|
Like I said before, big tobacco is going to be first in line with the FDA approval process. 150,000 pages to make their case. https://www.wsj.com/articles/reynolds-files-for-fda-review-of-vuse-e-cigarettes-11570808409
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Interesting letter from Iowa attorney general: Thank you for posting this! Extremely encouraging to see rational interpretation of the available data from a gov't authority. Re: CDC study showing that youth cigarette + vaping use is now higher than cigarette use pre-vaping being remotely mainstream – I wonder how much of that data's youth vaping cohort includes users of THC vapes rather than nic vapes. The 20% cannabis use rate suggests it could be substantial. Also: I need to quit vaping sometime in the next year, before my kid turns 2 and might possibly see me vaping and form a lasting memory of it (I only do it outside, never around him, but still) – anyone have anecdotes/data on nic lozenges or other alternatives? Any issues with long-term use I should be concerned with? Cold turkey does not work for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Seanzor posted:Re: CDC study showing that youth cigarette + vaping use is now higher than cigarette use pre-vaping being remotely mainstream – I wonder how much of that data's youth vaping cohort includes users of THC vapes rather than nic vapes. The 20% cannabis use rate suggests it could be substantial. So the numbers the CDC and FDA harp on about are pretty misleading although some users in this thread take issue with that interpretation. Frequent use, which to me suggests actual addiction and not experimentation because it's new or hip, seems to be pretty low all things considered. They throw out a number like "20% of teens are vaping" when frequent use is only 5.7%. It's also almost completely made up of teenagers who had a history of prior tobacco use. Among teens who never smoked only 1% of that 5.7% actually became "addicted". That is remarkably low and doesn't support the theory that a new generation of kids are being hooked on nicotine. The surgeon general said that of all of the kids vaping 1/3rd were using THC. I don't know whether that's included in the totals of vaping or it's own sub category. So it could be that of the 20% or whatever the total is a third of those people are vaping THC and not nicotine. It could also mean that they're vaping THC in addition to nicotine. If they are including THC among 30 day use then it muddles the numbers further. If they include it, which they shouldn't because you can't even use THC products in any normal vaping device, I would assume that it's going to be more in the infrequent use category. It could just be a way to juice up the numbers for headlines. At this point nothing would surprise me. https://twitter.com/JeromeAdamsMD/status/1088427063680348160 So really the "epidemic" that people harp on about isn't really one at all and I would much rather have a teenager vaping than smoking. If past history of tobacco use is an indicator of future vaping use then they're basically using the products the same way adults are. If you'd like to read a detailed breakdown of everything it's here. They're using the exact same data set as the CDC/FDA: https://www.qeios.com/read/article/391 quote:Also: I need to quit vaping sometime in the next year, before my kid turns 2 and might possibly see me vaping and form a lasting memory of it (I only do it outside, never around him, but still) – anyone have anecdotes/data on nic lozenges or other alternatives? Any issues with long-term use I should be concerned with? Cold turkey does not work for me. Long term effects of NRT are pretty well studied. I'd do your own research though. Depending on your set up you could gradually taper down to lower and lower levels until you're at zero at which point you'd be kicking the physical habit of picking up a device rather than any kind of chemical dependence. I have one on the way in January and this is what I'm probably going to do for the same reasons you are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Seanzor posted:Thank you for posting this! Extremely encouraging to see rational interpretation of the available data from a gov't authority. I used patches and for the first week or two some leftover nicotine gum I had, as well and it was honestly pretty easy because i was hosed up on nicotine 24/7 until like the 3rd or 4th step of patches. Exercise really helps, eating decently really helps once you get your appetite back, and make sure you have something to do with your hands basically at all times and/or something to chew on and it'll suck but it's not that bad. Personally, I found that the desire for nicotine wasn't as dangerous as the desire or urge to go buy a pack of cigarettes. Obviously don't backslide, but buying a pack/more vape juice or whatever is how you undo all of your hard work. Anyways, it sucks, but it's doable, I quit a pack a day habit and was around chain smokers all day and was just hella stubborn about not smoking a single time ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Also holy gently caress what: either there's a massive epidemic where one kid in fifteen attempts suicide every year and most are really bad at it, or kids lie on surveys?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:either there's a massive epidemic where one kid in fifteen attempts suicide every year and most are really bad at it, or kids lie on surveys? 92-95% of suicides are unsuccessful, so yeah, that's believable. It's part of the reason why gun access impacts suicide rates so heavily: gun attempts are much, much more likely to be successful. E: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/ Also guess which of these methods are most popular among youth Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:92-95% of suicides are unsuccessful, so yeah, that's believable. It's part of the reason why gun access impacts suicide rates so heavily: gun attempts are much, much more likely to be successful. I'm guessing drowning is from jumping off bridges? Also ban guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I'm guessing drowning is from jumping off bridges? you die from blunt force trauma when you die from jumping off of a bridge. Not usually drowning. Or a heart attack mid fall if it's high enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:you die from blunt force trauma when you die from jumping off of a bridge. Not usually drowning. That's what I assumed. Surface tension of the water and what not. Just can't figure out what would cause the high rate of drownings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:That's what I assumed. Surface tension of the water and what not. Just can't figure out what would cause the high rate of drownings. Getting drunk and swimming till you die may be a portion bath tub suicide aswell WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
people jumping off of small bridges into fast rivers? Plus 50% of people in the US can't swim so that would explain a big chunk of it, too. If you can't swim, then 10 feet of still water is lethal.
Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:92-95% of suicides are unsuccessful, so yeah, that's believable. It's part of the reason why gun access impacts suicide rates so heavily: gun attempts are much, much more likely to be successful. Without some other sources I don't really believe the 1:15 hs kids attempts suicide per year stat. If that can be well sourced and supported, facts sway me, but that sounds insanely high. I am not saying I knew about every suicide attempt that happened while I was in HS, obviously I didn't, but it was like... one in four years for a school with a population of several hundred. I doubt if this has gone up by 20x in the last 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Without some other sources I don't really believe the 1:15 hs kids attempts suicide per year stat. If that can be well sourced and supported, facts sway me, but that sounds insanely high. I am not saying I knew about every suicide attempt that happened while I was in HS, obviously I didn't, but it was like... one in four years for a school with a population of several hundred. I doubt if this has gone up by 20x in the last 20 years? CDC just released these numbers officially so it looks like there is some grain of truth to it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/youth-suicide-rate-rises-56-in-decade-cdc-says-11571284861 In other news it looks like bans in New York, Michigan, and Oregon are put on hold by the courts in each state. I think they're going to have a hard time getting these bans across the finish line especially once more people dig into the numbers. The CDC has revised down it's initial estimate of what people were using prior to being admitted to a hospital for these weird pulmonary issues popping up. Last week it was 17% of people claimed they only used nicotine, and now it's down to 10%. That doesn't take into account cases where people said they had only used nicotine and it was later found out they were lying about it. Even though people have been banging on about the disease outbreak being tied to black market THC carts the CDC is still being coy about it. They claimed in congressional testimony that the FDA and CDC were lock step with their messaging. You tell me. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/vaping-illness-update-fda-warns-public-stop-using-tetrahydrocannabinol-thc-containing-vaping https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html From what I understand with regards to public perception most people still don't know that the THC carts are most likely to blame, and a lot of people think that regular nicotine vaping is the cause. A while back I mentioned in the thread that it seemed like at times there seems to be this deliberate confusion being caused in order to bring people over to their "side" and asked me for examples. I think this is a pretty solid example of how this crisis and outbreak is being used to demonize vaping even though it's not where the outbreak occurred. I've watched a few streams of state legislatures and a few from congress discussing the issue and the complete lack of knowledge and deliberately misleading information is pretty striking. Not informing the public of where the danger actually is can get people killed. If the outbreak is isolated to THC products and people have it the other way around, they may continue using the products that are making people sick and avoid the ones that aren't contributing to the problem. If this isn't negligence I'm not sure what is. Meanwhile, once again, in the UK: https://www.parliament.uk/documents...-cigarettes.pdf quote:1. The UK has a ban on print and broadcast advertising with restriction on online marketing, Beating a dead horse here but I still do not understand why we are not using them as a model for how to regulate. edit: This is also worth a read for people who think vaping is some giant monolithic organization out to hook kids on a 10 juul pods a day or whatever. Spoiler: everyone loving hates Juul. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/e-cig-tobacco-fda-050357 On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Oct 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
The FDA recognized Snus as a "lower risk" tobacco product the other day. https://time.com/5707494/fda-endorse-tobacco-pouches/ This is interesting for a few reasons. It took years and a shitload of money for it to get through the process potentially laying a groundwork for what vape companies and other reduced risk products would have to go through. It's something that was set up in the 2009 tobacco control act that was lobbied by Phillip Morris. Essentially it means anyone who wants to compete with large tobacco companies need to jump through difficult and expensive regulatory hoops to make statements of relative risk. This is by design and it was one of the features of the bill Phillip Morris pushed for. The second reason is that these products have been used in Sweden for decades despite being banned throughout Europe for no discernible reason. Sweden actually uses and consumes quite a bit of tobacco due to the prevalence of Snus, but only 5% of the population smoke. Sweden has by far the lowest incidents of smoking related disease and death in all of EU. Governments keep saying that this product doesn't reduce risk, but the numbers paint an abundantly different picture of risk. The epidemiology is very clear on this. The last reason is that despite the widespread fear that nicotine use is somehow equal to the risk of cigarettes it shows that casual and recreational use of nicotine in a form outside of cigarettes doesn't translate to increased morbidity. Rates of oral cancer among users of Snus is comparable to those who don't use it or any other tobacco product. Lung cancer rates are a similar story. There also doesn't seem to be any increased cardiovascular disease among Snus users. The laws in the EU banning the use and sale of Snus outside of Sweden, along with trends among the general population, have inadvertently created a perfect experiment for testing whether the introduction of a reduced harm product is a benefit to public health. It's obvious to anyone looking at rates of death and disease that it has been a boon to public health. What's very odd is that the FDA has already threatened to pull the approval to say these are modified/lower risk products if they feel it doesn't benefit public health. This would essentially force companies to follow the same guidelines as tobacco cigarettes. Even though the data is extremely clear that these do not pose anywhere near the same risks as cigarettes the FDA is stating that companies cannot and will not be allowed to make that claim. Again, people wonder why there is a distrust of the FDA and many public health officials to properly regulated reduced harm products. This is another reason why that is. They are deliberately misleading the public of relative risk much like they are with ENDS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
what motivation does the FDA have to mislead the public about the dangers of nicotine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:what motivation does the FDA have to mislead the public about the dangers of nicotine? I don't know if I'd call it a "motivation", but it certainly isn't honest. Nicotine has always been tied to cigarettes obviously and I think they haven't done anything the separate the two and explain why nicotine on its own isn't really harmful, while smoking tobacco is. A lot of people believe most of the harm from smoking actually comes from nicotine, and public health in America doesn't seem motivated to make a distinction between the two. I think it's more of a moral reason than scientific which is pretty dishonest. What's more confusing is that the FDA doesn't classify nicotine as a carcinogen and allows the sale of cessation products over the counter. There are forms of nicotine that are vastly less harmful than cigarettes and not making a distinction between those and cigarettes is dangerous and misleading. The public should be made aware that there are safer options than smoking and if they are unable or unwilling to give up nicotine there should be an effort to guide people to those less harmful alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:A lot of people believe most of the harm from smoking actually comes from nicotine, and public health in America doesn't seem motivated to make a distinction between the two. this is from the FDA website quote:Most people know that cigarettes and other tobacco products are addictive, but many people do not understand the role of nicotine in tobacco addiction, disease, and death. Nicotine is what addicts and keeps people using tobacco products, but it is not what makes tobacco use so deadly. Tobacco and tobacco smoke contain thousands of chemicals. It is this mix of chemicals—not nicotine—that causes serious disease and death in tobacco users, including fatal lung diseases, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cancer. and regarding this On Terra Firma posted:There are forms of nicotine that are vastly less harmful than cigarettes and not making a distinction between those and cigarettes is dangerous and misleading. The public should be made aware that there are safer options than smoking and if they are unable or unwilling to give up nicotine there should be an effort to guide people to those less harmful alternatives. quote:Nicotine Replacement Therapies: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) poses the lowest risk to health among all nicotine-containing products, and thus falls on the opposite end of the nicotine-delivery risk spectrum, whereas cigarettes are the most harmful. FDA-approved NRTs are designed to reduce symptoms of nicotine withdrawal and help adults quit smoking by delivering small amounts of nicotine to the brain without the toxic chemicals present in cigarette smoke. If used properly, NRTs are safe and effective cessation methods and can double an addicted smoker’s chances of successfully quitting cigarettes.11 NRTs are available both by prescription in the form of oral inhaler and nasal spray, and over-the-counter for adults age 18 and over as skin patches, lozenges, and gum. i don't want to sound too confrontational or kick this thread up into a slapfight again, but all of your arguments use addict logic. your primary motivation in this thread seems to be trying to assert that nicotine is unfairly maligned which is... not a popular argument if you're wondering why this thread seems to be low traffic, i suspect that it is because trying to argue with an addict who is busy rationalizing their addiction is something many adults have done in their lives and choose not to engage with if they can avoid it Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
They do not promote the idea that there are a variety of vehicles for nicotine delivery and do little or nothing to explain where they fall on the spectrum of harm. Their paragraphs on ENDS are very ambiguous when contrasted with public statements from PHE. I do not understand why that is. I'm not alone in that.luxury handset posted:I don't want to sound too confrontational or kick this thread up into a slapfight again, but all of your arguments use addict logic. your primary motivation in this thread seems to be trying to assert that nicotine is unfairly maligned which is... not a popular argument If you don't want to be confrontational then don't be a dick. You keep asserting that the point of this thread is to justify addiction when it isn't. My primary concern is that people like you simply dismiss all of this information because of your hatred of people addicted to nicotine. Just about every point I've made when discussing this with you has had you come back saying that it doesn't matter what the science says I'm just looking for an excuse to use nicotine. That wasn't an argument the first time and it still isn't. It's you being a massive dick. You're opposed to tobacco harm reduction not on the merits or the science, but because you don't like addicts. I get it. It's hosed and governments holding similar positions will probably end up getting people killed, but I get it. quote:if you're wondering why this thread seems to be low traffic, i suspect that it is because trying to argue with an addict who is busy rationalizing their addiction is something many adults have done in their lives and choose not to engage with if they can avoid it I kept posting because mods said they didn't want vaping or harm reduction chat popping up in the USpol threads. I find this stuff very very interesting. If you want to jump in and justify your dislike or borderline hatred of people who use nicotine feel free, but you look like an uninformed rear end in a top hat in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:If you don't want to be confrontational then don't be a dick. You keep asserting that the point of this thread is to justify addiction when it isn't. My primary concern is that people like you simply dismiss all of this information because of your hatred of people addicted to nicotine. again, i just want to emphasize i'm not calling you an addict as a way to minimize your arguments or to indicate you have bad morals or something. i am also addicted to nicotine right now. you reflexively retreat to "moral panic" or "you hate drugs" but i promise this argument is very weak and not applicable i am only saying it because i perceive a bias about what topics you are willing to consider in this thread, the way you argue about those topics, the way in which you selectively use studies which support your point as an authority while dismissing studies that don't agree with you, and your use of some baffling takes like "is nicotine addiction really that bad for your health anyway" and "how concerned should we really be about teenage drug use" you made an assertion about the FDA which seemed weird to me, i posted what the FDA had to say on their website, you backpedaled again and reframed your argument from "the FDA doesn't distinguish between nicotine and tobacco" to "the FDA doesn't agree with me about ENDS" which is... exactly what someone addicted to ENDS nicotine use in an advocacy thread would say it indicates a level of firmness in your stance on the issue which is unlikely to lead to any productive conversation, and the thread takes on the tone more of an intervention than a debate. you're not really willing to consider alternative perspectives, you just want people to agree with you about vaping. that's what TCC is for in my opinion On Terra Firma posted:If you want to jump in and justify your dislike or borderline hatred of people who use nicotine feel free, but you look like an uninformed rear end in a top hat in the process. ok  i've said i use nicotine in this thread so, this is just part of a pattern of you reorganizing reality to confirm your biases. this is how an addict thinks, my manwhat i find odd is that on the one hand you will say things like "is it really a big deal if people are addicted to nicotine" and then get all huffy when i point out you are a nicotine addict and how this may influence the way you think. is nicotine addiction bad, or is it not? Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:again, i just want to emphasize i'm not calling you an addict as a way to minimize your arguments or to indicate you have bad morals or something. i am also addicted to nicotine right now. you reflexively retreat to "moral panic" or "you hate drugs" but i promise this argument is very weak and not applicable It's not that simple and you know it. Others have called you out on it as well because when I put forward any kind of position/argument/article/study you automatically default to "see this is what an addict WOULD say". quote:i am only saying it because i perceive a bias about what topics you are willing to consider in this thread, the way you argue about those topics, the way in which you selectively use studies which support your point as an authority while dismissing studies that don't agree with you, and your use of some baffling takes like "is nicotine addiction really that bad for your health anyway" and "how concerned should we really be about teenage drug use" There is a difference between deliberately selecting studies that confirm my view on the subject and dismissing studies which have shown to be based on bad science or faulty methodology. A good example would be the study Stanton Glantz did a while back linking ENDS to heart attacks. This was shared all over the place for weeks until other scientists actually looked at the numbers he was using. In the case of Glantz he misrepresented the underlying data and attributed heart attacks to vaping in people who at the time hadn't ever vaped. He just said "You have had a heart attack in your life and that is because of vaping. Oh you only vaped AFTER? Vaping still did that." I'm not sure why pointing out how irresponsible that is amounts to be selecting studies that support my bias. Regardless of someones position on the subject they should be made aware that the study was a joke and should be retracted. There was another study that stated ENDS had a higher amount of formaldehyde than tobacco that was trotted out left and right. Turns out researchers lit the coils and cotton on fire, let it burn, then took measurements and presented that as if that's how people vaped. That's insane and it's not representative of real world use. That didn't stop people from promoting the study as well as Glantz's. When people, including world class researchers and health organizations, point out how hosed this stuff is we're told we're dismissing valid scientific research in favor of confirming our biases and worldview. They're kind of doing what you're doing here come to think of it. quote:it indicates a level of firmness in your stance on the issue which is unlikely to lead to any productive conversation, and the thread takes on the tone more of an intervention than a debate. you're not really willing to consider alternative perspectives, you just want people to agree with you about vaping. that's what TCC is for in my opinion There have been plenty of posts in here where I've agreed with people who at least to me seem very anti-vaping. I am genuinely interested in others opinions about the topic. I don't like bringing it up in TCC because there is no discussion about public policy or public perception. That doesn't mean I'm not going to make an attempt to clear up misconceptions or exaggerations in the process. quote:what i find odd is that on the one hand you will say things like "is it really a big deal if people are addicted to nicotine" and then get all huffy when i point out you are a nicotine addict and how this may influence the way you think. is nicotine addiction bad, or is it not? I think if you are using nicotine in a product with minimal risk it's not that big of a deal. As PHE and other health organizations have stated on its own the addictive potential is lower than in cigarettes and the effects are similar to caffeine. Maybe you take issue with that assessment or hell maybe you don't. Claiming that I hold my views simply because I use nicotine is dismissive and insulting especially when I've provided so much information to back up and substantiate my positions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I think if you are using nicotine in a product with minimal risk it's not that big of a deal. As PHE and other health organizations have stated on its own the addictive potential is lower than in cigarettes and the effects are similar to caffeine. Maybe you take issue with that assessment or hell maybe you don't. Claiming that I hold my views simply because I use nicotine is dismissive and insulting especially when I've provided so much information to back up and substantiate my positions. you haven't really, but i can't assert my perspective into your reality, so all i can do is point out why i personally believe your argumentation itt tacks the way it does and leave it at that. the best and most medically sound advice here is to quit using nicotine entirely using empirically tested NRT products, but your lower threshold seems to be continued use of nicotine delivery products while advocating perpetual nicotine use. hence why i say you argue like someone who is more interested in rationalizing the use of an addictive substance, which is very odd when couched as a public health position when you get to the point that you're vaguely questioning the motivations of the FDA for not agreeing with you about your preferred substance use then it should be clear where the limits of your perception are. and we have a word for people who are unwilling to consider the benefits of total abstinence from substance use Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you haven't really, but i can't assert my perspective into your reality, so all i can do is point out why i personally believe your argumentation itt tacks the way it does and leave it at that. the best and most medically sound advice here is to quit using nicotine entirely using empirically tested NRT products, but your lower threshold seems to be continued use of nicotine delivery products while advocating perpetual nicotine use. hence why i say you argue like someone who is more interested in rationalizing the use of an addictive substance, which is very odd when couched as a public health position You're doing it again. I've posted numerous sources of information showing where these products fall on a scale of relative harm and how well they work for smoking cessation. I've got plenty of data and information to back up what I believe. If you think what I've posted isn't enough tell me what would be. What would it take to make you change your mind? If I saw studies where biomarkers of harm were showing up in equal levels to smokers, I'd take notice immediately. If I saw widespread disease popping up among people who had been vaping over the last 10 years, I'd reconsider my positions. If I found out that studies I've cited had falsified data or left out information that would have altered their results, I'd change my tune real loving quick. What about you? Getting people to transition to a considerably safer set of products with the goal of reducing death and disease is "odd" to you? Most people cannot or won't quit. If you give them something else to use that is shown to be of minimal risk I don't see what the problem is. You appear to think this is a bad strategy and I think it's mostly because you think addiction is what's killing people, and not what people are using in order to maintain it. quote:when you get to the point that you're vaguely questioning the motivations of the FDA for not agreeing with you about your preferred substance use then it should be clear where the limits of your perception are. and we have a word for people who are unwilling to consider the benefits of total abstinence from substance use I don't know why you would fully trust them when they have been loudly touting exaggerated numbers about teen use, have approved new tobacco products for market that are way less safe than vaping in clinical trials (IQOS), and sat on their hands while people died or fell ill due to black market THC products. There is a whole lot to be skeptical of there. I am not some dipshit libertarian that believes government is evil. I'm left leaning as gently caress and even I have been shocked and confused by their behavior over the last few years. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i don't want to sound too confrontational or kick this thread up into a slapfight again, but all of your arguments use addict logic. your primary motivation in this thread seems to be trying to assert that nicotine is unfairly maligned which is... not a popular argument There's kind of a fine line here where what you're describing as "addict logic" can be used as an argument against all harm reduction measures. Like, someone could also point to someone arguing in favor of suboxone and be like "this is addict logic of someone trying to defend their continued use of the drug." There's also the inverse of "addict logic," which is the "recovered addict who is convinced that their experience with recovery is universally applicable."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's kind of a fine line here where what you're describing as "addict logic" can be used as an argument against all harm reduction measures. Like, someone could also point to someone arguing in favor of suboxone and be like "this is addict logic of someone trying to defend their continued use of the drug." suboxone is a recognized treatment used for opiate addiciton though vapes are not a recognized treatment for nicotine addiction nor is it demonstrated yet that they are safer than tobacco, yet a tremendous amount of the OP's arguments in this thread revolve around cherry picking studies to assert this argument and minimizing the portion of the public health apparatus which does not endorse OP's preferred method of nicotine use, like so: On Terra Firma posted:I don't know why you would fully trust them when they have been loudly touting exaggerated numbers about teen use, have approved new tobacco products for market that are way less safe than vaping in clinical trials (IQOS), and sat on their hands while people died or fell ill due to black market THC products. OP is committed to their perspective and there's really only very few reasons for this level of stubbornness. given we are talking about one of the most addictive substances on the planet... it just seems obvious to me what's going on here
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:suboxone is a recognized treatment used for opiate addiciton though To say they have not shown to be safer than cigarettes is a flat out lie at this point. You know this and I know this so just drop the act. Public health England widely promotes them as a treatment and so far it's worked exceptionally well. You've lied about a lot of things in this thread but man, it's admirable how committed you are to being this deliberately dishonest. quote:OP is committed to their perspective and there's really only very few reasons for this level of stubbornness. given we are talking about one of the most addictive substances on the planet... it just seems obvious to me what's going on here Once again, no rebuttal. Just "You're an addict" and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Makes me wonder, is vaping even an addiction in the psychiatric sense? Don't you need some negative consequences/harm for that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Addiction doesn't mean it's harmful, it just means you have an inability to stop consuming a substance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Makes me wonder, is vaping even an addiction in the psychiatric sense? Don't you need some negative consequences/harm for that? "Addiction" isn't quite the word anymore. The relevant bit in the DSM 5 would be a diagnosis of a substance use disorder, specifically tobacco. Pretty sure E-cigs, vape pens, and so on are considered a tobacco product for the purposes of that section. The large majority of diagnostic criteria do involve behavior/impairment in some fashion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
CRIP EATIN BREAD posted:Addiction doesn't mean it's harmful, it just means you have an inability to stop consuming a substance. Such a definition would make oxygen and water addictive. eviltastic posted:"Addiction" isn't quite the word anymore. The relevant bit in the DSM 5 would be a diagnosis of a substance use disorder, specifically tobacco. Pretty sure E-cigs, vape pens, and so on are considered a tobacco product for the purposes of that section. The large majority of diagnostic criteria do involve behavior/impairment in some fashion. Yeah, but why would it be included? What's the impairment? Now that I think about it, there are definitely social consequences cause you usually have to go outside for vaping which can be isolating. Also, you need to take regular vape breaks which can have negative consequences on your job performance. But then again, you get similar impairments from caffeine consumption and nobody would call a coffee drinker impaired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Makes me wonder, is vaping even an addiction in the psychiatric sense? Don't you need some negative consequences/harm for that? Not sure. One thing about nicotine that gets glossed over is that when you remove it from cigarettes the addiction potential goes down. I don't know by how much but there is a lot of chemicals in cigarettes that amplify whatever addictive potential there is in nicotine and makes the urge to consume much stronger. GABA ghoul posted:Now that I think about it, there are definitely social consequences cause you usually have to go outside for vaping which can be isolating. Also, you need to take regular vape breaks which can have negative consequences on your job performance. But then again, you get similar impairments from caffeine consumption and nobody would call a coffee drinker impaired. The act of drinking coffee isn't really a bother to anyone but the coffee drinker. Vaping around other people is incredibly obnoxious especially if someone is using an open device that produces large amounts of vapor. I think there are plenty of people out there who could be considered "impaired" if they had to go through caffeine withdrawal though. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:
If your grandma had to smoke something, and you could get her to choose between regular cigarettes or a vape, are you telling me you would just say "ehh who knows if its really any safer?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:If your grandma had to smoke something, and you could get her to choose between regular cigarettes or a vape, are you telling me you would just say "ehh who knows if its really any safer?" I dunno let's ask the Canadian government who just updated their guidance on ENDS: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...dvKnEjdY2-t4#a1
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
One big issue is that the conception of "addiction" and "addict" have long been moral characterizations. The phrase "addict logic" illustrates that clearly-- the "addict" is seen not as an adult making the same combination of rational and irrational decisions that all humans make, but as a defensive, morally weak person who is unable to know what's best for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Yeah, but why would it be included? What's the impairment? "Impairment" in this sense meaning something much broader than, like, loss of coordination from alcohol. It would be more directed to things like impaired control over usage, social impairment like you mentioned, and so on. The absence of caffeine from the list is controversial. Right now, caffeine use disorder is recognized by the DSM folks as needing more study. I don't know enough about it to weigh in, but I'd imagine the case for it would start with people who had a need or desire to stop using it and couldn't. Think people with insomnia, heart/cardio conditions, or anxiety. Risky use like combining with alcohol to party harder without passing out also comes to mind. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:One big issue is that the conception of "addiction" and "addict" have long been moral characterizations. This seems to be the position a lot of tobacco control specialists take in the US. I understand it, but it clouds their judgement when it comes to NRT or any forms of harm reduction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
I live in Washington State and I was pretty upset about the ban on flavors. I see my Governor wrapping "for the kids" and "lung disease" into the same thing and it pisses me off. I think people don't want yet another addition device on the market and unfortunately, vaping has been around too long and is a very easy product to use so I think it scares people who are against smoking in general and the knee jerk reaction is "get rid of this dirty habit at all costs" which translates to misinformation in the media. I totally understand where the anti smokers are coming from but I think it's misguided. I mean I hate what Juul was doing to market their product and I'm glad they are getting sued. I just wish people would try to see something beyond their own agendas. I mean people don't have to agree but trying to understand the other side better than just shutting it all down with hiperbole. People are going to hate smokers and have no sympathy for the habit or any alternative habits no matter the outcome. And hey, that's okay. But the big problem I see is big tobacco setting itself up for controlling the market in this. Vaping isn't going away. It's too wide spread and Philip Morris wants to be top dog. But one hurdle to that is all the small businesses that popped up over the ten or so years since vaping started. There's good competition and customer loyalty that Philip Morris has to contend with. So flavor bans. No problem. Flavor bans are a death sentence for most of these small vaping businesses. That's a fact. I've seen it first hand in my state. And that works out for big tobacco. Then after the path is clear, big tobacco has all the time and money to come in and say "hey we made sure no one will get lung disease from our new vaping product, we already don't market to kids" and then they control the market. I mean they don't care if there's a ban, they can weather it and they know it. I kinda liked the fact that I was buying from small companies like Mt Baker Vapor and such. It sucks that after all this is over it'll pretty much be Philip Morris or nothing. And yet the anti smokers will think they won. Anti smokers don't give a rats rear end about us and I get that but it still sucks. I hate when people take the "serves you right" stance without any true desire to learn about what's going on, who's effected, and how, in the end, big tobacco always wins. Funny how big tobacco and "public health" are suddenly on the same side with the same agenda. And yet, no one really cares about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:
maybe they aren't really on the same side at all, and this is something which is easy to think because big tobacco and big government are both very big and distant and different from us. us being the hobbyists, the plucky independents, the little old homespun vape enthusiasts who are in no way in perfect alignment with tobacco companies about how to best expand the nicotine market
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:maybe they aren't really on the same side at all, and this is something which is easy to think because big tobacco and big government are both very big and distant and different from us. us being the hobbyists, the plucky independents, the little old homespun vape enthusiasts who are in no way in perfect alignment with tobacco companies about how to best expand the nicotine market Weird how you keep trotting this insinuation out. Tobacco companies failed over and over and over again trying to enter the market that was built out of small companies and hobbyists. Nobody wanted to use their lovely products. It wasn't until Altria bought up Juul that any sizable portion of the market was controlled by a tobacco company. Pretty much everything prior to that was based on people tinkering with devices, building/manufacturing their own, or making their own e-liquid. Kind of an important distinction to understand and one you repeatedly ignore in favor of spinning your own narrative and attempting to re-write history in the process. Even if you think I am full of it, he's not wrong. I have repeatedly pointed out that the way the regulations are set up right now Juul and large tobacco companies will be able to get through the process and get their products into the market and smaller companies will not. They will be the ones to capitalize on this and not the smaller businesses. I would prefer lots of small companies all trying not to get lit up by the FDA and other regulatory agencies over a handful of massive companies that have repeatedly found a way to get around regulation and responsibility for the products they sell. If that's the future you want ok, cool. That's your thing. Stop pretending like the outcome will be different from what I and others have been pointing out because control of the market is already being given over to tobacco companies at the expense of independent shops. Also want to point out that Wells Fargo and others are predicting a rise in smoking rates (and tobacco sales) due to the banning of these products. Great job. High fives all around right? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-23/vaping-illness-gives-cigarettes-a-second-wind On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:maybe they aren't really on the same side at all, and this is something which is easy to think because big tobacco and big government are both very big and distant and different from us. us being the hobbyists, the plucky independents, the little old homespun vape enthusiasts who are in no way in perfect alignment with tobacco companies about how to best expand the nicotine market Don't be condescending to me just because you disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
inkblottime posted:Don't be condescending to me just because you disagree. That's his gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 04:57
|
|