July 11, 2016

"Once kids get hooked on e-cigarettes, they are more likely to go on to become cigarette smokers."

Said the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, quoted in "More Nonsmoking Teens Inhaling Flavored Nicotine Through Vaping," in the NYT.

Is nicotine alone really a problem? The article just says "Nicotine disrupts neurotransmitter activity and is highly addictive, particularly in a developing brain." If that's worse than caffeine — which the kids consume all the time — I'd expect the NYT to say so. Instead it goes on to mention the other ingredients — "solvents, formaldehyde" — in the e-cigarettes and this problem of e-cigarettes leading to real cigarettes.

I'm not buying into the great vaping scare.

101 comments:

Big Mike said...

I'm not buying into the great vaping scare.

Nor should you. Right now it seems to be based on junk science and cherry-picked data.

Curious George said...

Wait til they find out people use them to smoke weed...

Bob Boyd said...

Vapor Madness

Caroline Walker said...

...but legalizing cannabis poses no risk at all.

Todd said...

Let me see...

On the one hand we have a legal substance that doctors and the government says can and will likely kill you in a painful way (i.e. cancer). Please, please, please don't do it BUT if you do because you are a adult, we want lots and lots of taxes from you.

On the other hand we have a legal substance that is delivered through a much more benign system that that has yet to be shown to cause ANY ill affects on the user and those around the user. It is much less expensive over time than the other option and is much cleaner, has less social and medical (so far) side affects (i.e. no smoke smelling cloths, car, room, no burns in your car seat, pants, etc.) BUT far fewer opportunities for raising tax monies. And sorry but I find the argument that e-cigs are a "gateway" to cigarettes laughable.

Which one do you think the government and "special interest groups" wish you would use?

Freder Frederson said...

Right now it seems to be based on junk science and cherry-picked data.

As opposed to absolutely no science on the side of vaping defenders?

...but legalizing cannabis poses no risk at all.

Who claimed this?

Fernandinande said...

Business as usual:

"Major cigarette manufacturers stand to benefit from regulations that both reduce the comparative advantage of electronic cigarettes and constrain competition within the e-cigarette market. For this reason, it should be no surprise that the Big Two tobacco companies — Altria and Reynolds — supported the FDA’s proposal to begin such regulation."

Todd said...

Oh, and I have read a number of studies that claim nicotine is not only not a problem but has a number of beneficial affects (when use in moderation). This is similar to the prior government positions on coffee, salt, low-carb diets, cholesterol, etc.

Modern studies on coffee show reductions in your risks for all types of cancers and other ills. Unless you are one of the small percentage of the population that has a problem eliminating excess salt from your body, salt intake is a non-issue. Time and time again the "experts" have been shown to be full of crap. At no time is the government ever held to account for pushing junk science on the population. This is just another battle in the government's war to control us.

Fernandinande said...

More business as usual:

The CDC Keeps Lying About Adolescent Vaping and Tobacco Use

Vaping Saves Lives: New at Reason
"The venerable Royal College of Physicians recognizes the harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes."

Freder Frederson said...

On the other hand we have a legal substance that is delivered through a much more benign system that that has yet to be shown to cause ANY ill affects on the user and those around the user.

Except for exploding in peoples' faces. And they have shown no ill effects because they were able to market them without testing them for safety.

To say that something is safer than cigarettes (and even that claim has not been proven), is an extremely low bar and should not be the standard for a drug delivery system.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Freder, I am just curious, is there no science that says vaping gets people off cigarettes? I have seen it happen,but like all lefties, that which is not specifically allowed is forbidden. Lefty puritans are a dime a dozen.

Crimso said...

The dose makes the poison. With that caveat in mind, the LD50 of caffeine for humans seems to be about an order of magnitude higher than that of nicotine. From a PubMed search (and not being able to read every article, even though the total hits for searches for LD50 of both caffeine and nicotine yield an amazingly low number of hits for a PubMed search, 59 and 64 repsectively), it appears that there really are not solid data for nicotine, and its LD50 is more of a guess than that of caffeine.

'The article just says "Nicotine disrupts neurotransmitter activity and is highly addictive, particularly in a developing brain." If that's worse than caffeine — which the kids consume all the time — I'd expect the NYT to say so.'

Presumably the reporter is capable of using PubMed, but either is: 1) unaware of its existence; 2) does not know what LD50 means; 3) knows about these data but for some reason doesn't want you to know; 4) is a piss-poor reporter; or 5) some other reason.

I'm betting it's a combination of either #1 and #4 or #3 and #4. But even if the reporter is unaware of the existence and ease of use of PubMed, there is no excuse for being ignorant of the existence of...Wikipedia.

Freeman Hunt said...

Right now it seems to be based on junk science and cherry-picked data.

As opposed to absolutely no science on the side of vaping defenders?


If you're going to choose between junk science and no science, always pick no science. "I don't know," is better than, "I know," without knowing.

MadisonMan said...

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California

How much tobacco is in a vaping cigarette?

How fitting that the word 'Control' is in the name of the Center.

MadisonMan said...

And they have shown no ill effects because they were able to market them without testing them for safety.

Horrors!

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Here, kid, take this mysterious fluid made in China and then inhale it directly into your lungs using this super-efficient delivery device, also made in China.

Enjoy.

mikee said...

I, for one, look forward with savage glee to the marijuana industry becoming legalized nationwide, followed by the do-gooders doing to them the same thing they did to the tobacco industry, but even harder.

damikesc said...

Said the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco

That sounds like an impartial source, to be sure.

How long was their study? How many participants?

As opposed to absolutely no science on the side of vaping defenders?

How does one prove something doesn't happen? Disproving negatives is a classic fallacy.

If YOU want to ban something, it is up to YOU to prove the problem.

I'd rather have somebody admit to a lack of knowledge than to falsely claim possession of knowledge.

And Progs routinely decry anybody who is critical of global warming theories as being "bought off" --- but a study from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco is totally on the up and up.

Except for exploding in peoples' faces.

That's a product liability issue, not a public safety issue. Tesla cars had batteries that burst into flames. No calls to ban all cars from Tesla at the time...

And they have shown no ill effects because they were able to market them without testing them for safety.

So, the FDA just said "Shit, let's see what happens?" when they launched them? That's your theory? How many other products launch with literally no demands for studies to prove they aren't harmful?

uffda said...

'No science on the side of vaping defenders"? Has no one here read the report of the Royal College of Physicians from a few weeks ago? As far as I know the only comprehensive study by a respected group with no ax to grind.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/04/28/royal-college-of-physicians-says-e-cigarettes-can-prevent-almost-all-the-harm-from-smoking/#3e3e4e811f46
Nutshell conclusion: health risks 5% or less of smoked tobacco products.

Limited blogger said...

When I was a kid they had candy cigarettes to 'hook' you as a future smoker.

Qwinn said...

I used Ecigs to stop smoking (I use the Logic Pro). Been off regular cigarettes for 3 years. Completely stopped coughing. My asthmatic girlfriend and niece don't care if I use it right next to them. It is so obviously infinitely safer that it doesn't surprise me at all that lefties oppose it, since there is no universal law more consistent than that people like Freder will be on the wrong side of absolutely every issue.

MadisonMan said...

Is Caveat Emptor no longer taught to people?

How do you say "The Government is here to help and protect you in all things" in latin? Hic omnia ad imperium? Doesn't have the same zing.

Steve Uhr said...

One concern raised by the anti-ecig crowd is that people will start smoking cigarettes because they see a cool person smoking e-cigs and wrongly conclude they are smoking real cigarettes. A creative hypothesis perhaps, but no science backing it up.

Freder Frederson said...

So, the FDA just said "Shit, let's see what happens?" when they launched them?

The FDA had no say in it. There is a loophole in the law that forbids the FDA from regulating nicotine.

Fernandinande said...

Limited blogger said...
When I was a kid they had candy cigarettes to 'hook' you as a future smoker.


Those things were really hard to keep lit.

RigelDog said...

Let's have more rigorous studies on the effects of nicotine. My guess is that it's relatively harmless within a not-narrow range of doses, much like its cousin caffeine. It can be poisonous in large doses; apparently you need protective equipment to harvest and handle tobacco or you'll absorb too much nicotine through your skin and get sick.
I'll be surprised if solid research shows that vaping is a significant gateway to smoking tobacco. Seems to me that there is a significant difference between wanting to inhale what is basically air, and wanting to inhale thick smoke.
Finally, I personally think that it's best for growing children to avoid any of these substances....we kept our kids off caffeine until they were about 16, when that balance tipped from being willing and able to control them to ceding the decision to them.

Todd said...

Freder Frederson said...

To say that something is safer than cigarettes (and even that claim has not been proven), is an extremely low bar and should not be the standard for a drug delivery system.

7/11/16, 8:27 AM


So because we have not proven that a replacement for something known to do harm is not 100% harm free, never mind, move on?

"Perfect" is the killer of "better".

If so much tax revenue and other monies were not at stake, the government (and other groups) would be handing out eCigs on street corners like they do condoms. Instead they would rather continue to "fight" cigarette smoking while making and raising tons of money than actually do something that changes the "game". There just continues to be too much money to be made (all around) with maintaining the status quo.

Rt1 Rebel said...

My wife and I quit smoking 3 years ago, now we vape. Admittedly, I made the switch based on economics, I can vape for pennies a day. I'm sure that vaping has its own set of risks, but the caffeine = nicotine analogy is apt.

The FDA Deeming regs were passed because Big Tobacco, Big Pharm, and Big Govt weren't getting paid, and getting paid less because too many people are vaping instead of smoking or using smoking-cessation products.

I am not concerned about my vape exploding any more than I am concerned about driving my car to work because a top-fuel dragster blew up on the racetrack last weekend. Kids are doing what they do, modifying and pushing the limits of the equipment.

boycat said...

Of course the biggest problem with e-cigarettes is that the users look and act exactly as if they're smoking actual cigarettes, and enjoying doing it too, and that's just too much for the anti-smoking Nazis to abide.

Steve Uhr said...

Issue Similar to the science showing beneficial effects of alcohol in moderation. The anti-alcohol response is to attack such studies not on science but because so-called special interests funded the research. As if they are not also special interests

Bob Ellison said...

"Those things were really hard to keep lit." First real laugh of the day!

dda6ga dda6ga said...

as my daddy said: "Leave us the f--k alone..."

MaxedOutMama said...

The sudden concern about nicotine and vaping correlates with the sudden drop in US adult smokers, which is creating a tax hole for governments. It has no basis at ALL in medical fact. Why have doctors been told to recommend nicotine patches and nicotine gum to their patients who smoke if it is not far preferable to smoking? WTF???

Nicotine is a natural substance occurring in multiple plants, such as some peppers, potatoes, tomatillos, eggplant, etc. In fact, some non-smokers will flunk smoking tests if they eat a diet heavy in these foods.

The fact that as e-cigs became widely available the adult smoking rate suddenly began to drop is not random - many people who have tried multiple methods of quitting make it over the hump with e-cigs.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/

The people doing this are really horrible people with horrible motives who don't give a crap that many lives are being saved by e-cigs.

Once a person has switched to e-cigs, many of them titrate down slowly on the nicotine content.

Oh, and Frederson - there are highly reputable companies manufacturing the liquid in the US. The recent drive to regulation/more expense is solely driven by the desire to keep people addicted to a very highly deletorious habit in order to bleed them dry for special interests.

It's repulsive and disgraceful; those who support this drive are also repulsive and disgraceful. Any decent human being will support free access to something that frees other human beings from the slavery of addiction.

JAORE said...

Our youngest son, to our horror, took up smoking.

A couple of years ago he switched to vaping. He's steadily decreased the concentration of the liquid to near the minimum.

Would I prefer he quit both? Of course. Am I thrilled he's quit smoking even if the alternate is Vaping? Hell yes.

Before vaping he coughed frequently. He also was inhaling smoke and the myriad of chemicals and particulates that suggests.

As to the number of kids in High School vaping, how many would be smoking if vaping was not available? I suspect most of them.

But, not to worry. Once regulated until only the chosen few can produce the liquid and Uncle Sam gets a hefty tax cut, vaping will be found to be relatively OK and will stay legal.

chuck said...

It's gotten to the point that when I see "California" attached to any finding or opinion I doubt the truth of the finding or opinion. California is the wacko maiden aunt of the nation.

FleetUSA said...

My observation of e-cigs is that the users seem almost more nervous while using them than many regular cig users.

Todd said...

boycat said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Of course the biggest problem with e-cigarettes is that the users look and act exactly as if they're smoking actual cigarettes, and enjoying doing it too, and that's just too much for the anti-smoking Nazis to abide.

7/11/16, 9:59 AM


Very much this too!

buwaya puti said...

I am considering adopting the modern rebel lifestyle. After I retire and am done with my personal financial obligations and professional responsibilities of course. After a lifetime of supporting rules and order, I find an urgent need to usurp them. Whatever the people here value, I am against, simply because they value it. And vice versa.
An essential part of that will be to take up smoking, and I think an essential part of that will be to grow my own tobacco to avoid paying taxes.
Home grown tobacco was a thing in rural Ilocos historically.

MadisonMan said...

Tobacco is a notoriously heavy feeder of soil nutrients, so make sure you have a cow or two to provide plenty of manure for soil enrichment.

tim in vermont said...

Nazis gotta Naz! Puritans gotta demand purity!

cubanbob said...

If vaping were to be as heavily taxed as tobacco the critics would no doubt suddenly shut up. You can never go wrong by following the money.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
So, the FDA just said "Shit, let's see what happens?" when they launched them?

The FDA had no say in it. There is a loophole in the law that forbids the FDA from regulating nicotine."

Loophole?

Freeman Hunt said...

In old films, everyone smokes. Perhaps soon, everyone will vape.

Steve Uhr said...

Freder -- the FDA can and does regulate e-cigs. What it cannot do is outlaw them. Same with cigarettes

FullMoon said...

Freeman Hunt said...

In old films, everyone smokes. Perhaps soon, everyone will vape.
7/11/16, 11:10 AM


But, everyone smoking is not a "smoker". Watch how many actors do not inhale. A small puff and blow it out, not a long, luxurious, satisfying drag on an unfiltered PallMall, Lucky, or Camel, exhaled lovingly through the nose or with artistic smoke rings.
Apparently, the character is written as a smoker, but the actor does not smoke in real life. Same is true in current films. I wonder if it was a "product placement" sort of thing.

LarsPorsena said...

HMMMMM. Marijuana is not a gateway drug to harder stuff but vaping is a gateway to cigarettes?

buwaya said...

Fools. A true rebel knows no constraints and cares not one bit about fashion.

Smokes - hand-rolled home-raised and cured cigars
Pets and rides - Carabao, carabao sledge.
Hat - yes, big and straw.
Sport - Bullfighting
Music - Fascist
Politics - Revolutionary. What to revolt against - what have you got?
Guns for open carry - 7mm Mauser 1893, with bayonet

lgv said...

The whole anti-vaping is so unscientific. It defies logic. First, we must define why smoking is bad. While nicotine has negative health implications, the primary "badness" in cigarettes is that it makes cigarettes addictive. I thought it absurd when the head of the American Lung Association came out against vaping. He should be doing whatever possible to get smokers to switch to vaping if he wants to reduce lung cancer. If you make it hard to smoke (which we do) and easy to vape, then smokers will switch. If vaping is as hard as smoking (e.g. airplanes, restaurants) then there less incentive to switch.

Crazy Jane said...

Like most public health nostrums, this one seems to emanate from the dark suspicion that somebody out there, somewhere, might be having some fun. Leave those kids alone, I say.

My dad's emphysema was diagnosed 20 years after he quit smoking. If he had vaped instead, he would be alive today.

damikesc said...

I don't get the obsession with making sure nothing I like is ever not done.

I do not smoke. I find the habit gross. But the world isn't based on what I like. If a business owner wants to allow it, that's on them. No skin off my back. When did the Left go from "Do your own thing, man. Let your freak flag fly" to becoming the most-regimented group of people the world has ever seen.

The military would tell them to loosen the hell up.

Vaping is nothing. It doesn't smell. If it poisons somebody slowly, fine. Alcohol in excess does the same. I don't get the whole "Let's kill smoking" and "Let's legalize pot" arguments being made simultaneously.

Michael K said...

While nicotine has negative health implications, the primary "badness" in cigarettes is that it makes cigarettes addictive.

That's true although it also causes trouble for people with peripheral arterial disease. There is an interesting argument about whether nicotine alone causes atherosclerosis but medical research is so politicized thees days I doubt you can find out.

"the dark suspicion that somebody out there, somewhere, might be having some fun."

I think this is a lot of it.

Douglas said...

The real reason the states are opposed to vaping that it reduces cigarette consumption and hence the revenues states get from cigarette sales.

Jon Ericson said...

Hi, Just a technical note.
There are at least two "Unknowns" still commenting after last night's purge.
At least one of them is rational.
Could the rational one(s) please indicate this somehow, like signing "Joe Blow" at the bottom of his/her comment?
Just tossing that out there for the rational "Unknowns".
I realize there may be a technical reason for some commenters to be stuck with the name "Unknown".

buwaya said...

There was a purge?

Jon Ericson said...

Yup, at about 10:30.

Scott said...

After smoking 1-2 packs a day for 45 years, I quit 12 years ago. But, if I were given 6 months to live, I'd go out and buy. carton of Camels.

Just_Mike_S said...

Funny how Vaping "ALWAYS" always leads to smoking and so...BAD! Pot smoking "NEVER" leads to drug abuse, so...YAY!

Achilles said...

"the dark suspicion that somebody out there, somewhere, might be having some fun."

Without paying the government taxes for the privilege.

Pettifogger said...

"Once kids get hooked on e-cigarettes, they are more likely to go on to become cigarette smokers."

Just like people who smoke marijuana are likely to become heroin junkies?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Is nicotine alone really a problem?

If it makes people more willing to use substances carrying formaldehyde and 200 other known poisons, carcinogens and toxins, then yes. Never mind that they're putting it in the e-liquid now. Proper pharmaceutical nicotine products that don't contain these substances don't seem to be as addictive/attractive to the young new lung cancer recruits - but that's precisely what seems to make them a "problem" in the tobacco companies' eyes.

I'm not buying into the great vaping scare.

Because you're an evidence and reason hater.

No one cares what you think. You come up with opinions to satisfy your silly aesthetic priorities, rather than any interest in actual reality.

Jon Ericson said...

Oh, Shit Its back.

Rhythm and Balls said...

...but legalizing cannabis poses no risk at all.

You tell me what the risk is. It's hard to imagine a greater risk then a high probability of two diseases that usually kill and are typically irreversible, especially since they increase the risk of same to everyone else that the tobacco/nicotine junkie exposes their nasty fix to.

Cannabis actually has been shown to decrease the risk of lung cancer in a baseline cohort of tobacco smokers. Put that in your trachea and smoke it.

It's always fun when Althouse activates her science-hating crew of commenters to start providing medical advice without a license.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Yeah, your shit is back JE. Provide some facts or reason or f*&^ OFF.

Jon Ericson said...

Oh, swear at me some more.

Jon Ericson said...

f*&^ OFF
Good thing we can't tell what you are saying.

Rhythm and Balls said...

There is an interesting argument about whether nicotine alone causes atherosclerosis...

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. The particulates it's formulated with and released (and absorbed) upon inhalation are obvious CAD risks, probably compounded by the vasoconstriction.

Smoking is idiotic and bad news any way you look at it. What percentage of ca, CAD and pulmonary disease would disappear if the habit stopped? I'd say you'd lower your hospital admissions by at least a third. Just the most idiotic thing someone can do and the responsible culprit for so many more wasted health care dollars and consultations than you can imagine.

Cigarettes should be taxed to the point where they can pay for the care of all lung cancer, COPD cases and half of all MIs.

Jon Ericson said...

Where's your girlfriend, "Tee Hee, that was a good one R&B!"

Rhythm and Balls said...

Nicotine is a natural substance occurring in multiple plants, such as some peppers, potatoes, tomatillos, eggplant, etc.

Ah, Solonaceae. The nightshade family. King of the alkaloids.

What about the petunias?

Jon Ericson said...

Some kind of leakage here , Althouse.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If you're going to choose between junk science and no science, always pick no science. "I don't know," is better than, "I know," without knowing.

That's hilarious. I don't know what's in this cup of fluid at the bar. Perhaps my lack of knowledge of the roofie inside it will protect me as I drink it.

You're talking about manufacturers of products who admitted lying and covering up their own internal science investigations for decades, as they killed untold millions, now moving on to something that could possibly be safer but is now unequivocally being done to get the addiction rates back up. I found merit in the vaping movement for a spell, and now realize that it's a total sham and a ploy to get us to become the same ubiquitous smoke-everywhere-by-everybody society we were back in the 1950s.

To trust corporations, especially cigarette companies, requires a suspension of all reason, logic and morality. You will think differently once your kids start up their own two-pack a day habit in a couple decades. This will happen, mark my words.

Jon Ericson said...

Well if you can keep a cap on it, you can stay.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Some kind of leakage here , Althouse.

You're the one with the drippy little anal pebbles.

Why are you so obsessed with me? Have I been banned and not notified? You're like a hall monitor. Where's your uniform?

People are allowed to comment here whether you like it or not.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well if you can keep a cap on it, you can stay.

Do you own this blog or not? Who do you think you are?

Jon Ericson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Ericson said...

little anal pebbles.
Smove move, Pedro.

Jon Ericson said...

Have I been banned and not notified?
I think so.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Jon:

Do you actually have anything to say about nicotine vaping?

Why are you so afraid of the actual topic of the posts that Althouse uploads?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I think...

No. You don't.

Jon Ericson said...

No, it's of no concern of mine.
But YOU, O big cheeze-whiz, Have a problem with having no soap stuffed into your mouth when you were a grub.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The dose makes the poison.

Not with lead.

There are many substances that have no safe dose. Or at least no known safe dose.

Inhaling combusted particulates as formulated with the hundreds of known toxins in cigarettes is one of these.

Jon Ericson said...

YERY GOOD, Didn't swear at all!
Did you make a deal with Althouse: If I don't swear I get a pass?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Lol. Jon's the self-appointed profanity police. Ha ha.

Did Althouse need one? Or ask for one?

Jon - the thread was from this morning and dying anyway. Whoever's interested in the topic can read everyone else's comments. Yours are notoriously empty of any contribution.

It's a pity you hate being ignored so much. (Wonder what childhood event led to that. Actually, I don't).

I'll try to do it more often. Being ignored is obviously something that you could use a lot more of.

Jon Ericson said...

Well, well. So you DID get a new book on trolling.
God bless you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What are your plans this evening, Jon?

Jon Ericson said...

Well, I really don't have any plans, but if you are coming on to me... THE ANSWER IS NO!

Rhythm and Balls said...

So, no plans. No surprise.

You sound like a pretty lonely guy.

If you want, you can discuss that with whoever else isn't reading the thread any longer (maybe try the other one). But I have things to do. I have no doubt you'll post three or four comments (at least) to yourself in the meantime. Enjoy!

P.S. Have you talked to your doctor about your loneliness? Ask him or her if a monologue in the Althouse blog comments section is right for you. Self-appointed comment moderation authority optional.

Jon Ericson said...

Buh Bye!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I really don't have any plans, but if you are coming on to me... THE ANSWER IS NO!

Actually, I missed this - which is really funny. You actually said that if you think someone's coming on to you (I guess you can't help your fantasies, Jon), then the answer to whether you have any plans is "NO" - meaning you REALLY have no plans!

Wow. You really dug yourself into that one. I'll leave you and your fantasies to yourself, Jon. And your lack of any plans.

I'll be sure not to get in the way of them.

Goodbye, Jon. Try not to miss me too much. LOL.

Jon Ericson said...

Oh I 'll miss you, like I miss tuberculosis.

Jon Ericson said...

That new book you have... not good. try another.
Like "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

Rt1 Rebel said...

Could you guys take this to PM or Email? Thanks.

Jon Ericson said...

No problem, it ran away, until it comes back.
Thanks for your concern though.

Jon Ericson said...

Here, toke on this... White Widow, It really make you see things as they are...

dbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dbp said...

"There is a loophole in the law that forbids the FDA from regulating nicotine."

Tell that to the FDA. They think they can regulate e-cigs, whether they have statutory authority to do so will be determined in court.

Jon Ericson said...

Good one R&B!

epador said...

This thread is an excellent example of addicts rationalizing their addiction(s). Nicotine use, whether by lungs, oral or transdermal is the most difficult habit to beat in addictive substances known to man, except, perhaps, liberal dogma. Amazingly, it is less harmful than liberal dogma, but that's not saying much.

gadfly said...

epador said...
This thread is an excellent example of addicts rationalizing their addiction(s). Nicotine use, whether by lungs, oral or transdermal is the most difficult habit to beat in addictive substances known to man, except, perhaps, liberal dogma. Amazingly, it is less harmful than liberal dogma, but that's not saying much.

Actually the nicotine addiction is quite easy to beat. You just have to want to quit. Quit buying cigarettes and you have nothing to smoke. After four days you body will have dispatched all nicotine from your system - which means the desire to smoke goes away. What remains is the "infant sucking syndrome" that was reawakened by smoking all those cancer sticks every day. So buy some hard candy and suck on it. You will gain some weight but the most dangerous habit will be gone forever and the first three months will be filled by a recurring dream that you forgot that you had quit and lit up by mistake.

If that all sounds yucky, buy an e-machine and have the store show you how to gradually lower the nicotine in the vapor. In a few weeks the desire to smoke disappears for those who persevere.

SGT Ted said...

"Vaping is bad and evil, so we should get a cut of the action!" -Government

Mark said...

The desire to smoke disappears?

Took a few years for me, and I still crave sometimes