Being 55 / non smoker this vape thing has passed me by so I got to ask.

Why is a Vape better than a pipe/ bong?

Why does this PAX Vape have different temp settings? For a smother smoke or for different items to vape like weed or hash or such?

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

Let's be realistic, most of the work our war planes do has collateral damage. We don't simply use them on 'the bad guys', but again that is a simplification to allow you moral latitude.

Non-smokers are no better than smokers, I know since I used to be a smoker. Just because I decided that I no longer wanted to smoke doesn't mean I feel the need to go up to someone smoking and start telling them how much better I am that I quit. Again, I'm not any better of a person than they are, I just chose to do something different. That is one of the things you can't seem to grasp, because you continue to say that morally you are more good than someone who does not practice a vegan lifestyle. You aren't.

As far as the functional capacity for feelings, of course animals feel pain, it is a stimuli that helps in their survival instinct. That instinct is what drives them to avoid pain because it means they might not survive. It doesn't mean that they have the logical thought capacity to relate pain to more than an instinctual response. I am pretty sure that no pig ever felt pain and said to itself, I feel pain therefore I exist as a being, they felt the pain and instinct told them to get away from it. Plants even have stimuli that they will respond to in order to grow or try to avoid damaging forces, but they aren't self-aware. Neither are animals until you get to a certain level of intelligence, like dolphins or great apes.

I grew up in the country, I have seen first hand and used my hands in regards to the butchery you speak of. Never once have I had a pig who had seen another be slaughtered do anything that would give me the belief that they were responding in any other fashion than a "shit, flight time since I might be next" natural instinct that is in all prey animals. Factory farms may not be totally humane, and that should be reformed, but all they are doing in the end is killing prey animals on a much larger scale than I did growing up.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

>> ^swedishfriend:

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.


This definitely needs a source.

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.

>> ^Nebosuke:

I find it so odd that tobacco is legal and it has no redeeming qualities, but marijuana is not and it at least has some redeeming medical qualities.


Spoken like a true non-smoker. (not that I see anything wrong with a little weed)

"Kids don't smoke because a camel in a hat tells them to. They do it for the same reasons adults do, because it's an enjoyable activity that relieves anxiety and depression." -George Carlin

I'm just offended that he was smoking indoors, potentially around non-smokers. For shame, Zach, for shame.

There's more than one video floating around on this site talking about what the Exxon spill did to animals and people alike. What is said in this video is very similar to those, and all of them are from different people that I've seen. I think it's more likely that government is full of shit in anything they do to downplay it versus what these individuals are saying that are in the medical field and have been studying it trying to cure people since Exxon.

Because we already know that government and oil have not invested in new methods to clean up oil spills, so it's very unlikely they would also invest money into research on what exposure does to people during and after clean up from the Exxon.

If this oil leak is not taken of when they estimate it will be which from what I've read is late July and August for the relief wells to come online. If it keeps spilling out even with the additional wells, I don't see how anyone in this part of the world will be safe from it's effects given weather patterns and ocean currents. I saw on Craig Fergeson they had I believe his name is Jean Cousteau, son of Jacques Cousteau, who was talking about how the oil in the gulf would begin appearing in England due to the water currents and how saturated the water column is because of the disperants.

Lots of very disturbing videos out there regarding what the oil spill has done already. People on the water who were vomiting over the side because the fumes from the water was cutting off the oxygen and causing nausea. Fish so disoriented they were swimming into boats, swimming on their sides and upside down with their mouths sticking out of the water trying to breath. No sightings of dolphins in Florida for a long while, so they are either dead, dieing, or left the area. Kids breaking out in rashes who mysteriously recover shortly after leaving the areas in proximity to tainted zones. Fishermen who are aiding in the clean up, coming down with upper respiratory problems, going to their doctors and being told their lungs look like they've been smoking 3 packs a day when they are in fact non-smokers.

The same responders who at 911 telling people they should wear respirators for the clean up, who say that firemen who refused to wear them in 911 rescues came down with "the crud" from exposure to toxins. They say every person helping clean up the oil spill is offered a respirator, but BP took over distribution of them. And they won't allow people to have respirators without proper training in how to use them, which they will provide. But they won't begin the training until they feel people need the respirators. So you have the right to a respirator, they will give you one when you are trained, but they won't provide training until you need one. Makes perfect sense, like everything else associated with the handling of this.

Crops are diseased and dieing already from just the rain carrying the chemicals used to "clean up" the oil spill. I can't imagine that people out on the water aren't already severely exposed to these same chemicals if it can travel via water evaporation into the clouds to come down as rain...it has to be in the air for them all.

From other sources, they call exposure in Exxon and 911 "the crud" or "The Exxon crud". And people exposed to it have it for the rest of their life and eventually die because of it. I could see people in 911 being exposed just because it was a fast response situation and people were trying to do the right thing in a very short period of time. But there is no excuse for what is happening now, especially with the Exxon spill being there as evidence and proof of what can and will happen to people exposed to the oil and the chemicals used in it's clean up. A disaster caused by BP for money/time saving measures is one thing, but then allowing people trying to help contain a problem they had nothing to do with but bear all of the consequences of it to become ill and probably die from their efforts to help....that's something that can not stand.

It just doesn't work that way regarding "choice" between non-smoking and smoking establishments.

Out of laziness and/or a need to keep costs down, bars and some restaurants will just surrender to the constant bitching of the poor, poor little cancer stick junkies and everybody else will just have to put up with their shitty smoke, just like it was for decades before the non-smokers finally got sick of it and did something.

Not to mention the pressure that the smoking lobby can exert, with their billions of dollars in drug money.

I've never met a more selfish bunch of cry babies than cigarette smokers.

They won't think twice about blowing smoke in your face, but they'll cry like little bitches when somebody finally gets sick of their shit and does something about it.

@blankfist: Yeah, I do get that, but it's that thing I kinda dislike which is 'you may not get annoyed about anything else if you're not getting annoyed about this'. It's also a case of non-smokers are hardly bitching and moaning about it all the time, we just went and got smoking stopped in places where it has no place. No non-smoker wants cigarette smoke wafting over them while they eat a fine dinner, or are waiting for a train in an underground station, or standing in a lift.

Plus I was taking issue, as he did different stuff on the same topic in the other video about him not being able to smoke in places, so he has a real bee in his bonnet about it. It's perfectly reasonable (I think) for non smokers to not have smoke blown over us, forcing us to breath it. It's not the like ONLY effect is that we have smelly clothes (although I don't see why that should be forced on us either), it's killing us.

As a coffee drinker I do not spit a sample of my drink on people standing next to me do I?

>> ^entr0py:
But the hardcore supporters do get on my nerves sometimes. They have a tendency to go overboard, and in doing so damage their credibility. For example, when they claim that that smoking doesn't impair your driving. That, in a sense it improves your driving, because the slowed reaction time gives you more time to consider things.


I guess I'm a hardcore supporter.

I'm for laws that curb driving while high, and as a non-smoker I understand your skepticism, but....

If you've ever watched a circle of college kids playing hacky-sac, upon close observation you'll notice that the best players are usually baked at the time.

Weed doesn't impair the reflexes like booze does.

And another thing, when you're high, you're just not in that great of a rush to get from point A to point B. You get into the music, and you laugh at the way the melody kind of accentuates the trip, and then you notice a pretty sunset, or some kids playing with their pretty mothers in a park...and the very last thing in the world that you want to do is to ruin that experience by running over a squirrel, or a dog, or a kid, or by smashing into somebody else's car.

MilkmanDan, it's good to hear a sensible opinion from someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the issue.

I'm a non-smoker too. And I'm for legalization. It seems marijuana is an inextensible part of our society. And I believe it can be enjoyed responsibly; without suffering permanent harm. Plus it really does seem to be a good treatment for certain conditions. Better to have it in the open and regulated than stuck forever in a massive black market institution.

But the hardcore supporters do get on my nerves sometimes. They have a tendency to go overboard, and in doing so damage their credibility. For example, when they claim that that smoking doesn't impair your driving. That, in a sense it improves your driving, because the slowed reaction time gives you more time to consider things.

>> ^cybrbeast:
Alcohol wasn't designed for anything, it was discovered because it was recreational. Cigarettes weren't designed to be deadly, tobacco was discovered because it was recreational.
What are the positive benefits of alcohol besides recreation and a few vague and tenuous health benefits?
wiki
Also, studies indicate that the proportion of men with alcohol dependence is higher than the proportion of women, 7% and 2.5% respectively, although women are more vulnerable to long-term consequences of alcoholism. Around 90% of adults in United States consume alcohol, and more than 700,000 of them are treated daily for alcoholism.
[...]
Of the adult US population, at least 75% are drinkers; and about 6% of the total group are alcoholics. In groups which are almost 100% drinkers, the alcoholism rate is about 8%. Many reports state that about 73% of felonies are alcohol-related. One survey shows that in about 67% of child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rape cases, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides, either the attacker or the victim or both had been drinking."

Cigarettes may kill people, but I doubt they hurt families as much as an alcoholic father can do. So lets ban alcohol, lets ban fast food, lets ban everything. Or just let people be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions.
>> ^spoco2:
Alcohol? Not designed to be addictive (some people are to it, but that's true of almost anything... you can find someone addicted to most anything these days), has positive benefits, and when drunk in moderation has little to no negative effect.



Cigarettes may not have been initially designed to be deadly, but they sure as hell have been 'improved' to be as addictive as they can possibly be to ensure that they keep those smokers going until they die.

You're missing the point in regards to drinking vs smoking. YES I AGREE that drinking can and does lead to bad things... but it doesn't have to. When consumed responsibly it does not have to result in anything bad occurring, it can act as a social lubricant, make good food better, etc. etc. Also, we all know how successful banning it turned out to be. The issues with alcohol, over and above alcoholism, is a societal one. If you got rid of alcohol from the poor and desperate, they would find something else to use to the same effect and still commit crime, and beat their wives etc. It's not the direct problem.

Also, you cite 7% of men and 2.5% of woman as being alcoholic... ok, so for that percentage then drinking should not be an option. Now... how about smoking? What percentage of smokers become addicted? Pretty darn close to 100%, and of those there are NO POSITIVE BENEFITS. None...

Now, I have never said it should be banned, never said it should be illegal, but it should not be allowed in areas where us non smokers frequent, because we don't deserve to be in a restaurant trying to enjoy a meal only to be assaulted by smoke. Nor do we wish to be waiting for a train and being engulfed in smoke. And again... the wish for others to stop smoking is as much for them as it is for us... we don't want to see them die.

Also, you saying that an alcoholic father who beats their children is a little off... for all the people that drink, and by your own figures that is BY FAR the majority of people, only a small, small percentage do that... compared to those that smoke, pretty much all will die a premature death, thereby robbing their children of a father earlier than need be.

You will never convince me that drinking s worse or even on the same level as smoking, never.

>> ^demon_ix:
You do realize that in between breathing in fresh air, you're breathing in smoke, tar and nicotine?
I'm sorry, but that argument seemed too silly for me to ignore <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
>> ^Samaelsmith:
It's also a good excuse to go outside and get some fresh air


Yeah, my girlfriend thinks I'm crazy too. There is a certain quality to outside air, whether it's ions or whatever, that is different than inside air. Even on a busy downtown street on a smoggy day there is a "freshness" to the air that indoors doesn't have. And I must emphasize that "fresh" air has absolutely nothing to do with "clean" air.

Even though I've been a non-smoker for long enough that my sense of smell has come back and I can more truly enjoy fresh air, I still miss sitting out on the porch and breathing in the cool night air. I know I could still do that but without a cigarette, I can't relax because my mind is constantly thinking that I shouldn't be sitting around doing nothing, I should go inside and do something.

Also, when I would go outside and take a deep breath of good clean air, my mind would think "Mmmm, delicious, a smoke would make it even better." Even I think that's ridiculous, but that's how it was.