/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10341572]

is it dangerous or not?

[Anonymous No.10341575]

aren't those little animals that go into your mouth?

[Anonymous No.10341591]

>>10341572
>Does this ingredient or leached chemical improve or maintain my health?

gb2: >>>/fiy/ >>>/bit/ >>>/drug/

[Anonymous No.10341594]

>>10341572
It's definitely annoying

[Anonymous No.10341605]

If you go from tobacco products to vaping its orders of magnitudes better for you. Going from no use at all to vaping is not good for you but the effects might be minor

[Anonymous No.10341631]

>>10341605
Sources?

[Anonymous No.10341700]

>>10341605
i noticed some residue that build up on my tongue when i vape a lot and don't brush my teeth, i wonder if there's the same thing in my lungs?? do they have the ability to eject these impurities?

[Anonymous No.10341709]

>>10341572
Nope they aren't dangerous at all, in fact they are healthy*. Make sure to vape at least 8 hours a day and at as high a temperture as possible for health*.
>>10341700
nope nothing to worry about. Remember if it's black it don't do jack, if it's clear you've got something to fear.

*health in this case refers to that of society by causing an earlier death of those vaping

[Anonymous No.10341746]

>>10341631
Conversations I've had with grad students I know who are doing research on the subject.

[Anonymous No.10341815]

>>10341746
So no reliable sources as of now.

[Anonymous No.10341846]

>>10341605
Tobacco is harmless in the first place.
In fact, I'd make the argument that tobacco is acutely better for the lungs for evolutionary mechanisms against a sudden introduction of moisture (and withdrawal assuming the hygroscopic PG/VG has not fully captured) in vast quantities, has yet to develop. This overwhelms the lung and causes scar tissue to develop in response. This is why many vapers have a chronic cough and cannot handle cigarettes any more after vaping.

Nicotine ROA from best to worst
God tier
>Tobacco Smoke
Very good tier
>Nicotrol Inhaler
OK tier
>Nicotine Patch
>Nicotine gum/lozenge
remotely tolerable tier
>snus
SHIT TIER
>e-cigs
>chew

[Anonymous No.10341930]

>>10341846
Nigger thats some cherrypicking ur doing, cigarette smoke is packed with nasty chemicals that have well documented carginogenic properties.

[Anonymous No.10342005]

Fuck tobacco. How about medicinal marijuana cartridges?

[Anonymous No.10342018]

>>10341846

1 in 3 smokers will die from smoking related illness.

1 in 7 smokers will develop lung cancer.

This is completely stupid to try to argue tobacco smoking is worse than vaping. They are both bad for your health but cigarettes are exponentially worse.

[Anonymous No.10342285]

>>10341572
Some flavouring agents are known for health issues, for example the chemical that's causes pop-corn lung (diacetyl) is present in some e-liquid. No case of bronchiolitis obliterans caused by vaping has been reported yet.
We lack the data, but it won't hurt to look for chemical that have health risk and avoid brand that use them.

[Anonymous No.10342299]

>>10341572
its kinda healthier than smoking and is good for helping quitting but i woke up unable to breathe twice, was the vapes fault.. stopped after those incidents.. never woke up unable to breathe from cigarettes

[Anonymous No.10342465]

>>10342285
the popcorn lung thing was a bad study. the workers were exposed to large amounts of diacetyl for 40 hours per week in order to get popcorn lung. Even a heavy vaper wouldnt be exposed to like 1/10 of that amount. Also the sample size was small (only one factory)

[Anonymous No.10342511]

>>10342465
Unless you're a big fan of that specific brand that uses it, my advice would be to stay the fuck away from it.

Anyway there is no health risk known to this day, except for the propylene glycol, which is an irritant. We lack proper studies and funding.
I'm sure tobacco companies will do something about it.

On a personal note, there is a threshold I cannot pass on a daily basis (around 4-5ml of 6mg/ml 80/20 pg/VG eliquid), symptoms are hiccup, short breath and a shitty feeling.

[Anonymous No.10342590]

thc pens have cyanide in them

i started coughing blood after vaping weed pens a bunch one night

[Anonymous No.10342606]

who cares? either way it's for 16 year old fags

[Anonymous No.10342812]

>>10341572
forms intermediate that over long time releases formaldehyde
I wouldn't recommend vaping indoors

[4channel No.10343081]

>>10341572
Ask >>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.10343215]

>>10341846

Shut the fuck up you ignorant phagocyte

[Anonymous No.10343232]

>>10341572

Its a great way to give up smoking tobacco ciggies. Eventually u can lower the nicotine dose until you are completely off. Much easier than cold turkey, patches, gum.

Also once you completely stop you can have it tucked away in a draw ready to be a crutch just in case some shit hits the fan in your life and you get anxiety/stress cravings.

[Anonymous No.10343247]

>>10341572
Depends on what goes into it.

Though I'd confess to being a little concerned about what the Chinese might be allowing to go into the manufactured parts.

[Anonymous No.10343285]

>>10341591
>tfw no /drug/ board
I miss 420chan.

[Anonymous No.10343286]

>>10343081
kek'd

[Anonymous No.10343312]

>>10343247
I vape and this is the only thing that concerns me. Battery/box or whatever wise it hasn't been bad IME, but its the stuff that's in the coils/atomizer that I'm a little sketched about. I don't want to become a full on uber vapefag, but I might start building my own coils or whatever for when I'm at home and studying to minimize the risk. To be fair, I don't know enough about that whole thing to be able to say it's better than the commercially made coils though. I only started vaping because I needed to quit cigarettes, not to become pic related.
I also don't want to blow my face off by building a shit coil though, so I'm definitely on the fence on that one.

The diacetyl thing is a shit study like the other anon said earlier though, and it's relatively easy to avoid those brands anyways.

[Anonymous No.10343339]

>>10341930
You're the one cherry picking and worse, you're not even talking about tobacco at this point but straw-manning, and are now pointing to one or few constituents and neglecting to to mention that in such dosages they do not exhibit carcinogenicity and are found in other products that humans ingest in far greater quantities (eg, lettuce for the radioactive isotope canard & seared meats contain benzopyrenes in far greater quantities, even one breath of diesel fume exhaust contains more benzopyrenes than several cartons of cigarettes).
There is no hard study to date that demonstrates tobacco is capable of inducing carcinognesis at rates above control in healthy animal subjects. If you study the pharmacological properties of tobacco smoke, you would notice that it has anticarcinogenic constituents (polyphenols) and mechanisms (eg decreased IGF-1 levels)
>>10342018
These figures are derived from non-randomized epidemiological studies which biases unhealthy individuals/relatives to be or have had been selected for reporting adverse effects and conversely biases health conscious people to claim non-smoking status, and NEVER adjust for income, workplace occupational hazard, diet, BMI, ethanol consumption, and other lifestyle factors in developing cancer. Notwithstanding, studies that actually do correct for these lifestyle factors show demonstrably lower rates in the incidents of "smoking related illnesses", case in point, the studies that emerged from Japan in the 1990s and early 2000s, now know as the Japanese smoker's paradox.

Tobacco is nothing more than a whipping boy, something that takes the blame because people like simple solutions. The only people who believe it is capable of inducing cancer have never bothered to research the issue for themselves. Instead of having any sort of discussion, they recoil, and cannot even conceive of any counter-argument.
>>10343215
>people will ignore my ad hominem if I sound fancy enough
Reddit is that way.

[Anonymous No.10343344]

>>10343312
Are you the guy from thank you for smoking or something ? You'll sure be one hell of a lobbyist.

[Anonymous No.10343368]

>>10343312

You are me.

Vaping is so much safer and the only effective way to give up smoking I have found. But anything, absolutely anything, with "China" stamped on it means alarm bells.

Basically it means learning how to make everything yourself.

>Though I'd confess to being a little concerned about what the Chinese might be allowing to go into the manufactured parts

Its not what they "allow", its more to do with the fact that the Chinese just dont give a fuck about anything other than making a buck. They could be making parts or vape liquids containing all sorts of toxins, be quite aware of that, and still not give a fuck. Get found out? A scandal? No problem. Immune because its China. Find a scapegoat. Some peasant farmer they dragged out of a hut. Pay a Government official to have him found guilty and shot. Save face. Rebrand the business. Continue the next day, business as usual. Same toxins as usual. Why waste money on changing anything when a new cardboard box and new name does the trick? Easy enough when you have government officials in your pocket.

[Anonymous No.10343376]

>>10343339
Do you have any links to studies/data on this? Not necessarily saying you're wrong but I'd like to see a data set.

>>10343344
:^)

[Anonymous No.10343379]

>>10343339

SHut the fuck up Phag.

[Anonymous No.10343422]

>>10341846
Based.
>>10341930
Moving goalposts.
>>10342018
Ignorant, low IQ and unable to critique the literature.

[Anonymous No.10343434]

>>10343339
>>10343422
based

now if only someone would post some literature for posterity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179733/

[Anonymous No.10343440]

>>10343434
No need for even that, just ask someone to explain exactly HOW smoking causes cancer/chd/copd etc.

[Anonymous No.10343449]

>>10343440
brainlets not being able to prove a point doesn't make the converse true

[Anonymous No.10343468]

>>10343449
The only proven biochemical and mechanical effects of tobacco smoke are BENEFICIAL and MEDICINAL. The only way anyone has been able to imply a harmful effect is through highly biased and poorly designed non-randomized epidemiological studies.

[Anonymous No.10343472]

>>10343468
So surely your perspective would only bolstered if you were to share ANY of these results.

[Anonymous No.10343504]

>>10343376
site:nih.gov for Smoker's Paradox + Japan
I have the exact studies somewhere. Cannot find them currently.

As for other studies, you may find these curious

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

>No statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant lung tumors was seen in either species as a result of smoke exposure, a finding that does not agree with the results of epidemiological studies in humans. Possible reasons for this lack of correlation are given.

>Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(06)00780-8/fulltext


http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1982/01000/Carcinogenic_Effects_of_Radon_Daughters,_Uranium.4.aspx
Adverse effects from filters:


https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i51

Although dated in other aspects, William Whitby's critique of the anti-smoking science of his day still remains valid as the studies underlying it, soft, epidemiological studies, to date, have changed little, and themselves still attempt to assert their (baked) correlated not only implies but proves causation.
His books are simple and better for the layman.


>The Smoking Scare Debunked
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf

>Smoking is Good For You
https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby

Additional resource:

http://wispofsmoke.net/goodforyou.html

I have several hundred studies saved concerning the pharmacology of tobacco smoke. I plan on making a DropBox or Drive file one day.

[Anonymous No.10343505]

>>10343468
>The only way anyone has been able to imply a harmful effect is through highly biased and poorly designed non-randomized epidemiological studies.
Are you implying some kind of conspiracy here, or that these studies were all somehow done by people so retarded they just forgot about the most basic tenets of their job like controlling for other factors?

Because either way it sounds pretty ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.10343508]

I've heard these battery can explode, but I've had mine for a while. Kind of want to buy a new one just in case.
But yes, tobacco is bad for you. That's why you only use the battery for concentrated thc. Good high and you don't smell like weed.

[Anonymous No.10343509]

>>10343505
>or that these studies were all somehow done by people so retarded they just forgot about the most basic tenets of their job like controlling for other factors?
Bad science can be repeated even by people with the best of intentions.

[Anonymous No.10343987]

>>10343440
incomplete combustion of complex organic molecules => PAH, metabolites of which form adducts between basepairs and lead to mutation. vaping is almost certainly fine

[Anonymous No.10344039]

>>10343504
you are a flattard

[Anonymous No.10344102]

i dont even give a shit whether or not it's okay, it's probably better than tobacco. but man, people who vape are consistently the most obnoxious people i've ever met. even worse than tobacco users. it's just embarrassing having to talk to people at my uni who unironically think vaping makes them hip and cool.

[Anonymous No.10344186]

A pretty convincing read that smoking causes excess overall mortality, even after adjustment for age, race, education and alcohol consumption.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa1407211

[Anonymous No.10344208]

>>10344102
to be fair, smoking IS pretty cool

[Anonymous No.10344477]

>>10343440
heat
pcas
tar
carbon monoxide

[Anonymous No.10344542]

>>10344477
Smoking also lowers blood bilirubin and therefore depletes us from natural antioxidants. There is a whole mess of poorly understood pathways, but smokefaggots will stay in denial.
t. former smoker

[Anonymous No.10344581]

>>10343504
>>Smoking is Good For You
>https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby
I'm a smoker and i read this book but:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whitby

Studi, ampie ricerche, e revisioni critiche di interi settori scientifici riguardanti i danni da fumo, convalidati dall'intera comunità scientifica internazionale, hanno al di fuori di ogni dubbio riconosciuto i gravi ed oggettivi danni causati dal fumo alla salute. L'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità, tramite la IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer classifica il fumo di tabacco, sulle cinque categorie previste per gli agenti cancerogeni, come gruppo 1[10] Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans, cancerogeno per l'uomo.


Studies, extensive research, and critical reviews of entire scientific areas concerning smoking damage, validated by the entire international scientific community, have beyond the bounds of all the recognized serious and objective damage caused by smoking to health. The World Health Organization, through the IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies tobacco smoke, on the five categories for carcinogens, as group 1 [10] Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans, carcinogenic to humans.

[Anonymous No.10344588]

>>10344039
Straw man ad hominem.
And, no I'm not.

[Anonymous No.10344590]

>>10344542
This is nonsense smokers have higher amounts of glutathione and tobacco smoke itself contains many antioxidants like Coenzyme Q10.

[Anonymous No.10344592]

>>10341572
It is. Someone can smash your fucking mug for being a fag.

[Anonymous No.10344602]

>>10341631
>sources
There was this point in time where we had this thing called logic we could rely on (like how inhaling high-temperature gases probably isn't good for you, since it's likely to at least burn your throat repeatedly). For instance, to assuage your brainlessness, there's this:
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20180206/hot-tea-linked-to-esophageal-cancer-risk#1
If hot tea can increase the risk of esophageal cancer, and a sunburn can cause skin cancer, it would make sense to think that perhaps some component of getting cancer is repeated heat injuries which would cause the natural process in your body - that is already constantly producing cancer cells during mistakes in cellular reproduction - to increase the risk of cancer as more cells are damaged (and therefore, new cells need to be formed to repair the damage, which increases the likelihood of malformed, cancerous cells, a process that is literally already constantly happening in your body).

tl;dr - you have absolutely no reason to assume it isn't unhealthy since you have no source to prove that it isn't dangerous, but you're not looking for scientific clarity, you want a vindication to win some argument somewhere

[Anonymous No.10344776]

>>10344477
>heat
A non-issue unless you're burning yourself. By the time cigarette smoke goes into your mouth, it is fairly cool and regardless the temperature that would inflict burns would be higher than water or solid foods due to lower thermal conductivity.
>pcas
???
>tar
A scary word designed to sound icky, but if analyzed is comprised of readily broken down light weight organic molecules, and not only that, most of its constituents are of significant benefit like rich polyphenols, antioxidants like Coenzyme Q10.

In fact, the desire to reduce tar makes cigarettes harmful.


https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i51

>carbon monoxide
Sola dosis facit venenum.
Low dose CO has therapeutic effects. Also, it isn't even a causative agent in the development of cancer so you ran out of things to say and just thought you would sound smart by adding buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.10344786]

>>10344186
This is contradicted by the average lifespan of Japanese population (especially when smoking was widespread) and the the fact that most of the documented oldest people to have ever lived were smokers.
The study you provide failed to adjust for larger hazards like workplace. Also bear in mind that this data is from 2000-2011, when most people quit and the only people remaining smoking simply do not care about their health, so the population is abysmal and and not a healthy group of individuals irrespective of adjusting for these factors. Again, this study is plagued by self-selected cohorts (by individual or survivors) and the biases. Lastly, it fails to distinguish whether or not quitting played a role in the development of their cancer.

[Anonymous No.10344787]

>>10344786
>when most people quit
Most intelligent people quit due over ill-founded health concerns*

[Anonymous No.10345690]

>>10344102
I fucking hate those dudes. I vape, but I fuck off somewhere quiet and out of the way of people, just like I would do when I smoke cigarettes. Even though the second hand vapor isn't particularly harmful, it's not an excuse to be a dickhead and vape in the middle of a crowd.

[Anonymous No.10345739]

>>10345690
Second hand vape, unlike second hand smoke, is able to capture and propagate pathogens.

[Anonymous No.10345796]

>>10344786
I can pick out almost aby study on this topic and it presents good data on how smoking is detrimental for human health.
You're lying to yourself and you lie to others about obviously dangerous habits.

[Anonymous No.10345850]

>>10342018
WHile it is reasonable to hope that whatever they are putting in vape juice, and whatever is leaching from the High Quarity Chinese Vaporizers, is less harmful than tobacco, your argument is flawed.

Citing data for the dangers of tobacco, and then concluding that tobacco must be worse than some other product, is nonsense unless you have the similar data for the other product.

If tobacco use has, say, a 15% chance of killing me with a tobacco-related disease, is it then possible to assume that jumping off a tall building is safer?

[Anonymous No.10345854]

>>10343285
Oh shit, did 420 died?

[Anonymous No.10345864]

>>10343472
Cricket noises noted.

[Anonymous No.10345877]

>>10343987
Depends entirely on what's in it.

Is there any kind of regulation or oversight on that? Just trusting the pimply kid at Great Grape Vape and the Chinese businessmen making the product seems sub-optimal.

[Anonymous No.10345891]

>>10341572
It is dangerous yes.
People will automatically realize you are a huge faggot, so your chances of being raped, robbed, murdered or worse, have increased exponentially.

[Anonymous No.10345894]

>>10345739
Fuckin A, was not aware of that. Anyways at least I'm not subjecting anyone to that since I stay away from people while I take a vape break.

On a side note, in a future zombie movie should take advantage of this fact in a scene, like whenever the outbreak is in its early stages. Like at a frat party and a bunch of dudebro's are hitting their JUUL things up and the zombie virus spreads faster than gonorrhea at the
[math]\Delta IK[/math] house.

[Anonymous No.10346086]

>>10345796
Yet you're too stupid to critique the studies and understand the methodology used to derive the associations, and do not see, despite it being explained time and again, that such correlations are dubious when completely contradicted by hard evidence.

[Anonymous No.10346090]

>>10345894
Rabies would actually work.

[Anonymous No.10346126]

>>10341572
>humans have breathed air to live for hundreds of thousands of years
>inhaling combusted propylene glycol is perfectly fine
lungs absorb oxygen into your blood don't they? whatever you're vaping, your lungs aren't receiving oxygen.
Plus, the nicotine fucks with your mind making you dependant on lung cancer to function day to day.

[Anonymous No.10346154]

>>10341572
Its undoubtedly more safe than chainsmoking marlboro reds everyday for 60 years. However, like anything, its best to do so in moderation. I smoke 2-3 cigars a month, its definitely not good for me, but at worst i cut a year or two off my lifespan if anything.
I dont understand why 99% of smokers/vapers/drinkers/whatever cant grasp the concept of moderation. Nothing is completely risk free, just dont be stupid about it.

[Anonymous No.10346160]

>>10341815
oh please, it could hardly be worse.

[Anonymous No.10346602]

>>10341572
The mouth fedora is dangerous if you want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.10346627]

>>10341572
Is that one of those steam powered flutes?

[Anonymous No.10346634]

>>10346126
>lungs absorb oxygen into your blood don't they? whatever you're vaping, your lungs aren't receiving oxygen.
so is holding my breath a few times a day bad for me

[Anonymous No.10346684]

>>10346126
this point is better articulated by this anon >>10341846

>In fact, I'd make the argument that tobacco is acutely better for the lungs for evolutionary mechanisms against a sudden introduction of moisture (and withdrawal assuming the hygroscopic PG/VG has not fully captured) in vast quantities, has yet to develop. This overwhelms the lung and causes scar tissue to develop in response. This is why many vapers have a chronic cough and cannot handle cigarettes any more after vaping.

[Anonymous No.10347039]

>>10344186
To play Devil's Advocate - they did not adjust for diet, or fitness/exercise levels. All health conscious people nowadays 'know' that smoking is bad, so its safe to assume that the smokers in this study are minimally health conscious (little exercise and poor diet).

Since they did not control for those factors and the general practice for health oriented people is avoid smoking, I highly doubt that the smoking group had similar levels of exercise or effort put into their diet.

That being said, good luck finding anyone know-a-adays who smokes and has a good diet/exercise routine. Some retard will think that that proves something, but in the arena of legitimate research this is a semi-obvious issue which is inherent if you don't/can't control for diet/exercise.

[Anonymous No.10347114]

>>10347039
Stop spewing your nonsense from cherrypicked, outdated publications. A smokers lung is obviously heavily impaired in getting oxygen. No confounding factor in smokers will ever be able to explain this. The same goes for lung cancer and life expectancy.

[Anonymous No.10347137]

>>10347114
How about the fact that there exists a genetic variable influencing nicotine metabolism, which independently influences the likelihood of being addicted as well as of developing lung cancer?

[Anonymous No.10347795]

>>10347114
>Stop spewing your nonsense from cherrypicked, outdated publications
His critique of that had nothing to do with the other studies. It was purely on that specific study.
>A smokers lung is obviously heavily impaired in getting oxygen.
CO toxicity is dose dependent. There is not a significant quantity to "heavily impair" getting oxygen in, otherwise they would be dead or severely brain damaged.
>No confounding factor in smokers will ever be able to explain this.
Trying to sound intelligent despite actually saying a meaningless statement. Toxicity profile of CO perfectly explains this. You're just a brainlet.
>The same goes for lung cancer and life expectancy.
Of course lung cancer is going to shorten life expectancy. However, whether or not smoking causes it is dubious whenever you are resting your case solely on epidemiological data, when even better designed studies, are inherently flawed and suspect in the absence of hard evidence. Not just the absence of hard evidence but hard evidence that completely contradicts these findings and in some instances demonstrates anticarcinogenic effects.

[Anonymous No.10347941]

>>10347114
>>10347137
Most likely explained by the shit additives put into cigarettes plus the shit lifestyle most smokers have which just asks for cancer. I'd like to see that source though, as of now its just hearsay and you are probably referencing it incorrectly.

We should also be making distinctions between cigarette and tobacco smoking, due to the aforementioned additives. If the skeptics argument plays out cleanly than tobacco should have very minimal if any negative health consequences.

[Anonymous No.10348026]

>>10343285
Lainchan

[Anonymous No.10348285]

>that anon trying to convince people to smoke tobacco
God fucking damnit. If you want to kill people that badly, go to your closest unversity and do a mass shooting, you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.10348410]

>>10348285
You swear at me, imply violent motives, say to commit violence and call me a piece of shit, when I've done nothing at all but contest the prevalent belief that tobacco smoking is harmful. If I've ever seen projection in a post, this is it. Genuinely sick. Your inability to engage and instead assert these completely unrelated insults concerning heinous acts is symptomatic of severe mental illness.
I shouldn't do this but I'll address your lunatic post. Tobacco doesn't kill people, and even if it did, it would manifest 5+ decades later after a lifetime aided by increased cognitive capacity; there is no twisted satisfaction to that. If I meant ill, assuming tobacco was dangerous, I would be telling people to smoke mass produced garbage.

[Anonymous No.10348669]

>>10346602
> mouth fedora

[Anonymous No.10348766]

>>10341846
Cool bait. Surely some people here will believe these bought off """scientists"""

[Anonymous No.10348804]

>>10348766
If you actually look at the studies, they are anti-tobacco groups.

[Anonymous No.10348826]

>>10348410
Please seek help before you shoot up a kindergarten

[Anonymous No.10348832]

>>10348766
t. Brainlet with a conspiracy theory using scare quotes around scientist because he is unable to reconcile an alternative hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.10348838]

>>10348285
>>10348826
cringe
this idiocy makes the tobacco guy look credible

[Anonymous No.10348976]

I love how the brainlets use science as their religion. This guy is giving you the studies and reasoning for his perspective and half of you are just "hurr durr cigarette bad cuz uhh science ordained it," when really they just repeat what people who didn't read the studies told them.

Majority of the time you'd be right to bet that the title of a paper is correct but when someone goes into the details and you're only response is appealing to the odds 'science' being right you look like an actual uneducated idiot.

[Anonymous No.10349038]

>>10348976
Well said.

[Anonymous No.10349465]

>>10341572
It's dangerous, you're continuously putting literal droplets and particles into your aveoli where only air and CO2 should be exchanged. There has to be some damage to the respiratory system itself, and not to mention the effects of various chemicals such as nicotine have on your entire system.

[Anonymous No.10349573]

>>10349465
>to mention the effects of various chemicals such as nicotine have on your entire system.
You paint this as some sort of negative.

[Anonymous No.10349604]

>>10343285
>>10345854
Actually 420chan is still up.

[Anonymous No.10349746]

>>10349573
ive been smoking for the first time, exclusively before my midterms or my study sessions. i have to say its not bad at all, and i find it hard to be believe that smoking half a cig for 5 min is that distastrous. works pretty damn well too. personally i want to preach to high heaven how useful it is, but to avoid being cringy i wont.

[Anonymous No.10349883]

>>10341572
Dangerous for your social status at least

[Anonymous No.10350080]

>>10341572
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779?fbclid=IwAR3HCn_sbre3Pml0ClqObdiLppaZhV1qDhr48u-lqCG2IwrgqhdHZiAVE5w

It apparently helped people quit smoking.

[Anonymous No.10350097]

>>10341746
Lmfao hi Kraut

[Anonymous No.10350137]

>>10341575
based norm poster

[Anonymous No.10350141]

>>10341572
Israel banned it so it must be. Also be a good goy and keep killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.10350571]

>>10341846
You had me until snus was placed lower than fucking patches and gum.

[Anonymous No.10350775]

Yes. There is no tobacco, but there is a crazy amount of nicotine in those things. That's the addictive substance.

[Anonymous No.10350783]

>>10350775
t. psychopharmacological illiterate

[neutermind No.10350864]

Yeah, it gives you a rough neck.

Can spot a vaper by their neck.

[Anonymous No.10350871]

>>10341846

"Camel Doctor here. Anon is right on target.

"...And scientifically speaking? Vaping is for fags."

[Anonymous No.10351071]

>>10350871
I'm sure the people too lazy to read the thread will find this quite zingy!

[Anonymous No.10351123]

vaping isnt harmless but its orders of magnitude better than inhaling the smoke from burning tobacco plants

[Anonymous No.10351201]

>>10341846
This board surprises me.
The fact that tobacco is good, I have known for a very long time.
But I always thought it was just me, who knew and could see past the propaganda.
But it seems there are other people as well.

Btw to everyone who says tobacco is bad, there has been no actual research that proves causality, only correlation.
You say lung cancer is more prevalent in smokers, but there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, or that is some other factor that causes lung cancer and smoking.
Smoking could just very well be a means of self-medication.

It is like the famous ice-cream consumption and drowning example. During summer drownings skyrocket and so does ice-cream consumption. But that does not mean ice-creams cause drowning.
This is brainlet tier example that all scientists should know, but somehow when it comes to investigating the effects of tobacco every scientist reverts to a brainlet for some reason.
I'd hate to say (((they))) did it again, but it seems like (((they))) did.

[Anonymous No.10351206]

>>10341815
No just google vaping studies you stupid animal. I would do it for you but you literally won’t stop being a faggot if you aren’t forced to with threats of embarassment or violence.

[Anonymous No.10351229]

Why doesn’t someone just make you vape water? Why does it have to be nicotine? I’d buy one with water desu

[Anonymous No.10351236]

>>10351229
>>10351201
nigger

[Anonymous No.10352237]

>>10351201
>Btw to everyone who says tobacco is bad, there has been no actual research that proves causality, only correlation.
My hurting lungs and the black shit I cough up after a period of excessive smoking is enough proof for myself that shit's fucked.