Quitting smoking?

This this this, a thousand fucking times this. That book is the sole reason I have been tobacco free for 523 days.

I can see why you think the way you do because when I tell peopel about the book, I feel like a scummy street preacher because all I have is my testimony and what I swear to seems extraordinary. The difference with this book is that it doesn't claim to work miracles. Quitting smoking isn't miraculous, it's understanding (scientifically) that you are harming your body, you (more often than not) don't actually like smoking (honestly, who does?) and your're going to stop. It's not a magic bullet; you still have to genuinely want to quit. It's just that, more often than not, people that read it and don't want to quit, end up quitting because o f the easy way.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I am assuming this post if sarcasm? Doesn't seem like something you'd normally say. If there were actual side effects with being gay that are brought on by merely being gay, you'd have a point. But the only time being gay has caused serious bodily harm is at the hands of bigots. Again, I can't tell if your post is serious or not, but as far as this bit is concerned: that is not the aim of the book. People that smoke a occasional cigar or joint are not the target group of the book. People that have an occasional cigar or joint (or even multiple joints every day) aren't in the same category as "people that need to stop smoking". I smoke weed every day and if it happens to harm me or be bad (not proven to yet), at least I get something out of it as opposed to cigarettes all I got out of it is stinking and wanting another cigarette.

I honestly don't understand what the uproar is other than the fact that there is no hard and fast regulation on what is in the solution, so that vapor could be anything. Is it just a remnant of people equating someone blowing a smoke like substance with cigarettes or something else known to be harmful? The vapor dissipates immediately and has less of an odor than a car or that old ladies perfume.

You would do well to just read the book instead of basing your opinions on the introduction or reviews on Amazon. It was a mistake for me to even engage you in conversation because you twist EVERYTHING to suit your beliefs, even topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with them.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Is there nicotine in the exhaled vapor? I would think that defeats the purpose of ingesting the nicotine if you don't actually ingest it. Also, what about the nicotine free vaporizers?

I don't know which is why I am refraining from reacting as if I do know. But you feel confident that you should react as if you DO know how much nicotine is breathed out and you are certain it is a non-negligable amount that will most certainly cause you problems?Do you really think that whatver nicotine that is exhaled from an electronic cigarette is worse than what is already in the air?

But we aren't talking about cigarettes. Try a relevant comparison. As much as EvC likes to think so, this is not a valid response simply because you disagree with someone. the label of troll around here is utterly meaningless because you all toss it around to everyone with a differing opinion.

Try arguing with facts and data instead of emotion. this will prove nearly impossible since the electonic cigarett market/vaping is severely lacking in reputable study and is often touted as being actually healthy. Said no one in this thread except you.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I find it odd that they neither name the study nor provide a link to it. At any rate, you've yet to show that there more nicotine in the exhaled vapor of an electronic cigarette than there is in a tomato, yet you are up in arms about e-cigs. You are reacting as if e-cigs are actively killing you, yet no one has a clue as to what is actually in the vapor. Why wait for study results? You've already determined it to be harmful.Explain how your argument differs from that of the "vaccines cause autism" argument?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I could ask that, yes. I have actually asked that, indeed. Howevre, that is not the topic of this line of discussion and is not the tact you are following.the difference is: I acknowledge that it is essentially just water vapor and dissipates almost immediately. No one is blowing it in my face (I'd blow my fist in their face if they did), so why would I get up in arms about it? As long as I don't smell it, I don't really care. No, you've not said that you think it is harmful. You have acted as though you are convinced it is, though. None of which stops the anti vaxxers from spouting BS without sufficient data to back them up. They, too, have news articles that claim scientific studies to back them up.

Maybe I am a bit confused. Is your concern that people are blowing vapor in your face? Or that they are doing it indoors within your view? If the former, I can see a problem, but not with the vapor itself: that's fucking rude and you should take it up with that person, not as a crusade against their hobby. If the latter, then,....well....tough shit? I am pretty sure I have halitosis so my breath is probably more foul than the vapor exhaled by e-cigs and no one says shit to me (except for my wife when I gross her out by breathing in her face after a long night of whiskey, weed and garlic bread).Secondly: have you any evidence that anything that is exhaled from e-cigs or vaporizors lingers for any amount of time? If it isn't blown in your face, what is the problem? Is there any science that indicates that water vapor lingers around, causing damage or being harmful well after it dissipates?Look, I am disgusted by smokers more than is reasonable and I think people that smoke e-cigs and the like look silly and should stop advocating them as healthy alternatives (less dangerous alternatives would be better since we don't know if they are healthy or not), but to crusade against them and treat them the same as cigarettes is asinine. To claim them to be flat out dangerous to others is ridiculous."it's new and I am ignorant of it, so it must be dangerous" Still dying from what? Where? What do you mean with this? "I have no data to back up my fear, but it persists nonetheless and I will advocate against it". The basic arguments are exactly the same for both topics. Granted, it's a pretty weak comparison and I won't bother making it anymore.

It's not in your air.