• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why is government anti Vaping?

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,707
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
^ pretty much that :(

which is a shame since that's how I quit smoking and I smoked for years and failed at quitting every other way that I'd tried... it's the only thing I've been able to stick to!

I LIKE to smoke. I just didn't like the idea of dying a slowish agonizing death (I don't mean dying of old age), which was highly likely back when I smoked 2 packs a day..
As far as the evidence goes vaping is way safer.

Most of the experiments which suggested risks were in fact done improperly AND with old hardware. (ie: some dangerous chemicals can be created if the resistance heats up too much - but it also creates a horrible, unmissable taste).

I'm all for controlling the substances going into e-liquid, but I'm afraid that with control will come bullshit taxes (ie: "HEY WE MAKE SO MUCH MONEY FROM CIGARETTES, LETS APPLY IT TO VAPING THOUGH THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT BECAUSE MONEY")
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,707
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] I've yet to hear any big 'vaping scandal' and ACTUAL rather than theoretical health risks.

The thing is that most studies about EVERYTHING are profoundly flawed.
Most researchers - outside of hard sciences - I suspect are just failures at getting a real job. Which would explain alot about how it's rare I EVER see a study without an obvious methodological flaw jumping at me within seconds.

The day there's such a scandal I'll listen. But so far by tracking the vaping community I don't see any cases of strange cancers/illness/respiratory issue. From what I've seen (very circumstancial though) it seems like vapers have low incidence of respiratory issues. If I recall properly Propylene glycol, the most used / main ingredient in e-liquids has been vaporized in hospitals ventilation systems to kill bacteria/destroy viruses for decades.

So, did anyone online point out the doubtful logic of saying that smoking something that quasi instantly kills flu viruses (within seconds according to a few studies) could INCREASE your chance of getting the flu, even assuming it weaken your lungs protection - how can you catch the flu in these conditions? Just close your eyes, visualize the methodology, and there you have it. Anyone wants to point out the obvious flaw there for example?

I haven't had one cold/flu or ANYTHING else for that matter since I started vaping (1.5 years ago).

The effects of smoking were very much obvious to me when I was smoking (low lung capacity, short breath after effort, coughing, throat pain ...). The research made more sense, even though I never understood the strange worldwide confusion between nicotine and cigarettes. In the case of vaping none of the potential risks I read about make much sense / seem to have much connection to the actual experience of vapers on online vaping boards etc.
 
Top