[gatherhunterer]

> For a long-time big tobacco saw vaping as a threat to their business, they worked and probably still work to have it banned.

When you vape you are using tobacco. Selling vape liquid is selling tobacco. It’s not competitive in any sense, it is a new brand for the same product. Why are the addicts so unwilling to recognize that?

[soylentcola]

The "addicts" (as you call them) wanted a safer way to ingest the active ingredient in tobacco. Nicotine on its own isn't much worse for your health than caffeine, but having to inhale burning tobacco leaves to ingest it leads to all sorts of health problems.

People figured out that you could heat up a solution of pure nicotine and glycerins to create a mist that is easily absorbed when inhaled (but didn't include the tars, carbon monoxide, or the host of other byproducts of combustion that lead to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases).

Obviously it's not as ideal as breathing nothing but pure, Spaceballs-style "Perri-air" but it's like telling someone not to bother with a massive harm reduction because it doesn't eliminate 100% of potential health risks.

So while the nicotine is likely derived from tobacco (just because it's the easiest source), using a nicotine mist inhaler is hardly the same as inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco.

What started out mainly in the realm of tinkerers and curious people looking for a better way to wean off nicotine or minimize the health risks of smoking has been co-opted (at least as far as the mainstream discussion goes) by cig companies and those who would seek to become their successors.

[gatherhunterer]

> "addicts" (as you call them)

That’s what they are. I smoked from age 18 to 27 and I was fully aware that my physical and psychological reaction to withdrawal made me an addict.

The concept that vaping is safer is an assumption. Everyone assumed that smoking had no health risks until people started to study the effects of decades of use. The first vaporizers for nicotine arrived in 2006 so there is no possible way to know the full long-term effects of vaping. Assuming that it is safer is just as reasonable as assuming that it is less so.

> the nicotine is likely derived from tobacco

It absolutely is in 100% of vape liquids.

The delusion is palpable and the mental gymnastics that serve only the addiction are disturbing. As Dostoevsky said, ”The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him...”

[crashbunny]

TD;DR vaping as a quit method shouldn't be banned. Non-smokers should be discouraged from taking up both vaping and smoking.

It began as a safer alternative to smoking, which was an assumption. The science isn't concrete but there is some evidence vaping is safer than smoking. Note safer and not safe.

It's also easier to quit cigarettes by switching to vaping and then gradually lowing the nicotine until you're vaping liquids with no nicotine. Then it's just the habit you have to beat the addiction to and not the nicotine.

It is a little difficult to switch from smoking to vaping as cigarettes are engineered to be as addictive as possible. There are more addictive chemicals in cigarettes than just nicotine, and some added chemicals to make the nicotine in cigarettes more addictive than plain old nicotine. Cigarettes are engineered for an instant hit that fades quickly. The hit from vaping is slow and steady. It takes time to adjust to vaping and there are cravings until you do.

I think something has to be done about non-smokers taking up vaping without stopping smokers from switching to vaping, I don't know what. There's an argument the non-smokers who take up vaping would probably take up smoking if vaping didn't exist.

[cl0ne]

> It absolutely is in 100% of vape liquids.

There are vape liquids without nicotine.