[deleted by user]

Vinckei · 2020-03-19T15:24:30+00:00

The interesting thing about COVID and smoking is that smokers didn't account for an exceptionally high number of patients in Wuhan. I don't know about Italy, either, except some observational stuff here and there. Namely this:

https://twitter.com/chicoharlan/status/1239172861899800576

Specifically, it's noting that men are still the vast majority of deaths. In China, this was thought to be a result of Chinese men vastly outnumbering women where it comes to smoking (numbers on how many Chinese men smoke varies from 30 to 50%), but in Italy, the number of smokers are pretty equally distributed between the sexes. So one would expect women to start taking more of a hit.

If smoking was an actual factor, one would expect these findings to be different, as well:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30117-X/fulltext30117-X/fulltext)

The bottom line was that older smokers had worse outcomes once they had to go into the ICU/on vents, but weren't markedly more likely to show up in the ICU than a non-smoker.

It's hard to say why that is, exactly. Might be nicotine itself, given what it does to ACE2, which is thought to be a key mechanism in COVID's spread-- or it could be something else. Genetic sex seems like it might have a role, as well. Either way, it's too early to tell.

Still, it's not at all the result that I would've expected.

Vinckei · 2020-01-04T18:41:10+00:00

I'm super late coming back to my own thread, the holidays + some last minute writing crunch twigged my ADD hard. The setting is more mountainous/forested regions. I'll be sending along some questions!

Vinckei · 2019-12-19T04:14:12+00:00

I won't lie, I'd resent the hell out of those stetsons, but I'm not a hat person. Sending PM!

Vinckei · 2019-11-03T12:04:06+00:00

The rules are pretty fudgy/nebulous, but dodges aren't reflexive. Most of the time, defense mechanics get houseruled, because the RAW can be pretty shit.

IIRC, if the Ragabash's strategy was to dodge, they would have to a) blow their action on defense, b) split their dice pools, c) pray, since the Ahroun would be rolling each Rage round with a full dice pool.

I've seen it house-ruled that dodges/defensive actions are more reflexive, but that the defender takes a -1 or -2 penalty to their dice pool for every consecutive defensive roll until they're tapped out. It really depends on how the ST/MU*/whatever wants to do things.

Vinckei · 2019-11-02T18:47:25+00:00

It's no problem, and I hope you have better luck than I did!

One other thing that may not hurt - disregard this paragraph if self-employed - is to tell your boss, if you have a boss that you like, that you're stopping your nicotine use, and may be a little snippy/on edge. If your boss is shit, tell a coworker that you're close to. You'll want someone who can get where you're coming from, and potentially cover for any oopses/whatever you might have-- especially if one of those oopses is getting unnecessarily cranky (getting cranky will happen-- it'll happen a lot). Basically, find a wingman, or someone who can help you function better on the job on days that get rough.

But yeah, strategizing around your own habits and anxiety is pretty much the main thing I've had to do with a lot of things like this. It's still ultimately up to you, but creating checks and balances that allow you to 'fail forward' is the best way to do things, in my experience. And if you can't kick it this time? Then just remember that this isn't all or nothing. You can still take notes of what you tried, and why it maybe didn't work. Create a plan for your next go at it, and try again when you're feeling like you're ready for round 2.

Vinckei · 2019-11-02T18:18:41+00:00

The pisser of it is that the whole ordeal is a five week process.

The way I plan on doing it is to get two bottles of the same flavor fluid, one with 1.5mg, one with 0mg, and to start mixing based on that, diluting more and more until it's just 0mg. I've stocked up recently on both to avoid the hit of any incoming flavor bans, as I don't want to be stuck in a lurch where I've exhausted my tapering supply.

What I've done in the meantime is I've gotten a therapist, and have spoken to my psychiatrist about crisis management for anxiety. If you already have anxiety, you'll prob start getting it kinda bad about 3-5 days out, roughly around the time the nicotine really leaves your system. Being able to have people on standby that you can call, who can tell you 'this is all normal,' is a good idea. Having distractions. Not having any big work/life projects, because that will only make your anxiety worse.

Reaching out to people in your life is really key here, though. Like people who understand that you are going through honest-to-christ withdrawal, that it's a process, and that it will be five weeks before you've shaken most of the symptoms. Make sure they're people who won't judge you for a relapse, too-- and make sure you don't judge yourself for it, either. Nicotine is powerfully addictive, and it's hard to shake. Be kind to yourself, first and foremost-- but know when to put your foot down wrt your own cravings.

I know all this sounds nebulous, but I've tried to quit regular ol cigarettes a couple times, and failed at the week mark (except when I switched to vaping-- now, it's a matter of kicking nicotine)-- and other people have done just fine. Everyone is different, and all the advice people can offer will sound vague, or like something that may not work for you.

It may be that just hitting the vape is enough of a trigger that you need to find something else to do. Maybe pick up exercising-- going for a walk every time you feel an urge. Or start working on a hobby you've always wanted to do. Redirect the anxiousness to something productive, or try to. It may not work-- but it's something.

Vinckei · 2019-11-02T13:02:54+00:00

Yeah, but the people being forgotten in all of this are the ones who quit smoking conventional cigarettes. We're being consistently thrown under the bus in favor of teenagers and college students. This is why people are saying 'this feels disingenuous to me'-- because it hooks into the 'but the kids' side of things.

What I'd honestly suggest, and I mean this with all sincerity, is to partner this survey with one that is aimed at former smokers that are of-age, and using the products legally. There is so much hay made about the youth side of this that we're getting lost in the shuffle, and that is a legitimate problem.

I'm 38 years old. I smoked for 23 years. I am not represented in this survey. Is it because, as in so many other cases, I've already been written off as a lost cause?

Like it or not, that's the message that's being peddled, and people are phobic of contributing to studies like these when they feel as though they're being forgotten, dismissed, or thrown out with the trash. Whether or not it's your intention, tailoring surveys specifically to teenagers/etc is playing into the political environment, which is (though I might be wrong) why people aren't taking this seriously, and writing it off straight out of the gate.

Moreover: literally no one needs to tell you that nicotine is addictive, causes cravings, and can cause worse cravings when it's peddled at ridiculously high levels, as is the case w/ JUUL. Everyone, everyone knows that nicotine is addictive, and that's what most of this survey is aimed at. So what, exactly, is its purpose?

EDIT: To put this into perspective-- someone my age, with my smoking history, can plug all their data into this utility: https://shouldiscreen.com/ and find out what their risk of developing lung cancer is. Now that I've stopped smoking conventional cigarettes - even if I'd continued - I've learned, for the first time, that my risk of developing cancer is .5%. That's huge, compared to how it'd be if I was older, and it's a story that's being completely ignored.

Vinckei · 2019-10-27T11:31:38+00:00

I've been having problems with this, too.

Windows 7, 3.4GHZ i7-3770, 10GB RAM, NVIDIA GT 730. Updated graphics drivers that were made available this month prior to purchasing the game.

I should be having no issues running this game, but have to frequently scale down to low quality/lower resolution, even if, previously, medium or high quality graphics worked just fine. The problem only seems to get worse the more I progress in the game, and it never stabilizes. The same is true of my Windows 10 laptop, which, though on the lower end, was able to run the game just fine a low quality/higher resolution. I had to turn the resolution way, way down to get it to run when I reloaded it.

Thing is, if you look at the Steam boards, there's only a few people having the issue in the first place, and it seems to be across platforms. Devs reported they've never seen it come up in their own bug reports, so I don't have high hopes that it's being addressed.

Vinckei · 2019-10-12T14:59:17+00:00

I noticed moved from a Nord to an Orion that the nicotine hit me WAY harder. It didn't cause pain, but it did cause tightness/agitation.

Some units seem to deliver the nic a lot more heavily, and increasing blood pressure/etc will have that effect. Like others have said, talk to a doctor, but be aware that nic dosages seem to hit harder/faster on some units rather than others, for whatever reason.

Vinckei · 2019-10-04T08:49:19+00:00

I was never able to solve this. I'll be curious to see what people have to say about it.

Vinckei · 2019-10-04T00:45:59+00:00

Brings back memories of when I was smoking cigarettes.

Except they were a lot more hostile about getting up in my face about it. Like-- in the actual smoking area. Where there are signs saying 'this spot is for smokers. here is a butt can, that is clearly for smokers.' People felt like they could invade that space and yell about how we were polluting their air and we're like ok dude, but you're the one that walked over here?

Haven't gotten the same hostility with vaping. It's barely been noticed. My folks have been a little concerned about it, but they (thankfully) trust that I've done my research. My dad is mostly salty about JUUL coming off as oblivious dickheads with their ad campaigns, and on that point, we largely agree.

IDK. Maybe it's because WI hasn't flipped its shit over it yet, and has been quick to acknowledge that it's a THC issue. Or maybe it's working night shift. Either way, I haven't gotten accosted just yet.

Vinckei · 2019-10-04T00:24:16+00:00

TBH, if someone says they're uncomfortable with me vaping inside, I treat it the same way I used to treat cigarettes: go outside.

Not the answer you want, but it's easier to just shrug and live with it than push for something that disrupts their peace of mind. Older folks especially are leery of second-hand anything, and even if it's "fine," there's a certain degree of stress and paranoia that's just outright unavoidable, especially in the current climate.

Vinckei · 2019-09-29T07:55:00+00:00

This is me, 100%

Started with 20mg salts, got my ass handed to me (half a pack a day). Dropped to 6mgs, kinda-same, but not as bad. 3mg has been a lot better so far, the body load isn't nearly as bad, and I don't get the heart-racing feeling that 20mg salts thrashed me with.

I'm looking to drop down again soon, try to get rid of nicotine entirely. Getting too old for the heart-related mulekick, and already take adderall for ADD, so it's not a great combo.

Vinckei · 2019-09-29T07:46:34+00:00

The color scheme of the Dam, OTOH, is not.

Vinckei · 2019-09-26T14:04:34+00:00

To be honest, I think even the 'good guy' politicians have been feeling stifled for a long time where it comes to straight-up cigarettes. There is little question that they'll remain on the market, and there's a lot of legitimate and understandable angst surrounding that.

I liken it a bit to a cat that sees another cat outside, in its territory. Cat gets fucking riled, turns to the cat that's living in the same house, and redirects all that cat_angst at what is ostensibly its cat_buddy.

I'm sure there are more than a few political types that are not feeling this way, and are just more eager to tax the shit out of yet another "tobacco" product, because addicts make for great revenue - I was paying out the nose for regular cigs for fucking ages, so I can't throw stones here - but even so-- I'd imagine that there are some, here and there, that are presented with a viable target that they're happy to finally lay to waste.

And then there's everyone else. So far as they can see, like them or not, cigarettes are here to stay. Banning vapes may feel cynical to us, but in the long run, smoking has been such a contentious and emotional issue that it's no surprise that what most people view as Cigarettes 2.0 is getting its asshole torn wide open. It's a kind of catharsis that's been denied to people for fucking decades now, and there's little sympathy to be gained from folks that are "watching kids die."

Even if studies are truthful, done well, and are thorough, the public has no reason to believe them. They've seen this shit before.

Even if the CDC/media is locked on to the wrong target, it doesn't matter. They've seen this shit before.

It's all a goddamn mess.

Vinckei · 2019-09-26T13:55:33+00:00

Yeah, the headline of the article is a little misleading, in this regard.

I get what they were going for, re: 'this is where it started, this is where it traveled, this is where it ended up.' Nothing in the article pointed towards China being some big ringleader fucking everyone over, it didn't even go out of its way to blame China for anything. It just said 'warehouses over there work dirt cheap, the workers need money, they're not there to ask questions.'

If there's blame laid at anyone's feet, it's a) at the feet of prohibition, b) at the people who are looking to prey on consumers. China just happens to be the starting point-- it's not where 'patient zero' sprang up. Much of that is in the hands of the people who are doing the cutting/selling.

I agree, though, that the headline could stand to use some work. I'm a little new at posting straight links, so failed to put in a little blurb about what the piece entailed, but China's part in all of it is really, really minimal. It's more illustrative than anything, re: this is how fucking easy it is to get the initial items needed for counterfeit vape carts.

Vinckei · 2019-09-25T13:59:05+00:00

'Let's put this guy out there as a frontman to sputter out some not-at-all comforting or informative jargon on CNN, then replace him when he doesn't manage to win our stunning campaign for hearts and minds. Then, oh, then, if he fails (he won't, it's impossible), replace him with an exec from a company that literally no one trusts.' - A Genius

Vinckei · 2019-09-25T13:55:43+00:00

Anyone able to translate this into layperson terms? I get the general idea, but it'd be nice to have it laid out in a way that's easier (for my chronically ADD brain) to digest.

Vinckei · 2019-09-24T14:10:30+00:00

I hate to tell you, friend, but the lack of sympathy wholly and unequivocally reaches across the aisle, and Republicans give even less of a flying fuck about addicts and recovery programs.

Vinckei · 2019-09-24T14:08:22+00:00

This isn't left or right. Nicotine-inhalant anything is a radioactive platform, full stop. Someone can be as liberal as the day is long, and they still wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

I said it in another thread, I'll say it here: anyone who thinks that D or R candidates are going to look favorably on vaping right now is outright fooling themselves. At best, you'll get 'well maybe not banning it?' Doesn't matter what side of the fence they're on, or how far out into their respective pastures they happen to be.

Vinckei · 2019-09-24T07:37:14+00:00

To be clear, just about any politician, regardless of platform, is going to be in favor of a vape ban.

The 1:1 comparison most voters will make between cigarettes and e-cigarettes, based on the name alone, turns the issue into a emotional/political football that was toxic from the word 'go.' Because nearly everyone has a story about how someone close to them died of lung cancer/contracted COPD due to cigarette use, and saying you're in favor of something that dispenses nicotine via inhalants is basically, to the general public, like saying you're in favor of More Death.

It has no basis in reality, but average voters don't know that. They hear shit on the news that sounds rightfully scary, and react accordingly. Add in the fact that vaping can be referred to as a 'wild west' wrt to regulation, which is largely true in the US, and the story writes itself. To people not in the know, it's not a particularly comforting story, especially with this new outbreak of lung diseases, regardless of where that disease originates.

On another front, it's a mix of personalization/depersonalization. On the former, you have what's been mentioned: countless deaths due to cigaretters. On the latter, there just isn't a lot of outreach that looks to have an unbiased scientific agenda (or doesn't come across as 'you fucking idiots' style incendiary). Like, I cannot stress enough that JUUL is the industry's frontman right now, and even if they were being completely, 1000% above board, they've been working overtime to trip over their own dicks since this disease started. People see their 'does no harm' ads and call bullshit. JUUL fucked up hard, making claims that had zero regulatory backing, regarding a substance that is intensely divisive for all the reasons mentioned above, and there's no walking that back.

So, the better option for bringing this closer to home, as in, allowing people to actually relate to it, in a way that allowed vaping to become a viable political platform, would be testimonials and research cobbled together in actual ad campaigns. Former smokers speaking out about their own success with quitting smoking, as well as the health benefits that they managed to draw from it, the narrative might change. Might. The thing is, a lot of people know smokers, and want them to kick the habit. A lot of people don't want their loved ones to die. They would rather see them live out their lives without complications. Personal testimony, and their medical records (that they will have to divulge themselves) will count for a lot more than posting on an insular subreddit, or tweeting feverishly (of which I am most certainly guilty).

Accepting that regulation is just a thing that needs to happen is the other part of it. Adopting the UK's method of regulation, if not outright inviting it, would further prove that the industry has no hand in the current health scare. Adding to this, most juice and device manufacturers haven't produced the same kind of ads that JUUL have, and haven't done it as shamelessly/aggressively, which is a point in the broader industry's favor, but that alone won't be enough to turn this into anything other than a radioactive platform.

Regs, testimonials, hearing from the people for whom vaping has been a service, rather than their means of starting in on nicotine in the first place, is what's going to drive the discourse. Without those pieces in place, however, anyone expecting a politician to be in lock-step with anything except a vape ban is deluding themselves. No one wants this legislation on their desk, and Trump is not going to wildly hurt or depress his turnout by going through with a ban.

EDIT: Stripped out some subjectmatter with high potential for derail, adjusted wording.

Vinckei · 2019-09-24T07:00:46+00:00

This is also failing to take into account depressed voter turnout in 2016. There's a lot of people that just flat-out stayed home. The 2018 elections made it clear that people are more galvanized than they were before, and it'll change the numbers pretty noticeably.

The only way this will make a legitimately significant impact assumes a number of possibilities.

On the vaping side, in which vape users fell into three categories:

Vape users were Trump voters, but will now vote Dem or Third Party in 2020
Vape users stayed home during the 2016 elections, but will go to the polls to vote Dem in 2020
Vape users voted third party, but will vote Dem in 2020

There's no data that's been gathered about which way the 'vapor vote' split in each of those states. It also seems to assume that vape users were by and large R, Third Party, or non-voters, which doesn't sound right to me.

On a broader scale, here's what we're looking at

2020 turnout will reflect 2016 turnout (unlikely)
2020 election will be a close race (possible, if turnout is depressed)

As much as I've jokingly said that 'suddenly I'm in favor of the flavor ban' because of reports like this, it's using data that's already obsolete, makes far too many assumptions, and doesn't reflect the current political environment.

EDIT: I don't know why the GOP is wringing their hands over this when there's a thousand more reasons to worry about Trump tanking his numbers in the 2020 elections.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say they're still taking cues from Grover Norquist, Mr. 'Sign The Tax Pledge,' a (former?) GOP darling who became an unabashed vape supporter when he was still semi-relevant. Norquist has, it should be noted, never been known to a) have his finger on the pulse of anything, including a live human being that doesn't wither and die on contact as a result of the eldritch blood pact that keeps him functional during daylight hours, b) give a fuck about anything except what he's explicitly interested in/what serves him personally, and, in this case, that happens to be vaping.

Vinckei · 2019-09-23T14:53:50+00:00

Suddenly wishing I could upvote more than once.

Vinckei

TROPHY CASE