A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Yesterday was 4 weeks without nicotine for me.
Congratulations, that's a great accomplishment! Hopefully you are able to hit 4 months, then 4 years, then 4 decades.
Thank you!
YES!!! I'm SO happy for you!!! That's awesome!
Thank you!
Dude congrats!! You're past the worst of it, in my opinion. If you relapse, you relapse, but now you know what you're capable of. You got this!
I really don't want to relapse.
You got it :)
Ymmv on that one. I still get random cravings, 5 years after completely quitting. I still occasionally smoke in dreams. It latched on to me extra hard.
Oh don't get me wrong, I still get random cravings and it's been years for me as well. I doubt they'll ever go away. That said though, every time I tried to quit, it was those first two weeks that were hell every time, so four weeks is a big deal IMO
It kills me that this was initially shoved out there as a safe alternative to smoking. No actual research, just trust us bro. And of course all this starts coming out and some people are still of the opinion that its safe due to the initial marketing push. Money at all costs, fuck capitalism.
EDIT: Fixed a grammar error
Relatively safe != safe, it just means more safe than the thing being compared to. It's likely still a big improvement over smoking.
Also let's remember how it was originally marketed: You start with the dose that matches your smoking habit, 18 or 24mg of nicotine per bottle, and then work your way towards 0%, and then you can just give it up. It's how I quit smoking. I am pretty sure that few years of vaping was safer for me than the next 40 (well probably a lot less) of smoking would be.
Yeah, and the flavours helped because it wasn't as satisfying as cigarettes but you could have fun flavours to at least make it enjoyable and interesting enough to not just want a cigarette instead (or in addition).
That is a fair assessment, I thankfully never picked up a smoking habit. If vaping got some folks to quit smoking then it did serve as an efficient off ramp. I’ve watched close relatives wither from lung cancer, wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Hope you’re in good health and spirits.
So far so good, though we'll see how my own time smoking and vaping catches up to me in the end.
And then you hear shit like living in a city is as bad for your lungs as smoking from all the car exhaust and figure "well at least I'm back down to just smoking risk instead of 2x smoking risk". I am (hopefully) relatively healthier than I was when I did smoke, though unfortunately older.
Hope your health reflects your healthy choices well and that you haven't gotten old in the meantime while seeing how it goes. :)
It's so silly that people are rushing to defend vaping here. Just admit that inhaling shit into your lungs isn't good for you and that the rich people profiting off your addiction want to keep up the charade as long as possible. Just admit, like all people who smoke cigarettes do, that it's bad for you and that you'll continue doing it.
I drank diet sodas for years, but I avoided defending it even though the evidence was inconclusive. I know the corporate goons want it to be perceived as healthy, so I don't want to play into their plans regardless of how convenient it is for me. Our addictions aren't healthy, and we need to own up to that even if we aren't strong enough to resist them.
I'll always be thankful that vaping got me off tobacco, and eventually nicotine too. But there's an abyssal gulf between the self assembled, diy vape and self mixed liquid that vaping started at, and the white ox grade addiction pods that vaping has become.
There's absolutely no reason to have the default strength be 50mg/mL, unless optimising for addiction without quite hitting a poisonous dose.
Which fricking vape pod has 50mg/mL? That's even worse than the strongest cigarettes. I was on 3-5mg/mL and eventually weaned off completely. Good god, 50mg would be awful!
The gas station disposable pods are like that. That wah they can delivers lot of drug with little power consumption
Just admit, like all people who smoke cigarettes do, that it’s bad for you
I still know people who insist smoking isn't bad for you. Typically with some kind of "Actually, oranges and swimming pools kill more people than cigarettes do, so it's no big deal" rejoinder. It's genuinely maddening.
Just admit, like all people who smoke cigarettes do, that it’s bad for you and that you’ll continue doing it.
I don't know why people can't just do this. I drink
sometimes like a fish
and I know it's not good for me and likely will take years off of my life. But I like it. So oh fucking well.
Had a diet soda after work yesterday. Just sat down right now after getting home from work and am craving one intensely.
There is no way something so yummy and habit forming is consequence-free.
Idk man seems obvious to me.
how so? isn't it the smoke that's bad?
Lungs are simply not made for absorption of substances of the vapor. The lung tissues are very delicate and are there for the exchange of gases. Everything else is a pollution and causes irritation.
this just in: inhaling cancerous chemicals causes cancer. More at 10
The cancerous chemical company said this one wasn't proven to cause cancer. Who was I supposed to believe?
Besides, without cancerous smoke packets, I'd still be using cancerous smoke sticks. Are you saying I should still be using the sticks? You freak. Those things cause cancer!
Vaping came out when I was still smoking and even back then I knew it was bullshit. Especially with cigarette companies pushing it so hard.
analysed reviews of evidence from animal studies,
I seriously doubt that, because the bases in e-juice were studied thoroughly in the 50's with no such evidence.
And nicotine has obviously also been studied thoroughly, and the nicotine is not considered a major carcinogen in cigarettes, it's mostly compounds created by the burning of the paper and tobacco that cause cancer that is the actual SMOKE in smoking, which vapes do not have, unless the vape is seriously overheated.
I bet that this study is flawed, if it truly shows indication of cancerous effects, I bet it's because they overheat the e-juice, which has the same effect as burning fat on a frying pan. And with the e-juice taste horribly.
Either that or they've used impure products, and not the pharmaceutical quality products that dominate the industry.
If you are a vaper, make sure the nicotine and base juice are both pharmaceutical quality.
However, the review included case reports from dentists who noticed oral cancer in people who had only vaped and who had never smoked.
This is partially based on self reporting, which is the least reliable form of study there is.
Also I've never heard such warnings from dentists?
Unfortunately with these kinds of studies, we have to consider they can either be honestly flawed, but worse than that the studies can be dishonest to attract funding.
I bet it’s because they overheat the e-juice
I remember there being a study years ago where they even went so far as to heat it until the wicking material (cotton iirc) started to burn then claimed vapes contain the chemicals that were created by the combustion (if you let your vape go dry or you hold the button way too long it's disgusting, nobody would vape like that all the time). The cigarette industry has no morals and will fund anyone who will publish their dodgy "research".
It is quite amusing to me the level of copium that I read in comments whenever negative health impacts of vaping are pointed out.
Have all the flavor additives that they add to these vape juices been studied on the impacts on the lungs since the 50s to support your “doubt”? Did the studies on PG’s effect on the lungs since the 50s include frequency of use and exposure to the lungs that is consistent with daily use vaping we see today?
You’re evaluating results of the study by assuming that the only thing that can cause oral and lung cancers are inhaling smoke. Which is incredibly flawed thinking.
It could be that perhaps…just maybe…that inhaling anything other than clean air on a consistent basis increases someone’s chances of developing cancer. Crazy thought, I know.
Sure it is likely better than smoking. But anyone that deludes themselves into thinking that their pina colada vape they inhale into their lungs multiple times an hour is healthy and can’t possibly cause any negative health issues is uhhh…not very bright.
I mean, no shit it will, but good on the Aussie government to fund the study so that it's all already proven. It's fucking impossible to debate some people without linking to studies like you're defending a Goddamned fucking doctoral thesis.
Showing evidence doesn't even work generally. Psychology doesn't work that way sadly.
Gee who could have guessed that inhaling dubious chemicals causes lung problems.
I'ma be so annoyed if there are meaningful second hand vaping effects -_-