A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control! If you tend to get addicted to things then avoid addictive things with abuse potential.
A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control!
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively. You would need a quantitative account in order to infer addiction. Take World of Warcraft. I played it for a total of three weeks, just one evening per week, and that was three years ago. So, I played it, I liked it, and then I moved on. Or take my little dog. Surely you don’t mean to say that owning a dog demonstrates a lack of self control! I’m sure that dog owners across America would be very interested to hear your reasoning for that.
How about some basic respect for other people that you don’t know. I mean, really, is telling a complete stranger that he’s an addict supposed to persuade him of something?
Let’s recap. Gerard said “don’t do it”, which is not much of an argument. He pointed out that it’s a superstimulus, like ice cream. That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
Whoa, let’s be careful here. It’s very important to not mix arguments about nicotine’s safety with arguments about smoking or cigarettes’ safety.
I agree that nicotine looks fairly safe & quite beneficial; but while I toy with some of the pro-smoking studies, they are nowhere near enough to convince me that smoking is safe given all the contrary studies.
Caffeine, puppies, chocolate—these are not ‘gateway drugs’ to cannabis, prostitution, or crack cocaine. But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively.
Perhaps. You must admit you were heavy on the emphasis with regard to just how much addictive stuff you are already into. I’m glad to see your point was a little different to the one I had inferred! WoW is evil.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
I saw that and followed the link. I was curious since I sometimes use nicotine sources myself—for most part it seems to a better drug than caffeine and, with the right delivery mechanism, less addictive. Hearing about the effect on plaque surprised me somewhat.
A particularly bad thing to consider given your evident lack of self control! If you tend to get addicted to things then avoid addictive things with abuse potential.
You have a funny way of interpreting non-quantitative evidence quantitatively. You would need a quantitative account in order to infer addiction. Take World of Warcraft. I played it for a total of three weeks, just one evening per week, and that was three years ago. So, I played it, I liked it, and then I moved on. Or take my little dog. Surely you don’t mean to say that owning a dog demonstrates a lack of self control! I’m sure that dog owners across America would be very interested to hear your reasoning for that.
How about some basic respect for other people that you don’t know. I mean, really, is telling a complete stranger that he’s an addict supposed to persuade him of something?
Let’s recap. Gerard said “don’t do it”, which is not much of an argument. He pointed out that it’s a superstimulus, like ice cream. That’s really one of the examples from the article he linked to. So what it amounts to is that I shouldn’t try e-cigarettes because they’re like ice cream. Another example ie video games. So, I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like video games. Really? That’s the reason? That’s the argument? Or: I shouldn’t try cigarettes because they’re like chocolate chip cookies.
He argued that nicotine is harmful but was honest enough to admit that the evidence is mixed—from which I gather that the claim is not all that strong.
Whoa, let’s be careful here. It’s very important to not mix arguments about nicotine’s safety with arguments about smoking or cigarettes’ safety.
I agree that nicotine looks fairly safe & quite beneficial; but while I toy with some of the pro-smoking studies, they are nowhere near enough to convince me that smoking is safe given all the contrary studies.
Caffeine, puppies, chocolate—these are not ‘gateway drugs’ to cannabis, prostitution, or crack cocaine. But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.
Perhaps. You must admit you were heavy on the emphasis with regard to just how much addictive stuff you are already into. I’m glad to see your point was a little different to the one I had inferred! WoW is evil.
I saw that and followed the link. I was curious since I sometimes use nicotine sources myself—for most part it seems to a better drug than caffeine and, with the right delivery mechanism, less addictive. Hearing about the effect on plaque surprised me somewhat.