It can be like this even when you are 18

    •  beefcat   ( @beefcat@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      it’s wild to me how willingly people will give themselves over to nicotine addiction

      i blame our nonsensical drug laws that rank cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms as “worse” than nicotine and alcohol, even though the latter two are more harmful and much more addictive

      i love me some cannabis, i’ll have the occasional mushroom, and i even enjoy a glass of whiskey every now and then, but nicotine scares the absolute hell out of me

      • Okay this is kinda backwards. Alcohol is worse than nicotine. Nicotine withdrawal doesn’t cause seizures or death. Nicotine is less destructive to an addict than alcohol is, although it’s more addictive overall.

        While cannabis and psychedelics should be legalized and can help many people they aren’t without risks. They can cause temporary psychosis and permanent sensory abnormalities/minor hallucinations. In some cases they can trigger diseases like schizophrenia. It’s all dependent on how your brain is wired and what happens when you are tripping/high.

        There was actually an off-duty airline pilot that nearly caused a major accident when traveling in the cockpit jump seat after taking mushrooms a few days before hand. He jumped up atns tried to shut off the engines, and very nearly succeeded. There is a great mentor pilot video on it if you can find it. It’s a great example of what can go wrong with psychedelic drugs. That man ended up in jail btw.

        •  beefcat   ( @beefcat@beehaw.org ) 
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          alcohol is physiologically worse than nicotine, but not nearly as instantly addictive.

          i’ve watched people with much stronger mental fortitude than i try to quit nicotine and fail spectacularly. i don’t know any smokers who aren’t addicted.

          nicotine scares the hell out of me because i do not want to be a slave to it

          • 100% get you. I just thought it needed pointing out how bad alcohol is. Like you could die of lung cancer from smoking at 60 or from alcohol poisoning at 30. It’s one of those things that’s killed people the first time doing it.

    • We don’t have the longterm statistics to say one way or the other

      But my gut tells me that there are significantly less carcinogens in vape juice than cigarettes (or anything burning)

      Edit: I’m not condoning vaping either. I think it’s very stupid to vape, especially if you weren’t a smoker prior. I’m just saying vaping hasn’t been around long enough to draw definite conclusions

      I can see it being used as a quitting tool, though

      • E-cigarettes produce a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease, as well as cardiovascular (heart) disease. E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds.

        https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung

        https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html

        Just don’t vape, man…

        • Those studies had extremely flawed methodologies. For the formaldehyde one, they burned a ce4 cart more than 40% higher than the nominal voltage (5.2v vs 3.7v) for 90 seconds.

          I challenge you to inhale for 90 seconds. I can’t even do it and I’m a skilled brass instrument player.

          Basically every study showing negative effects has either flawed methodology, or the news outlets reporting on them conveniently forget to mention that the levels are orders of magnitude lower than what cigarettes produce. Hell, even some of the heavy metal results were lower than atmospheric levels.

          Source: I’ve read all of the studies.

          • While that test may not be the norm, it represents cheap brand knockoffs that may have shitty voltage control, or faulty, etc. it is not like they run ever vape through rigid testing like airplane control systems ( and even those fail )

            • No, it doesn’t. No human would be able to draw on an atomizer that was being fired at 40% higher than normal voltage for more than a split second.

              But yes, if you managed to draw on an atomizer that’s literally burning for 90 seconds and survive the lung scaring and smoke inhalation, the byproducts of burning plant matter and plastics is likely not healthy.

              •  BCsven   ( @BCsven@lemmy.ca ) 
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                i wasn’t contesting the 90 seconds, sometimes tests are setup no following real world parameters to gain info that would take too long to gather otherwise. like Carcinogen tests with LD50. Black pepper is a carcinogen (when injected under the skin–per the test method). But nobody eats pepper that way. The 90 seconds may be to test the amount of exposure in one day, etc

                • No, it’s straight up flawed methodology. Pretty much anything will produce harmful chemicals if you set it on fire.

                  These tests were designed to produce negative results, which is bad science.

                  Vaping cuts into profits from several industries as well as tobacco tax revenue. This is why any vaping study that comes out of the US needs to be heavily scrutinized.

    • It absolutely fucking isn’t. It’s “healthier” than smoking by a wide margin. So is abstaining from it. But for people already smoking, vaping will not only be better for them but can also help them kick the habit. Please keep your blatantly wrong garbage takes to yourself, misinformation like that does active harm to other people