Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 123 of 123

Thread: Vapng vs Smoking

  1. #121
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,980

    Re: Vapng vs Smoking

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    The causal link between smoking and lung cancer has been established since the 1950's.
    That is a lie. There is no causal link, and there never has been. If their was a causal link, then everyone who smoked would contract cancer and that doesn't happen. What there is, is a statistical link. Some people who smoke get cancer, statistically. They can't tell you which ones, but some do get cancer by smoking if your sample size is large enough. Just like there is a statistical link between excessive consumption of processed meat and cancer. Some people who eat hamburger will also get cancer, statistically.

    The last pulmonary exam I had the doctor told me I had the lungs of a 40 year-old non-smoker. I was 58 at the time and smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for 47 years. I also had no problems passing my Marine Corps 3-mile runs for my physical fitness tests during the 1970s, while I smoked as I ran. Smoking had absolutely no effect on my lungs whatsoever. However, I also know statistically that smoking can effect people adversely. Some are much more susceptible to the chemicals in tobacco than others.

  2. #122
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,324

    Re: Vapng vs Smoking

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus FPV View Post
    That's literally what Nazi means, ignoramus. Sorry to break it to you, but you support evil.
    With him it's moot. He's not big on things like facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertU View Post
    Nicotine is a chemical cousin to heroin. So, listening to tobacco users explain their reasonable use of tobacco is like listening to a heroin addict explain their reasonable use of heroin. People who set an object on fire then put it in their mouth belong in a freak show.
    Not real convincing. Water is a chemical cousin to alcohol. Nicotine is addictive, it's a deadly poison, and it stand or falls on non-narcotic grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    That is a lie. There is no causal link, and there never has been. If their was a causal link, then everyone who smoked would contract cancer and that doesn't happen. What there is, is a statistical link. Some people who smoke get cancer, statistically. They can't tell you which ones, but some do get cancer by smoking if your sample size is large enough. Just like there is a statistical link between excessive consumption of processed meat and cancer. Some people who eat hamburger will also get cancer, statistically.

    The last pulmonary exam I had the doctor told me I had the lungs of a 40 year-old non-smoker. I was 58 at the time and smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for 47 years. I also had no problems passing my Marine Corps 3-mile runs for my physical fitness tests during the 1970s, while I smoked as I ran. Smoking had absolutely no effect on my lungs whatsoever. However, I also know statistically that smoking can effect people adversely. Some are much more susceptible to the chemicals in tobacco than others.
    Technically, saying causal link is not completely wrong. It is more correct to say that there is a strong statistical correlation between smoking and various forms of cancer. Nicotine is the addictive factor in tobacco smoke, but not the only factor. Far from it. BarBQ smoke is linked to cancer.

    I am a lifelong nonsmoker. I buried one of my best friends ten years ago due to colon cancer. Was it his two pack a day habit, this love of bacon, BarBQ, and all things greasy, or semething else? I can only wonder.

    Vaping can be a safer alternative. Of this there is no doubt. It can also be a delivery system for THC, which is medically useful once they make THC legal as an anti-nausea treatment. It can also be a delivery system for poisons and nicotine is a particularly nasty poison. The genie is out of the bottle so it's too late to outlaw them. Quality control needs to be monitored closely.

  3. #123
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,980

    Re: Vapng vs Smoking

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay59 View Post
    Technically, saying causal link is not completely wrong. It is more correct to say that there is a strong statistical correlation between smoking and various forms of cancer. Nicotine is the addictive factor in tobacco smoke, but not the only factor. Far from it. BarBQ smoke is linked to cancer.

    I am a lifelong nonsmoker. I buried one of my best friends ten years ago due to colon cancer. Was it his two pack a day habit, this love of bacon, BarBQ, and all things greasy, or semething else? I can only wonder.

    Vaping can be a safer alternative. Of this there is no doubt. It can also be a delivery system for THC, which is medically useful once they make THC legal as an anti-nausea treatment. It can also be a delivery system for poisons and nicotine is a particularly nasty poison. The genie is out of the bottle so it's too late to outlaw them. Quality control needs to be monitored closely.
    Technically, saying there is a causal link is completely wrong. There isn't, and there never has been. There is, as you correctly stated, a statistical link. It isn't always cancer either. Even those who are immune to the cancer-causing effects of inhaling carcinogens, other problems may also arise.

    Nicotine is indeed addictive, and that is ultimately why I gave up smoking. I still enjoy the smell and flavor of tobacco, and would never consider banning the product. I just prefer not to be addicted to any substance.

    As a side note, the addictive properties of nicotine is not like other drugs. With most other addictive drugs the user builds up a tolerance and therefore continually requires more and more of the addictive substance in order to achieve the same effect. That is not the case with nicotine. It varies per user, naturally, but once a certain level of nicotine is reached in their system there is no desire for more. Nor are there any tolerances built up over years of continual use. I smoked exactly 30 cigarettes per day for 47 years. I never had the desire to smoke more, or less.

    Vaping is safer, in that you are not inhaling any of the carcinogens that is included in burning the product. If done correctly vaping reaches a temperature where the chemicals are released without consuming the material. Smoking is simply burning the material in order to release the chemicals. However, when vaping tobacco you are still inhaling the addictive chemical nicotine. Therefore, vaping tobacco is just as addictive as smoking tobacco.

    Vaping also restricts the oxygen flow, like smoking. Which means those who vape will have to produce more red blood cells in order to carry the oxygen their body requires. If vaping or smoking for several years, this could result in an enlarged heart.

    I would not want to outlaw either vaping or smoking. Educate the user and allow them to make their own decision. Since my only personal objection to smoking or vaping tobacco is the addictive chemical nicotine, if they ever invented a nicotine-free tobacco I would seriously consider going back to smoking.
    Last edited by Glitch; 09-16-19 at 12:34 PM.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •