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.
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.