Live data from Hacker News

Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

in.reuters.com

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#141
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL ... about Nasal Snuff. Didn't even know this was a thing - do you get weird looks in public?

Called Snus. Banned in EU, but supposedly one of the healthiest nicotine injestion methods. Most people would puke if they tried it :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

No, Snus is something entirely different from Nasal Snuff.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ~90% of patients did actually give up on it in reality then yes, I would say that because it wouldn't work for 90% of patients. The medical community would move away from it. Of course, that's not the reality. every single one of your arguments are hypothetical metaphors that have no connection to the facts of the issue at hand. You have no practical solutions. You're only answer is for people to 'toughen up'. Qui…

Is it ever appropriate for people to engage in self determination or should the lack of an easy solution always be an excuse for an individuals actions?

Sure, who said it was never appropriate. Sometimes it's the best and/or only course of action. Sometimes it's not, like right here.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#143
post #130
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I did it, it should work for everyone!" We have decades of data showing that isn't the case.

I was just dropping in with a success story (which is important for anyone trying to quit because it's 1 more data point to reference). The reason most people fail to quit isn't because they are weak, or anything like that. It's simply because they don't want to really quit. I know of 6 people (including myself) who quit cold turkey after many years. The only thing we had in common was we were serious about quitting.…

>It's simply because they don't want to really quit.

It is, which is why ecigs are so great and why patches and gum have largely failed.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#144
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And too much water will kill you; too much of anything is bad, the question is in what amount. However, I was unaware of the estrogen thing, very interesting, you do see that in women. As for it being a vasoconstrictor, so is caffeine and any number of other stimulants, that itself in not inherently bad, it's simply an effect.

Haha, I just have to comment that this is the funniest whataboutism I've ever seen: "Nicotine is bad for you." "What about water??"

That's not remotely whataboutism; whataboutism is when you're deflecting to another bad to justify something, I'm not deflecting nor justifying, I'm using reductio ad absurdum to make a point that everything is bad with enough quantity so simply calling nicotine bad because it's a vasoconstrictor-as stimulants tend to be-is not a valid argument. I suggest you learn the difference.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#145

"Cold turkey is best way to quit smoking, study says" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/15/health/quit-smoking-cold-t... Not convinced switching people to a just as addicting, just as nasty way of killing themselves slowly is any better.

Nicotine is not dangerous. It is addictive. Not dangerous.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#146
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, I just have to comment that this is the funniest whataboutism I've ever seen: "Nicotine is bad for you." "What about water??"

That's not remotely whataboutism; whataboutism is when you're deflecting to another bad to justify something, I'm not deflecting nor justifying, I'm using reductio ad absurdum to make a point that everything is bad with enough quantity so simply calling nicotine bad because it's a vasoconstrictor-as stimulants tend to be-is not a valid argument. I suggest you learn the difference.

I have to admit, your reply here is actually making me laugh more than your original "what about water??".

I don't know if it's intentional, but thanks for making my morning better. :)

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#147
post #137
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, as I already mentioned, there are cases with flavoring additives and other chemicals in the vape causing lung disease and other problems. I don't have it offhand but google should help you. My sentiment is more about where I think the research will go.

Popcorn Lung is the only thing I've seen in my research https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flavorings/ I'd be interested to hear of more.

I think that is kind of the major one that sticks out in my mind. But, its just more sinister then that IMO. Being that it is something newer, I have a feeling more will pop up.

I was friends with a major twitch streamer who used to vape literally 24/7, every stream. He got esophageal cancer and died after fighting it for ~1-2 years, roughly around age of 23. Now, obviously this is anecdotal, and obviously it could have just been bad luck/other factors/coincidence. But, I have always raised an eyebrow towards vaping since then. The only forms I consider safer with minimal consequence is dry herb based vaping with convection heat --- See silver surfer vapes for example.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, there is so much public material implying that e-cigs are basically just as bad. It seems so irresponsible to me. Which material are you referring to? This is an outrageous claim.

Public service billboards, ads on buses, things like that. They don't claim it directly- they imply it by saying that smoking is bad, but so is vaping, so don't let your kids vape. Things like that. Look at this: http://stillblowingsmoke.org/ I mean right off the bat they're calling it smoke. That is so obviously an attempt to link e-cigs to tobacco. Hell, they even use the word tobacco on the page.

My apologies. I misread your original statement.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#149
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not remotely whataboutism; whataboutism is when you're deflecting to another bad to justify something, I'm not deflecting nor justifying, I'm using reductio ad absurdum to make a point that everything is bad with enough quantity so simply calling nicotine bad because it's a vasoconstrictor-as stimulants tend to be-is not a valid argument. I suggest you learn the difference.

I have to admit, your reply here is actually making me laugh more than your original "what about water??". I don't know if it's intentional, but thanks for making my morning better. :)

You're welcome, now go look up what whatabout'ism is, because you don't seem to know.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#150
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the health risks of vaping with non-nicotine-containing fluid? I thought that it was just atomized vegetable glycerin with a bit of flavoring, but I've not done much research into the matter.

Personal anecdote: I was never a cigarette smoker, but I started vaping because I tried a friend's vape once and liked it. I am a pretty serious athlete. Vaping - whether it was 3mg or 0mg e-juice - fucked with my lungs pretty badly, and caused a noticeable drop in athletic performance. Also made me feel way less motivated to lift weights and train, which I chalked up to the instant gratification of nicotine. When I…

yeah, i definitely noticed that my lungs were better off vaping than smoking but they are certainly not 100% vaping
Post reply on HN