|
I feel like, ideally, harm reduction measures like vaping should be easily available in a medical context, but I'm not sure how willing people would be to seek that option out as opposed to "illicit street vaping" (in a context where it was made illegal to commercially sell). Sort of like suboxone/methadone for opiate addicts, but ideally it should be easier (and cheaper) than it currently is to get on the drug in question. I'm coming from a somewhat biased perspective as an opiate addict on suboxone maintenance, though, and nicotine addiction is a bit of a different situation where there isn't the same risk of overdosing. 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.
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now. I think the question is whether quitting is realistically possible for the vast majority of nicotine users (I don't know the answer to this). If there exist a subset of people for whom quitting isn't realistic, then it makes sense to have a less harmful alternative for harm reduction purposes. I'm only familiar with the context of opiate addiction, though, which is a bit different. Obviously in the case of opiate addiction quitting is often not feasible. If quitting nicotine is realistically doable in all - or the vast majority of - cases, then it might make more sense to take the "ban both cigarettes and vaping and only allow quitting tools" position. It seems to me like the best option would be something along the lines of "both cigarettes and vaping no longer commercially sold, but vaping easily available by medical prescription." But as long as cigarettes exist, having vaping be commercially available seems like an important harm reduction measure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
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
|
|