Because nicotine itself is not terribly addictive. The main components of addiction to tobacco are now believed to be other substances.

Now consider the mechanical act of smoking; inhale, exhale cloud, reward.
Using a vaporizer reproduces the physical act that smoker's brains associate with the reward.

There does seem to be a period at the beginning of using a vaporizer, where there's a craving for cigarettes, perhaps because of the other addictive chemicals that are absent. But this craving isn't particularly difficult to overcome when you're satisfying the other elements of your habit. Not to mention, lungs clearing, sense of taste returning...

Then there's the final stage of using a vaporizer, which I've seen happen with others and I've experienced...you lower the nicotine levels further and further and then one day you start forgetting to use it at all. Your frequency of use may drop to nothing. Not always though. Some people go truely insane. We call them "scuba vapers". One of my buddies has earned the nickname "Darth Vaper".

How does that work? How does vaping make it easier to quit nicotine(smoking)?

What's also interesting is that nicotine, despite being legal, is about as addictive as crack cocaine or heroin... drug policy is really whack.

Essentially, if they want to be consistent they need to start sending swat teams into corner stores for distributing nicotine and alcohol - nicotine is nearly as addictive, and alcohol is more harmful to society (than heroin/cocaine).

Almost everybody does some kind of drug. Sugar, caffeine, cannibus, nicotine, alcohol, "prescriptions." Decriminalize, take the crime and profit out of it, treat the sick. Stop wasting our blood and money on prohibition.

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I'll bite -

Everyone was a slacker at some point. When you were a young child you did very little to help the family. When you did start to have responsibility you didn't understand why at first and only did the things because you were told to.
Its a gradual change into a person who understands that certain things have to be taken care of for, your own sake and, the sake of your family. To think someones life is automatically fucked up because they are a slacker is disgenuine.

Are you implying that between say 13-23 you didn't too stupid irresponsible things that would make others worry about you for your own selfish pleasure? I doubt anyone could deny they were more selfish than not during part of their life.

I am not saying drugs are required to make drastic realizations. If your daily routine has little or no changes you will always think in the same basic pattern and it takes some external event to change this. It could be a new job, a new love, a death etc. Taking certain drugs lets you control when these changes in perception occur rather than being a slave to fate.

No where in my original reply did I say anyone (myself or others) had to depend on drugs to make decisions. I stated two basic ideas - drugs can help you to make changes and that everyone should experience them at least once in their life. I also didn't say that the single time the person did them would create some epic change.

Something happened to you that caused a strong sensitivity to what I said. Maybe it was me telling you what to do, maybe someone you knew used drugs and became a loser, maybe my speech pattern reminds you of someone bad. I can't say what it is but if your strong reaction is genuine then I am sorry to dig up such anger.

Not all drugs are created equally. I would like you to view this chart http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg Notice that LSD has a lower dependency than pretty much everything, including nicotine and caffeine.
Secondly the average dosage is between 60 and 180 MICROgrams. Do you understand how small that is? It is essentially impossible for it to be adulterated. You could mix it with drain cleaner and and the amount you are ingesting would not cause damage.
The industry accepted lethal dose is 15,000 micrograms, which would be FIFTEEN PAGES of paper you would have to ingest. I don't think you could fit that all in your mouth

I am not convincing you personally to take it but be aware that a significant scientific breakthroughs in business/technology/science have taken place while the person was on some form of drugs. You should also be aware that most artists (both audio and physical) use drugs to create the inspiration for the works you enjoy.
One time I figured out why fire on the head of a match is the shape that it is and how the flame is constructed. Months later I explained how I perceived it to someone qualified and they said even though I lacked the proper technical terms I had gotten it right. I was very happy about that.

Like I said previously, not all drugs are created equally. LSD does not make you feel anything extra, it only enhances what you are already seeing or feeling. It gives you the ability to super focus on details you overlooked previously or zoom out and take a large amount of data in at once then process it.

I think my reply will be lost on you but hopefully someone else is reading this and will gain something from it. If it means anything to you I have taken acid only twice in the last two years.


>> ^schlub:

Since when is not deciding to being a slacker a revelation? Your life/lives must be pretty fucked up if you depend on hallucinogenics to make your life decisions for you. This notion that drugs expand your mind or make you see things more clearly is complete and utter bullshit.
>> ^braschlosan:
Because of LSD my little brother had the revelation to start doing well in his final year of high school and try to make his parents life easier.
Then while in his first year of college he had the revelation about many parts of life and decided to study hard and play hard too. Now he has fun on the weekends and is getting great grades. The combination of the two has given him infinite self esteem.
During the summer break after his first year of college he had another LSD revelation about taking drugs. Now he rarely takes them (in high school he was a big pothead and E-Tard), when he does take them its planned out ahead of time for a special event. He's not even 20 yet and has a "wise" outlook on just about everything.
I have had similar life altering changes because of LSD that I'd rather not share here,
I agree with Enoch.
>> ^enoch:
for those who may be a tad uptight hallucinagenics should be mandatory.
if only once in your lifetime.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take it away, Rush:
"A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.
"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy."


Look I'm not fan of either party, in fact I hate politics in general... but this one-sided rhetoric doesn't help anyone... The headline reads that in 2010 Americans depended more on government assistance than ever", then it gets subtlety tweaked into "47% of the country is helplessly dependent on the government" Really?? 47% helplessly dependent??! Nice little shift there... And Obamaism? wtf does that even mean? So they really believe that before Obama took office everything was great then one year later it had all turned to shit?

Again, I don't care for Obama or any politician's for that matter, but do you not see how this kind of divisive rhetoric will only drive people further apart then they already are? What's the endgame, a civil war between the 'right' and the 'left'? I just don't get what people like Rush actually want other than the total annihilation of the left. Isn't democracy supposed to be about working together (even with opposing views) for the good of the people? Or am I wrong about that?

Take it away, Rush:

"A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.

"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy."

Did he test positive for nicotine?

Problems manifest themselves when trying to eliminate "bad" habits. One available solution for those who relish in the pleasure of drawing smoke into their lungs without the pain of having their case-study photos on fag packets?? The electronic cigarette.(Powered by batteries/vegetable glycerine/propylene glycol and sweet, sweet, nicotine they won't damage your lungs, but let me tell-It'll sure amp-up your heart-rate what with that sweeeeet mainline of Nic-o-tine!

Heart-attacks come faster now. But at least I smell pretty again!

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

Upvoting since it's another approach someone can try to help give up.

I opted for the cold turkey approach in February of this year, worked for me but I'm stubborn. After 15 years of smoking it was a great relief to finally be free of nicotine though I don't mind filling a pipe with weed and smoking the green once in a while if there's a special occasion.

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^spoco2:
It's that whole 'getting into the zone' thing with coding (yes, I'm a coder by trade).Same. I also try to get my procrastinating done in the first hour of the day; then it's on with the headphones. Unfortunately I'm a nicotine and caffeine addict which gets me when I'm between tasks.

Do you have a KARLSTAD two-seater leather sofa as well?


No leather sofa... and sadly no Aeron chair like in the heady dot com days... oh how I miss that chair!

>> ^spoco2:

It's that whole 'getting into the zone' thing with coding (yes, I'm a coder by trade).Same. I also try to get my procrastinating done in the first hour of the day; then it's on with the headphones. Unfortunately I'm a nicotine and caffeine addict which gets me when I'm between tasks.



Do you have a KARLSTAD two-seater leather sofa as well?