|
On Terra Firma posted:Harm Reduction in practice in my opinion harm reduction is clinically proven techniques which get people to stop smoking, and i see vaping as the same sort of stealth "safe smoking" nicotine delivery that big tobacco has been trying to push for decades. i absolutely do not trust companies which sell addictive substances to be concerned about the health of their customers beyond the extent necessary to ensure they are not killing or driving away new business https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/juul-big-tobacco-marketing/592174/ quote:Out of a firestorm of controversy over teen nicotine use, Juul Labs emerged in January with a newly sober and adult marketing identity. Forget the fruit-flavored vaping pods, the colorful ads populated with young models, the viral Instagram and Facebook posts. What the Silicon Valley e-cigarette giant is really about, its $10 million television ad campaign declares, is helping cigarette smokers shake their cigarette addictions and get healthy. of course, tobacco companies have been selling this line for decades  juul labs was specifically warned by the FDA to knock this poo poo off https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...-outreach-youth quote:“Regardless of where products like e-cigarettes fall on the continuum of tobacco product risk, the law is clear that, before marketing tobacco products for reduced risk, companies must demonstrate with scientific evidence that their specific product does in fact pose less risk or is less harmful. JUUL has ignored the law, and very concerningly, has made some of these statements in school to our nation’s youth,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, M.D. “In addition, we’re troubled about several issues related to JUUL’s outreach and marketing practices that came to light in a recent Congressional hearing. We will continue to scrutinize tobacco product marketing and take action as appropriate to ensure that the public is not misled into believing a certain product has been proven less risky or less harmful. We remain committed to using all available tools to ensure that e-cigarettes and other tobacco products aren’t being marketed or sold to kids. We’ve also put the industry on notice: If the disturbing rise in youth e-cigarette use continues, especially through the use of flavors that appeal to kids, we’ll take even more aggressive action.” same techniques, different company. your individual desire to defend large companies who sell addictive substances based on how marginally healthy those substances are for you is your choice, but to me it is obvious and blatant marketing to a willing, captive audience full disclosure - i have been a smoker for 12+ years and smoke about a pack of cigs a week Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Oct 2, 2019 |
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:You should read the studies that I posted from incredibly reputable organizations that explained what risk the products pose though since that does seem to be a concern of yours. i read those the first time you posted those in another thread, and i think you have a habit of pointing at a collection of articles and saying "read these!" as if the evidence they contain is a trump to dismiss all arguments, or as if they were the final word on the subject however, the part of my post you quoted is not about whether or not vaping is less harmful than smoking. the articles you invoke do not address this argument of mine. it is about my personal distrust of companies which sell addictive substances by trying to claim that their substance is less harmful than an alternative, which is something that nicotine peddlers have been falsely claiming for nearly a century it simply does not make sense to me that any company would sell an addictive product with the end goal of having nobody using their addictive product anymore. it does make sense to me that a company would claim, without evidence, that their product is safer in an attempt to gain market share
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:At the very least, I would assume that everyone can at least agree that vaping shouldn't be made illegal as long as "regular" cigarettes are still legal. the proposed flavored vape ban would mirror a 2009 act which banned flavored cigarettes in the united states (except menthol). there's no proposal to ban all vaping at the federal level, though some states are doing it (for bad reasons, in my opinion) the reason they're going after flavoring in nicotine is that there is substantial evidence, both from the medical community and from internal market research by tobacco companies, that flavorings help draw in children and young adults who would otherwise be turned off by the harsher flavor of natural tobacco. the alcohol industry has also figured out this trick Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:In this case it's health organizations that have been sounding the alarm on tobacco for over half a century making the claim. The reason I keep bringing it up is that you keep dismissing it outright and saying it isn't relevant. i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco i am saying that it should be obvious what the motivations are for a company that sells nicotine, about if they want people to use less nicotine, or more nicotine. we should be very skeptical about any claim from a nicotine-selling company regarding the benefits and usage frequency of their addictive product you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this On Terra Firma posted:There is also a lot of evidence to suggest one of the primary reasons adults switch to vaping is because of the flavors. There's a reason tobacco flavoring doesn't really sell all that well. Nobody wants it. Flavors are enticing for adults because it's a way to get nicotine without using something that tastes like poo poo. Talk to anyone who uses these devices and they'll tell you the same thing. If they're properly regulated like (sounding like a broken record here) in the UK this wouldn't really be an issue the way it is in the states. i don't really care about adults who prefer to ingest nicotine with floral flavors. i am far more interested in preventing children from starting to use substances which cause a lifelong addiction. adults can deal with it your assertion that "proper regulation" like in the UK would prevent the problems seen in the USA is flawed and unsupported, since there very likely cultural differences in nicotine consumption and how it is viewed in both nations. i agree that we do need stricter regulation in the USA, but part of the regulation in the UK includes limits on nicotine concentration in vape juice as well as notification of regulatory bodies for every product which can be sold, which seems like it would hurt the mom and pop vape shops used as a shield against burdensome regulaton i also dislike this argument because it smacks too hard of nicotine sellers pointing their finger at big bad government and saying "why didn't they stop me from selling this addictive substance" then crying foul when regulation does come, saying actually we would prefer a different kind of regulation please. like we can constantly play this shell game about how the pending regulation is bad, and this other theoretical regulation is good, where the real objective is just to keep vaping in a legal grey market so people can continue to profit off the deregulated sale of addictive substances to addicts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:there has been a concerted effort in the US to confuse people about whether tobacco or vaping is more harmful to refocus on one single argument - who is doing this confusing, and why?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I hope that answered your question. it did, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:No one is going to argue that vaping isn't almost definitely safer than smoking, we're asking you to look at the entire rest of the role of nicotine in the world. And frankly they're just misusing harm reduction at this point as an excuse to sell more nicotine to people that they purposely got hooked on nicotine in the first place. i'm kind of done with this thread after the op's "How bad is nicotine addiction, really?" post On Terra Firma posted:The main points here, at least to me, seem to be that ends are bad because they contain nicotine. It's the first headline and all subsequent points are about how nicotine leads to bad things. like, this thread probably should be folded into TCC if we're not really supposed to challenge the idea of substance addiction being itself harmful, and we are instead supposed to discuss the safest ways to use addictive substances and cheerlead our preferable sectors of the nicotine industry https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762 Taphreek posted:To me that is 95% of the beef that vape haters have with the whole thing. Nicotine bad, addictive substance bad they say...as they drink their coffee and sip their alcoholic beverages. It smacks of puritanism in a different guise. who is defending alcohol itt there's no reason to post in a thread about addictive substances with people who are addicted to those substances and are unwilling to discuss the possibility that addiction itself is not good Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:What I have said is that if people are addicted to something and can't/won't quit then they should probably switch to a much less harmful alternative. there are actual, medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there with a decently high rate of effectiveness. you would prefer to talk about your chosen method of nicotine ingestion and use corporate messaging to draw false distinctions between the noble, innovative, mom and pop nicotine sellers who are totally not at all in the same business as the hated Big Tobacco this is how addicts think about their chosen substance. it's not really something anyone can argue against since the addict has very real, personal, neurologically driven reasons to rationalize their substance use. i say this as a nicotine addict who would very much like to prevent kids from ever using the stuff to begin with. i simply do not think you can objectively consider arguments against your position itt 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How credible and valid are the studies done by the UK government, and how relevant are they to the USA? credible, but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5480094 the important part is that there are medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there. and nicotine selling firms have a decades long history of claiming their product is healthier, in order to keep their captive market of addicts who would otherwise be motivated to quit because of health risks Calibanibal posted:I'm not really interested in nicotine policy in the UK. How are other countries dealing with vaping? it's a mixed bag. most countries treat them similarly to traditional tobacco cigarettes, some countries have no special regulation at this time, though some countries like japan, brazil, and india (sort of) have banned them. regulations are all across the spectrum globally, because of the relative newness of the product and lack of information about the health impacts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
Entorwellian posted:I had to go to the hospital for my asthma (viral bronchitis) and the doctors there were telling me about the staggering amount of people that are coming in for vaping-related shortness of breath and pneumonia in the last couple of months, nearly all of them young. They said they've never seen anything like it before in their time of working there. After reading a lot of literature and the results being all over the map, seeing the reports coming in and the lack of long term data over vaping, I believe it now that vaping is not as safe as others are claiming all of this is probably because of some oddity in the DIY vape supply chain, which is why it's extra weird to pretend there's some distinction between the corner bob's budget vape shop and big tobacco, which is worse somehow because it doesn't respect vape culture (of ingesting unknown fluids into your lungs)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Ah yes France, the country where a decade ago you could still legally smoke a cigarette on an elevator full of children. if you have to choose, wouldn't you rather someone blow a banana scented propylene glycol cloud into your child's face? On Terra Firma posted:anti-vaping researchers are these the same people who unfairly demonize nicotine addiction?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:They're the same types of people that falsified a report a few months back about people who vape having higher rates of heart attacks than those that don't. Once the actual data was released it was discovered that those who did the study took anyone who had a heart attack ever, including before using e-cigarettes, and attributed it to ENDS usage. Once you accounted for ENDS the rate of heart attacks following switching from smoking to vaping went down significantly. The data said the opposite of what the study said. That didn't stop them from promoting it far and wide. Are you alright with that? are you seriously asking me to defend a paper i haven't read and which you didn't cite based on your addict's paraphrasing of why you don't like what it had to say
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:No I'm asking if you're alright with that type of behavior in the research because the way you posed it to me was that I was somehow dismissing all evidence that I didn't agree with. yeah i've already directly said i don't find you credible itt, and i'd rather not keep repeating myself this is a weird thing to ask of someone - "do you or do you not agree with my perspective on a paper that i have not posted, for you to read?" - and i shouldn't have to explain why that is a weird thing to ask of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So you think my concern for hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide dying needlessly is a front? i think that you are discounting more effective solutions for the one which allows you to personally continue using a highly addictive substance. this is expected behavior for an addict your concern for the health of others is likely sincere, but you are also willing to compromise on that concern for your own convenience
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:You keep saying "more effective" as if we don't have data on the effectiveness of ENDS as a mean to quitting. we don't. the science is inconclusive. you have to pick out the studies that support what you would choose to believe while discarding or discrediting the others as being the work of moralizing anti-vapers On Terra Firma posted:If we have a weapon we can add to the arsenal to combat smoking I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing. it is not a good thing if it is a "weapon" used to gain new markets for multinational firms that sell nicotine On Terra Firma posted:Me using or not using the product is irrelevant people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Maybe you should just admit you're making a moral prohibitionist argument instead of trying to pretend you're engaging in any kind of actual rationalism. It would go better for you, and we could all move on with our lives instead of have to deal with you "just asking questions" and arguing in bad faith. i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
ErIog posted:One the one hand you accuse On Terra Firma of being a corporate shill for big tobacco, but if you actually look at what big tobacco wants right now it's actually closer to your position. Big tobacco would very much like vaping to be more heavily regulated than cigarettes so they don't have to compete with it. big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-01/vaping-flavors-obama-white-house-fda quote:If the FDA ban had gone through, the kid-friendly vaping liquids would have been pushed off store shelves.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
also please compare these statements by the RJ Reynolds corporation with any of the arguments made by the OP and tell me where they differ https://www.reynoldsamerican.com/Transforming-Tobacco/default.aspx quote:RAI and its subsidiaries are committed to reducing the death and disease caused by cigarettes. There has been a significant decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the past 30 years, but the rate of decline has slowed. A substantial body of scientific research has shown that smokeless tobacco products present significantly less harm than cigarettes. Several of our operating companies are working to innovate and introduce new products that meet the expectations of adult smokers while offering the potential to reduce risk. In addition to smokeless products, we believe that other non-combustible smoke-free products, such as vapor products and other innovations, may reduce harm to smokers who switch to them. RAI’s U.S. operating companies have long been recognized as the innovation leaders in the tobacco industry. Emerging product categories that offer the potential to reduce tobacco harm allow us to be growth leaders in expanding markets that also offer potential for higher margins. That’s good for smokers, for our society and for the sustainability of RAI.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
ErIog posted:This is a complete misread of what happened and what the article says. The primary concern at that time wasn't vaping itself, but the flavor ban. that is... exactly what i said?  luxury handset posted:big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes ErIog posted:If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice? do i really have to explain why a company that wants to boost its profit margins would prefer to sell proprietary non-refillable products is that where we are at now, in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
ErIog posted:in response you posted an article about them opposing a flavored vape ban as evidence that they actually liked vaping no i didn't i posted an article demonstrating big tobacco lobbying against regulation on vaping. you may be reading it differently but again, this is your problem, not minei guess i could see how it would be confusing if you believe big tobacco hates vaping so much that they release vape products and buy vape companies and lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I'm not repeating corporate marketing. I'm repeating what the loving science and studies have said. no, you are repeating corporate propaganda. here is what altria has to say, what part of this do you disagree with? http://www.altria.com/harm-reduction/Supporting-Cessation/Pages/default.aspx quote:The Role of Nicotine if your statements itt are indistinguishable from the public statements of big tobacco companies, then why do you dislike being associated with these words which are identical to yours?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
here's what philip morris has to say https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/designing-a-smoke-free-future quote:How long will PMI be in the cigarette business? if your arguments are identical to the largest tobacco companies in the world, then where is the distance between you and them? you can keep claiming that your arguments are different because big tobacco is bad and you are good, but the arguments do not differ in any way i can see. i have to assume that you are being dishonest with yourself
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Juul and Altria are not going to fight the FDA on that i'm confused about when you choose to trust the words of big tobacco or not. like i personally don't trust them when they make claims under pressure in a moment of bad press and PR crisis, especially when they have a shadow network of "grassroots" firms to do this lobbying on their behalf. but it seems you don't trust the companies when they make the same statements you make, using the same language and justification, which are different somehow for reasons so far unclear to me if your arguments are derived from rational facts and logical science, is this true for the identical arguments made by big tobacco companies? if so, why is the FDA dragging their heels about permitting these devices to be sold as smoking cessation tools as claimed by both you and the largest tobacco companies?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:No one is saying that you are shilling, just that your words are indistinguishable from a shill i am saying both. not that OP is actually accepting money from a tobacco company, but if they were they would not have to change their speech in any way. corporate market research is just that effective at persuasion. well, you do not have to do much to persuade a nicotine user to find positive things to say about continued nicotine use
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Big tobacco hasn't really released vape products in a big way (or at least not as big as heat-not-burn). ErIog posted:Even if you're only talking about the situation as it stands today in 2019, a single tobacco company having a stake in a single vape company isn't an industry trend. The industry hasn't moved to vape products en masse. yes, they have https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-cigarettes quote:Tobacco companies were relatively slow to enter the e-cigarette market, but soon made up for lost time using their size and financial firepower to take over a market that was reported by the Financial Times in June 2013 to be worth $3 billion globally. Historically, the market was highly fragmented and largely dominated by small players but large manufacturers are increasingly entering the market with their own products and are also buying already established brands. Tobacco companies already have established distribution points and the resources to cover the costs of marketing and the demands that will likely come with future regulation.[1] this is where you are supposed to pivot and move the goalposts to "these products weren't successful anyway"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I guess you're going to say it doesn't matter, it's all the same grand conspiracy. there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect ErIog posted:You appear to support banning vaping because you think it's the same as smoking or heat-not-burn, and that's extremely short-sighted. Using the current hysteria i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. this makes the people advocating those arguments itt highly uncomfortable and prone to lashing out with accusations of moral panic or galloping into irrelevant detail about the noble history of the vape industry, for reasons which should be obvious i have also pointed out the links between personal nicotine usage and shoddy argumentation itt, which should also be obvious
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Weird how you talk about moving the goal posts but won't address the point that the science says the same thing. That's always conveniently left out in your insinuations. luxury handset posted:there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though On Terra Firma posted:What you posted also reinforces what have I said all along, and also glosses over what big tobaccos market share was prior to late 2018. They weren't moving units until Altria bought into Juul. Prior to that they couldn't get a foot hold. Most users were very averse to trying or using anything they made for obvious reasons. You have repeatedly claimed that vaping is something being driven by big tobacco which is, to use your own words, factually incorrect. When confronted by this you say it doesn't matter and everyone selling nicotine is just the same. luxury handset posted:https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-cigarettes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So your position is that all of those health organizations went into their reviews with bias and selected hundreds of studies that pointed in one direction to establish a basis for public health policy? Including a study that went out and took direct measurements of carcinogens from users? That's what you're going with? How is your position any different from climate change denial? luxury handset posted:but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Yeah that's what I thought. You have no argument. You can't address it. Thanks! luxury handset posted:i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Just so it's clear what I'm referring to. You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. I said no and directed you to the evidence reviews. luxury handset posted:i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So the evidence reviews by PHE and the RCP are big tobacco talking points now? luxury handset posted:i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Knifefan posted:Prohibiting flavored vape products and heavily restricting sales makes smoking tobacco more appealing. Also, describing high schoolers who vape(largely in the 16-18 age cohort) as "literal children" completely robs them of their agency. We have seen this age cohort become leaders on social issues like global warming and gun control and we trust them to operate motor vehicles and be employed. They do not need to be protected from nicotine which, absent disastrous public policy proposals, has a safety profile similar to other mild-moderate stimulants. ephebophilia, but from the perspective of a nicotine marketer
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
what motivation does the FDA have to mislead the public about the dangers of nicotine?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
inkblottime posted:Don't be condescending to me just because you disagree. it's odder to think that big government and big tobacco have more in common than big tobacco and little tobacco. to think that there is a distinction in companies which peddle nicotine, you have to create an artifical cultural disconnect between the big, bad conglomerates and the small, good mom and pops which is definitely convenient for nicotine marketing purposes then again literal big tobacco propaganda is being repeated itt as if it were some noble fight for individual consumer rights (remember: capitalism can subsume all criticism within itself) and it's still an open question in this thread about if the regular consumption of addictive substances among kids is bad or not Solenna posted:So I don't smoke or vape and I feel like the answer should be obvious but I can't figure it out. If you ban flavoured vape juice and people are left with vapes that taste like tobacco and are kind of bad for you and cigarettes that taste like tobacco and are super bad for you why would you go back to smoking? ostensibly you wouldn't but folks like to threaten that they would in order to clamp down on positive public health moves. see, this thread is about public health, until it is suddenly about personal liberty. turns out addicts really don't like having their motivations challenged and don't always respond in a consistent way
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 05:22
|
|