bad, e-cigarettes are magical and there is nothing bad about them.

Here is my position:

Being addicted to smoking cigarettes bad --> being addicted to smoking e-cigarettes is less bad --> not being addicted to any form of smoking is best. E-cigarettes can be a better alternative.
AND
Not smoking is best --> becoming addicted to smoking e-cigarettes is worse than not smoking anything --> Will addiction lead to overcoming the social stigma and smoking regular cigarettes.
Make e-cigarettes available as an alternative for current smokers while also trying to minimize the incidence of new users becoming addicted to nicotine and becoming regular smokers.

Again, just to make myself perfectly clear: I don't disagree with a single person that says "It is probably better for current smokers than smoking regular cigarettes". It's the people that are currently not smoking and don't have an addiction to nicotine that I am concerned about.

Well we've just had the first TV advert for an E-cig on TV here in the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-tobacco-offers-pure-satisfaction-in-its-return-to-tv-9134568.html

and it certainly sounded like a oooh vaping might be cool

Vype: "Experience the Breakthrough" as they say

 d-usa wrote:

It's the people that are currently not smoking and don't have an addiction to nicotine that I am concerned about.

Why should the fact you are concerned matter?

Such rebuttal. Very argument. Wow. So convinced.

Is doge Speak now an off topic thing?

Thanks killkrazy...

It was the highest quality post I could think off to answer such a convincing counter-argument.

Fair point

Killkrazy is still at fault for starting it though.

My girlfriend is trying to kick the habit. She's tried three brands of E-Cig over the last year, and she tells me that whilst it does deliver the hit, it doesn't quite give the same fulfilment as a cigarette. Something about the flavour just seems off.

Personally, there's no tar, carbon monoxide, and so on in E-cigs, so I prefer it infinitely for her for health reasons. Even if it does some form of damage, it does far less damage than a regular cigarette, and is therefore a healthier choice.

When it comes to advertising? I'm against it. Even if it does absolutely no damage whatsoever, the fact remains that you are hooking people onto an addictive substance. The only people who use the things won't be ex-smokers. I've already seen reports of cigarette companies buying up shares in E-cig companies like there's no tomorrow. If they can get away with glamorising it, and turning vaping into a standard social fixture like smoking was in the fifties, they will. Why?

Because nicotine is a highly addictive substance. It traps the weak of will into a lifelong dependency. That means that it guarantees profits from those people for life, something which companies simply adore. I find that more than a little unethical, and as such, would place restrictions upon vaping in terms of advertisements. They should be available if you want them, but I don't want the logical conclusion of them ending up on kids telly with spiderman packaging.

E-cigs seem like an awesome idea to me , in fact this thread has prompted me to try them next week.

Peoples fears of 2nd hand vapour are quite laughable, I assume the same people are scared of asthma "puffers". Since it is a vapour by the time it goes into someones lungs is partially metabalised and then is expelled and travels a foot or two , the chance that any ingredient has a chance to cause harm would be exceedingly small. I'd even hesitate to guess that breathing in normal city atmosphere would be worse for you.

Nicotene isn't a nice substance, but vapourisers are a far superior solution to smoking. If people are worried about the small sized particles inhaled from a vapouriser , I suggest that nothing could be as harmful as smoking.

In regard to keeping the children safe from becoming addicted to nicotene through e-cigs, I suggest that this is as sensible as banning advertising of any coedine based substance on the grounds that they could get addicted to it. E-cigs are a good thing and whilst yes, it is better not to smoke , smoking is hard to give up and for me a lot of that stems from the hand to mouth ritual. Keeping that ritual going whilst eliminating most of the detrimental effects of smoking is literally a win-win situation.

In short , why not advertise the solution to a problem? Why not help people get rid of this social stigma that some of us keep pushing as a great solution to addiction. Social stigma does not stop addiction or help end it , it does nothing but help some people feel righteous about hanging gak on other people and acting intolerant. Some of the reactions to me smoking as a result of this increasing social stigma have ranged from downright vile to outright stupid , the one unifying reaction has been one of righteous indignation. feth you and feth your social stigma.

I'd like to add that I am conscious of others when I smoke, but when you have jackasses sit next to you whilst you are smoking and then make an issue of it that's when the whole value of social stigma seems to fall by the wayside replaced by people wanting to hang crap on others to make themselves feel better.
once again feth you and feth your social stigma.

 Ketara wrote:
My girlfriend is trying to kick the habit. She's tried three brands of E-Cig

I found that just by not smoking I was able to quit smoking.


E-cigs are certainly healthier than normal cigarettes, but that isn't exactly a high bar; eating dirt is probably healthier than smoking a cigarette, but it doesn't make it a good idea. You lose the tar but you gain the nicotine addiction, or don't lose it if you are already addicted. If one has to smoke it is certainly a better alternative, but I don't think pretending it is radically different does anyone any favors, and seems intellectually dishonest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
In short , why not advertise the solution to a problem?

It really isn't a solution as much as a lateral movement, as in the end you are still doing the same thing, only minimizing the impact.

 Ahtman wrote:
I found that just by not smoking I was able to quit smoking.

I'm trying to do this now. Again.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I found that just by not smoking I was able to quit smoking.

I'm trying to do this now. Again.

It took me a few attempts as well, but I found that trying tricks and such didn't really help. When it I finally quit I just went cold turkey. Even after three years I still have the odd craving now and then even though I don't have any desire to smoke again. It just really gets its tendrils into you deeper than you can imagine.

I have smoked for nearly half of my life. I promised myself I would quit for good before turning 30, which gives me about five months. I just spent the last two months with a series of respiratory infections. So I figure now's the time. I'm only on week two here. Fortunately, I have already tried the ecig route and know it doesn't work for me.

I have quit for a few months to a year twice now and have done it cold turkey both times. Personally I find the first few days easy, it's after two weeks that i start to find it hard , i guess i miss my smoking ritual.
I would suggest hypnotism, everyone i know who has quit successfully and permanently got hypnotised.

Anyways GL Manchu, I hope to be joining you in clean air land in a few months.

I do know of two concerns that government officials and law enforcement have with e-cigs currently:
1. E-cigs can be used as a less-than-obvious way of using certain drugs.
2. E-cigs are being marketed to children, because clearly the fruity and candy flavors are only appealing to children.

While 1 is certainly true, 2 is the usual "think of the children" call-to-action BS that politicians love to use to get votes. I actually heard, on the radio last week, an interview with someone who did. in fact, say about e-cigs "I saw the stuff they sell, and as an adult, I would never buy a gummy bear flavored thing so clearly they're trying to sell this to kids."

I suppose it depends on what how you are defining kids. If you mean eight year olds then it is silly, but they most certainly have quiet marketing toward teens. The number of smokers that start at that age is fairly staggering. You get a 14 yeald smoking you probably got a customer for at least 10 years, if not a great deal of their life.

Anyone would think adults don't like sweet things. The amount of sweet things marketed at adults is huge , and most likely the sweet flavours mask the flavours inherent in the e-cig vapour easier and more cost effectively.

Bullockist wrote:
Anyone would think adults don't like sweet things. The amount of sweet things marketed at adults is huge , and most likely the sweet flavours mask the flavours inherent in the e-cig vapour easier and more cost effectively.

As with most things, how it is done is what creates a distinction. While humans in general like sweet things, the way something is marketed to younger people is quite different than older. How do you market to teens, which are your new (long term) customers by and large, without seeming like you are advertising to them? They can't overtly advertise to them, after all, but they are an important market for them.

Adding all these flavors also makes the whole "it's just water and nicotine and free of any additives" argument less effective.

hear that d-usa and I agree. Thing is being the horrific poison it is I'd assume that nicotene tastes poisonous so they put the sweet flavours in as they are the most effective at hiding flavours.
Remember the horrific banana and strawberry flavoured medicines from your childhood, they weren't actually flavoured that way to appeal to children,they were flavoured that way as it was the easiest way to mask the taste, remember how sweet they were as well? Same reason.

I think the reason for that flavouring is a little less sinister than some people are intimating.

 d-usa wrote:
Adding all these flavors also makes the whole "it's just water and nicotine and free of any additives" argument less effective.

Oh noes, someone call an ambulance, someone has breathed on me after eating a cough sweet and I have inhaled menthol-smelling vapour!

I'm not going to bother quoting your bigger post, because you just repeat the same stuff you said before, and there's evidently no point in arguing with you because I think your entire core premise is patently ludicrous; there's no rational reason to assume that using an e-cig, vaper, Mondo-super-evil-nicotine-device or whatever the hell you want to call it, will lead to people smoking traditional cigarettes. You also cut out the part of my post where I explained exactly what kind of regulations we're talking about here; medicine. Not just sticking an age limit on it like booze(which you might have noted I actually supported).

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
My girlfriend is trying to kick the habit. She's tried three brands of E-Cig

I found that just by not smoking I was able to quit smoking.

Grand for you. If you had the anxiety disorder she does, you might not find it so easy. It's not so much the nicotine she's addicted to, as it is the physical sensation of release/relaxation when she satisfies the craving. It helps her to destress, something she finds quite difficult without a chemical inducement.

As a result, the e-cigs help her get that release without dumping all the additional crap in her system.

I saw a couple of e-cig adverts last night on TV. They seem to be marketing them as a cross between viagra and a holiday for sexy young couples. Only tangential mention (if any) seemed to be made to actually quitting smoking.

 Ketara wrote:
Grand for you.

It is grand for me, thanks for noticing.

Did the advert mention willpower as being a major component of giving up smoking - like the nicotine replacement ads?

 Ketara wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
My girlfriend is trying to kick the habit. She's tried three brands of E-Cig

I found that just by not smoking I was able to quit smoking.

Grand for you. If you had the anxiety disorder she does, you might not find it so easy. It's not so much the nicotine she's addicted to, as it is the physical sensation of release/relaxation when she satisfies the craving. It helps her to destress, something she finds quite difficult without a chemical inducement.

As a result, the e-cigs help her get that release without dumping all the additional crap in her system.

The problem is though it doesn't work as a destresser. Smokers think it dose but it actually makes it worse. It's like sugar, you get a high where you feel better for a few minuets then you crash and feel much worse. I refused to quit for years saying it helped me relax and one of the things that made me stop was when I realized that I was feeling more stressed 20 minuets after having a cigarette.

Better off quitting if possible. Everyone needs their own way and their own reason. If you don't have your own reason to quit and stay quit it is very hard. You need a personal reason to say "No I won't have that cigarette" when the craving strikes hard and people telling you to quit doesn't work. You will just find a way to hide it, like any addict, and often it will make quitting harder as you keep smoking just to spite people "telling you what to do".

 Steve steveson wrote:


The problem is though it doesn't work as a destresser. Smokers think it dose but it actually makes it worse. It's like sugar, you get a high where you feel better for a few minuets then you crash and feel much worse. I refused to quit for years saying it helped me relax and one of the things that made me stop was when I realized that I was feeling more stressed 20 minuets after having a cigarette.

Better off quitting if possible. Everyone needs their own way and their own reason. If you don't have your own reason to quit and stay quit it is very hard. You need a personal reason to say "No I won't have that cigarette" when the craving strikes hard and people telling you to quit doesn't work. You will just find a way to hide it, like any addict, and often it will make quitting harder as you keep smoking just to spite people "telling you what to do".

I agree, quite frankly. But she's tried a number of times, but as a person with a high anxiety disorder, and a predilection for depression, the mental addiction far outstrips the physical one. The E-cig helps a little there, in that it allows her to mimic the motions of smoking and get the nicotine release without having to ingest tar and carbon monoxide. So for that small mercy, I'm grateful. I doubt she'll ever kick the smoking bucket completely, but if she can replace it with occasional uses of an E-cigarette, her lungs will thank her in the long run.

I generally approve of e-cigs, as at least now I don't have to be exposed to the gak you're inhaling to your lungs as well.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Adding all these flavors also makes the whole "it's just water and nicotine and free of any additives" argument less effective.

Oh noes, someone call an ambulance, someone has breathed on me after eating a cough sweet and I have inhaled menthol-smelling vapour!

I'm not going to bother quoting your bigger post, because you just repeat the same stuff you said before, and there's evidently no point in arguing with you because I think your entire core premise is patently ludicrous; there's no rational reason to assume that using an e-cig, vaper, Mondo-super-evil-nicotine-device or whatever the hell you want to call it, will lead to people smoking traditional cigarettes. You also cut out the part of my post where I explained exactly what kind of regulations we're talking about here; medicine. Not just sticking an age limit on it like booze(which you might have noted I actually supported).

You realize that everything you compare e-cigarettes to (alcohol, cough drops) is already more regulated than e-cigarettes right?