New york to amend health bill, trying to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes!!!

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


Nice work, I believe THAT was their original purpose and it's SUPER you managed to kick the cigarettes and that you had this great tool to help you! I'm also glad you found you don't really need it once it served it's original purpose. That is the SAFE and sane way to use them. Now you can enjoy a future of not being tied to those any more and get to spend the money on things that have a positive influence on your quality of life!
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: clarification
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: adjustment for clarification




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


I asked you for links about E-cigarettes. I'm not arguing smoking is no good for you and while I have my doubts it causes all lung cancer, it simply can't be good for your lungs.

Your link gave me "not found" when I clicked it.

Now, before you get so angry you blow an aneurysm, take a deep breath and breath out...slowly.

Do you have any evidence to show nicotine (not smoking, nicotine itself) causes cancer?

And do you have links to show sugar is added as an ingredient in eliquid?

I am willing to take your links into consideration.

MY link simply showed a test that was done on eliquid, its ingredients and their findings as back up to what I claimed. And you have an issue with that why?

And I'd also like you to point out where I or anyone else said vaping was safe. Nothing is safe. However, it is a whole lot safER than smoking and when I see misinformation being spouted about them that may make someone not try them and keep smoking, I will reply to that.

Quitting cold turkey? Best. Nicotine patch, gum, ecigarette? Better than smoking. Smoking? Not good.


edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


LightSpeedDriver

I am very very interested in why you didn't post the second paragraph of your Wikileaks reference?

Acute effects

The median lethal dose (LD50) for acute radiation exposure is generally about 4.5 Sv.[36] The committed effective dose equivalent 210Po is 0.51 µSv/Bq if ingested, and 2.5 µSv/Bq if inhaled.[37] Since 210Po has an activity of 166 TBq per gram (4,500 Ci/g)[37] (1 gram produces 166×1012 decays per second), a fatal 4.5 Sv (J/kg) dose can be caused by ingesting 8.8 MBq (238 microcuries, µCi), about 50 nanograms (ng), or inhaling 1.8 MBq (48 µCi), about 10 ng. One gram of 210Po could thus in theory poison 20 million people of whom 10 million would die. The actual toxicity of 210Po is lower than these estimates, because radiation exposure that is spread out over several weeks (the biological half-life of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days[38]) is somewhat less damaging than an instantaneous dose. It has been estimated that a median lethal dose of 210Po is 0.015 GBq (0.4 mCi), or 0.089 micrograms, still an extremely small amount.[39][40]

NOte the dosages - 2.4 ugSv/Bq if inhaled. That means all at once!

Now let us look at the dosage that smokers are exposed to:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The annual effective doses were calculated on the basis of (210)Po and (210)Pb intake with the cigarette smoke. The mean values of the annual effective dose for smokers (one pack per day) were estimated to be 193 and 251 microSv from (210)Po and (210)Pb, respectively.

That is the dosage PER YEAR!!! And again Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138 days.

Nice try - but its the same trick used over and over again. The fact remains: The poison is in the DOSE. Not the substance. Even water is toxic if you drink enough of it.

I would really like to know if you are deliberately trying to mislead people and instill fear or if you honestly believe that the Polonium 210 in tobacco is at sufficient quantities to cause death?

If the Polonium 210 in tobacco were at sufficient quantities to cause death - then every smoker would develop lung cancer and die. The fact is that a hard-core, heavy smoker still has only a 17 % lifetime chance of developing lung cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks


So, you said it has a half life of 138 days. That means that once ingested or inhaled it will remain active for 138 days.

You said the lethal dose active at one time would take a year to accumulate at 1 pack a day.

Soooooooooo

If someone smokes 2 packs a day, he achieves the same lethal dose in 182.5 days, 44 days over the half life. So if you smoke a little over two packs a day, you're a dead man in 4 and a half months....

There is also something to be said for dosages, especially when it comes from radiation. If you are radiated but below the minimum lethal dosage, you claim no damage is done... and that is simply not true. It wears down and has affects that accumulate, especially when the stream of damaging pollutants is a constant, like smoking.

If I were to take slightly less than lethal doses of Po everyday, I would die in under a week.

Not sure you know what you're talking about... just saying.

Oh and we're only talking one foreign substance of potentially hundreds depending on what exactly you smoke. Cigars, Ciggarettes, Cloves, Pipe Tobacco, they all have different chemical blends in them.

I'm not saying that all smokers die, I'm not saying that this is 100% going to kill you every time, but I am saying that everyone's physiology is different, and the amount they can or can't withstand of a foreign body varies. What is considered a safe dose to one man, may be a lethal dose to another.

"Safe Dose" is calculated by an average. There are many hundreds of thousands of people who can with stand below this dosage, as there are some that can withstand a slightly greater dose.

In any way, the health risks are great.

Yes, I am a smoker. No, I haven't seen a single person use an electronic cigarette and quick smoking real ones. My mom tried to quit, she quit the e-cigarette. My brother tried to quit, he smokes his e-cigarette until it's empty, and then proceeds to smoke a pack.

The amount of nicotine saturation levels one gets from e-cigarette's is likely much greater than just smoking regular cigarettes unless used as instructed. However, most people smoke 3 packs worth of nicotine from an e-cigarette in the amount of time they would have smoked an entire pack of cigarettes. Then when they are done, they proceed to smoke a pack of cigarettes.

Taking the amount of nicotine saturation in the body to "nicotine poisoning" levels.

I'm not saying they can't work if used responsibly, I'm just saying that more often than not, like anything in life, it's abused rather than used responsibly.

I'm not supportive of a ban, however, I understand the sentiment. I honestly think cigarette's should be out right banned. Why do we allow corporations to sell things that will ultimately kill you and provide no noticeable benefit? Before I smoked I was fine... My stress levels were cool, now my stress levels are dependent on my nicotine levels. My health becomes dependent on my nicotine levels as well.

This places me in a situation where it's like, die or do something dumb, or sit in a room by myself clawing my eyes out over a stupid craving I otherwise shouldn't have. Yes, it was my choice to start smoking, but it's much less of a choice to quit... and that is by design, so why is it allowed, better yet, promoted?
edit on 22-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Opportunia
 


I asked you for links about E-cigarettes. I'm not arguing smoking is no good for you and while I have my doubts it causes all lung cancer, it simply can't be good for your lungs.

Your link gave me "not found" when I clicked it.

Now, before you get so angry you blow an aneurysm, take a deep breath and breath out...slowly.

Do you have any evidence to show nicotine (not smoking, nicotine itself) causes cancer?

And do you have links to show sugar is added as an ingredient in eliquid?

I am willing to take your links into consideration.

MY link simply showed a test that was done on eliquid, its ingredients and their findings as back up to what I claimed. And you have an issue with that why?

And I'd also like you to point out where I or anyone else said vaping was safe. Nothing is safe. However, it is a whole lot safER than smoking and when I see misinformation being spouted about them that may make someone not try them and keep smoking, I will reply to that.

Quitting cold turkey? Best. Nicotine patch, gum, ecigarette? Better than smoking. Smoking? Not good.


edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)


I've posted many links that address the very things you just mentioned. Links that explained how nicotine causes cancer, it helps dump more sugar into the blood stream and THAT puts Cancer's favorite food ALL over your body. Where ever your blood goes, there goes extra sugar every time you ingest nicotine.

I've also agreed e-cigs are good for the purpose of helping one quit cigarettes. I wish everyone will quit smoking, and if using e-cig will help, Bravo, use it. Once your tool has served it's purpose it's time to set it aside. Keep it around if you need it in the future, but don't let it become your new crutch.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Very good post, thanks!

see guyz.... it's sorta like this...

WHERE does Nicotine come from? So...why would corporations who own most of the world's tobacco production, PROMOTE e-cigs. BECAUSE, they sell their crappy tobacco to the companies who make the nicotine. NOW, they can not only make money off premium cigarette, pipe and cigar tobacco, they can make even MORE selling the stuff they used to throw away! Genius! They don't give a rip if it's healthy and I agree with Laokin, more often than not, unfortunately people opt to overdo and abuse. I KNOW my niece uses her vape far more than she did cigarettes. Imagine these folks thinking they're only smoking a pack or two a day and are actually up around 3 or 4 chemical wise.

To the OP - I say, I believe people should have a choice, I also believe people have a right to ALL the facts about these devices too. Instead of only one-sided information. They need to know the dangers as well as the benefits to make a fully educated decision on how they will use them. They do need regulation though, as at least with regulation, it would be harder for harmful stuff to get introduced to ecigs without the users knowing about it.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Well, I've read your links but, as I said, nicotine raising blood sugar would be something that diabetics would need to watch.

Nicotine raising blood sugar levels in diabetics does not equate to sugar in eliquid, which was my main issue with your statements because that's simply not true. My blood sugar levels actually went down after I switched to vaping, so again, there's lots of anecdotal evidence but nothing really concrete. I don't need to watch my blood sugar levels, so it's a non-issue for me.

I still can't click your last link, so I did a bit of research on my own and I did find a study done in 1997 that links nicotine to the activation of MAP kinasis proteins, which somehow relates to cancer, but I will need to research it more to understand exactly what it's saying.

As far as what my crutches, vices, addictions, whatever you want to call them...well, thanks but I'm a big girl
Want to share your facts? Perfect. The government already does enough dictating of what I should or shouldn't be doing, which gets back to the actual OP. More government control, more nanny state is really not what we need.

Aside from government playing mommy, I could quit vaping, never ingest another gram of sugar, drink non-fluoridated water, make sure that every single calorie i ingest is organic and any other healthy thing you can come up with and guess what--I could go out to check my mail and I could get struck by a car. So I will have my small crutch, thank you.

And just to add more anecdotal evidence for you, my grandmother on my mother's side was a health nut, didn't smoke, didn't drink and didn't live in a household where anyone smoked. She was a homemaker, so her contact with second hand smoke was very little, if any. She died at 52 of lung cancer. My mother, who is also a health nut just like her mom, is sick from something all the time. So much so, I think she's a hypochondriac some days. My dad, who's just the opposite, is overweight and smoked for years doesn't so much as get the sniffles. I inherited his immune system, apparently because I rarely get sick. Everyone is different, so all any of us can do is make the best decisions for ourselves and not let outside pressure dictate how we live or what we enjoy.
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: afterthoughts



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


I don't believe I ever stepped on any ones rights to vape or smoke cigarettes. Crutches are usually fine, however, when they adversely affect the community, such as folks who can't afford health care getting lung damage that IS related to cigarette smoking and it's the working people who must now pay for their care. I believe that IS IMPORTANT issue to consider. What I am encouraging is EDUCATION, simply that, so that people can make a better decision all around for their particular situation.

Where in any of my posts did I advocate anyone taking away your right to choose? Choose what you wish, just remember you are not the only one dealing with the consequences. As much as you might like to think the contrary.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 





Once your tool has served it's purpose it's time to set it aside. Keep it around if you need it in the future, but don't let it become your new crutch.


Discussion of facts are fine but I'm not sure how someone using something as a crutch needs to be addressed by anyone except friends and family. I understand and appreciate your concern but this is not a quit-your-addiction support board.

When I find studies that directly link vaping with any kind of illness at all, I may reconsider my stance on them. I have seen no such evidence and have no personal negative evidence.

When vaporizing the liquid, the ingredients do not chemically change like they do when you light something on fire and burn it, (smoking) therefore the only things contained in the vapor are still exactly what is in the eliquid. Those would be Propylene Glycol and/or vegetable glycerine, nicotine, flavor concentrates and sometimes water, citric acid or artificial sweeteners.

Out of those, nicotine would be the main focus of concern, so let's do some math. Lets assume a high level nicotine liquid at 24mg liquid. When you get a 24mg liquid, it equals 2.4% nicotine by volume, or let's say 2.4% per 1ML. There are approximately 30 drops of liquid in 1ML. You can get approximately 3-4 puffs out of one drop. Doing the math using 3 puffs per drop, there is approximately 0.8mg of nicotine in one puff. (I edited this because my math was off). I use 12mg nicotine, which is half of that. From that, the amount of nicotine you would actually get in one puff really is small and since most is absorbed, any nicotine on exhale would be negligible, if even detectable.

Let's say you did stand close enough and got vapor from my exhale right up your nose (eew). In order for you to get any adverse health reaction at all, one of those ingredients would have to be the cause. This is not a "we just don't know" situation because we do know. When a study comes out that directly links any one or all of them with any illness or adverse health reaction (aside from allergies), it will certainly be worth my time to research.


edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: Fixed incorrect term
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: math was off.
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: Bahhh...typos.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Wow, OK one sentence about crutches that MOST people KNOW is true, regardless of whether you agree or not, truth is truth. That also was NOT a statement to say you should NOT be able to choose, it was merely common sense. Go ahead, wring my neck, have yur ecigs, have a BLAST really. At least you WON'T be blowing it in MY face.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: clarification
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: common sense
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: grammar - comma placement



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Well, it's been nice having a civil discussion about facts with you.


I don't even think I got my math right, anyway but it was obviously not worth my time since you have no interest in discussing anything because you already have your beliefs.


Enjoy your weekend.
edit on 22-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Loakin

No, the "safe" dose is NOT calculated according to averages. In actual fact the safe dose is researched using animals. Once it is know what is toxic to the subject, "safe" doses are set at 10, 100, 1000 times lower than the amount that caused harm to the test subject.

You misunderstand the meaning of half-life. The substance in question does not simply disinitigrate in 138 days. Everyday, it is breaking down and being excreted. Half-life simply means that in 138 days, half the amount will have be gone. Then in another 138 days, another half of the half that was left will be gone.

Have you looked at background and dust levels of Plutonium 210? It is ubiquitous to the environment and you are exposed at all times. You don't need to be a smoker. You eat Plutonium 210 in your food, you breathe it in your air, you inhale it in the dust.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Po-210 is found in small amounts in uranium ore, can be present in very small amounts in cigarette smoke, and can occur in very small amounts in the home via the decay of radon-222 and its daughters. Thus, we all have very small amounts of Po-210 in our bodies, providing support for the view that very low alpha radiation dose rates and doses are likely tolerated without causing diseases. Obviously, our natural defenses evolved to protect us from such mild natural insults.


There has evolved a kind of legend in the minds of the population. Almost an old wive's tale. The idea has taken hold in people's mind that trace exposure to something that is lethal in large (and in this case, massive) doses may not kill but will cause microscopic amounts of damage to the body at a cellular level and this ultimately will CAUSE disease leading to death.

This fear, that has taken hold in people's minds directly contradicts the foundation of toxicology. It is NOT the substance that is poisonous. It is the dose.

In short, just because something can kill you at high doses, does not mean that it is harmful in small doses.

Further, I haven't even begun to discuss the benefits of smoking. Of what value is it to be afraid of microscopic doses of Polonium 210 when you may spend the last 20 years of your life, drooling into your diapers in some nursing home.

Alziemers - that is right. Smokers get Alzeimer's at an incident rate that is significantly less than never-smokers.

Same thing with MS and Parkinson's.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Laokin
 


...

This fear, that has taken hold in people's minds directly contradicts the foundation of toxicology. It is NOT the substance that is poisonous. It is the dose.

In short, just because something can kill you at high doses, does not mean that it is harmful in small doses.

Further, I haven't even begun to discuss the benefits of smoking...

Tired of Control Freaks


Simply trying to move back toward the topic which I thought was about them trying to put a law through which bans e-cigs. And to your BENEFITS of smoking, BAHHAHAHhaha.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: topic clarification
edit on 22-6-2012 by Opportunia because: too many dots...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Opportunia

Laugh if you will but I am not the one saying it - Its a peer reviewed study published in a medical journal. Of course it doesn't come near to your link professing to "prove" that nicotene causes blood sugar increases. Its not in a press release or anything important like that.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Laokin
 


Loakin

No, the "safe" dose is NOT calculated according to averages. In actual fact the safe dose is researched using animals. Once it is know what is toxic to the subject, "safe" doses are set at 10, 100, 1000 times lower than the amount that caused harm to the test subject.

You misunderstand the meaning of half-life. The substance in question does not simply disinitigrate in 138 days. Everyday, it is breaking down and being excreted. Half-life simply means that in 138 days, half the amount will have be gone. Then in another 138 days, another half of the half that was left will be gone.

Have you looked at background and dust levels of Plutonium 210? It is ubiquitous to the environment and you are exposed at all times. You don't need to be a smoker. You eat Plutonium 210 in your food, you breathe it in your air, you inhale it in the dust.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Po-210 is found in small amounts in uranium ore, can be present in very small amounts in cigarette smoke, and can occur in very small amounts in the home via the decay of radon-222 and its daughters. Thus, we all have very small amounts of Po-210 in our bodies, providing support for the view that very low alpha radiation dose rates and doses are likely tolerated without causing diseases. Obviously, our natural defenses evolved to protect us from such mild natural insults.


There has evolved a kind of legend in the minds of the population. Almost an old wive's tale. The idea has taken hold in people's mind that trace exposure to something that is lethal in large (and in this case, massive) doses may not kill but will cause microscopic amounts of damage to the body at a cellular level and this ultimately will CAUSE disease leading to death.

This fear, that has taken hold in people's minds directly contradicts the foundation of toxicology. It is NOT the substance that is poisonous. It is the dose.

In short, just because something can kill you at high doses, does not mean that it is harmful in small doses.

Further, I haven't even begun to discuss the benefits of smoking. Of what value is it to be afraid of microscopic doses of Polonium 210 when you may spend the last 20 years of your life, drooling into your diapers in some nursing home.

Alziemers - that is right. Smokers get Alzeimer's at an incident rate that is significantly less than never-smokers.

Same thing with MS and Parkinson's.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Tired of Control Freaks


Quit being silly, when you've lost a person who has been exposed to "Safe levels" of radiation, maybe then you'll understand.

It happens. And what do you think they use to determine what levels are harmful to a dog? An average. I can take a lethal dose of heroine, and not die, you might take a less than lethal dose and "over dose" anyway. Why is that? It's because you're physiology is different than mine. Pardon, this is merely an example. I'm not even talking about tolerance levels either, I'm talking about non-users.

Go look up how many people go in for surgery that requires anesthesia and see how many don't wake up, despite the fact they were given a less than lethal calculated dose.

I fully right know what a "Half-Life" is, but in my quick guestimated calculation, after the half life, you would need a significantly larger volume to take you back to that limit (By an order of exactly 50%.) It's diminished by half, this is why people can actually smoke 2 packs a day and not die. However, do you know what happens to people who smoke 3? People who smoke 3 packs a day usually develop some kind of cancer within a year of doing so. Why is that if the Po is perfectly fine for you?

The fact is, it's not. The difference of Trace levels and the amount that accumulate from chronic use of something that is adding on TOP of the trace levels, are not TRACE levels, they become significant levels.

This is why if you've had a lot of X-Rays, your doctor will inform you to stay away from microwaving food, from airport scanners, from operating x-rays yourself.

This is in fact why the Radiologist leaves the room when he takes your X-Ray.

I mean #, this is common sense territory now.

P.S.

You are aware that statistically the more packs of cigarettes you smoke in a day raises your chance of cancer, right? How many people have you met that smoked under a pack of cigarettes a day that has gotten a tracheotomy? Everyone I've met has smoked 2+ packs a day. The more you smoke, the more damage you do. Why? Because the chemicals are harmful to your body.

Irony, because for being tired of control freaks, you're an awfully big control freak. You're wrong about the Po and you NEED that "rightness" to soothe your ego. Maybe you should take up smoking?

P.S.S.

Alzheimer's is caused by prions. Smoking doesn't decrease your chances of being infected by prions, the results of any "controlled test" were foiled by statistical chance. It just so happens that the people that they looked at with Alzheimer's didn't smoke... I also know people who have it that do smoke. How does a scientist prove a negative anyway? Short answer, you can't. You can only prove a positive.

That's either propaganda to get people interested in smoking (like back in the thirties when they said it made you healthier and sick less often) or just really bad science.

The only legends being told in this thread are by you, suggesting that smoking has positive health benefits when it doesn't. I don't know if you've noticed, but you're in the process of being laughed out of this thread.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Laokin

When you tell the truth
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you....

Then you win!

I don't know where you got the idea that prions cause Alzeimer's. Prions cause Creutzfelt-Jacob disease. Both result in dementia but are distinctly different diseases.


abcnews.go.com...-WvNJGOFCg

Four-week nicotine skin patch treatment effects on cognitive performance in Alzheimer's disease.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Dissecting the signaling pathway of nicotine-mediated neuroprotection in a mouse Alzheimer disease model
www.fasebj.org...

The story of Smoking and its connection to Alzeimer's is rather a shameful one for the anti-smokers.

If you google smoker's and Alzeimer's, you will find link after link telling you that people who smoke in middle-age have an increased risk of Alzeimer's.

This is another prime example of "junk science" The anti-smokers at the University of California were desperate to prove that smoking "causes" Alzeimers but previous studies indicated the opposite. So rather than question the science, they attacked the scientists. Any study which showed that smoking was beneficial in the prevention of Alzeimers was discarded if the scientist who conducted the study had any connection with Big Tobacco. They attacked the man - not the science. What was left was a bunch of studies funded only by anti-smoking money. And you can just guess how that turned out.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Previous reviews of the association between smoking and AD have not controlled for study design and author affiliation with the tobacco industry, according to Cataldo. To determine if study authors had connections to the tobacco industry, the UCSF team analyzed 877 previously secret tobacco industry documents.


However, true medical researchers ignored them entirely and developed treatments for Alzeimers, MS and Parkinsons based on Nicotene. Nicotene is also used for controlling blood pressure.

Nicotene, when oxidised or burned, turns into Niacin, better known as Vitamin B3

www.umm.edu...

Niacin reduces high cholesterol, Artheroscerosis and Heart Disease, Diabetes, Osteoarthritis, Alzeimer's and cateracts.

And smokers get small doses of Vitamin B3 in small doses throughout the day! So despite anything that the government, public health and anti-smokers may tell you. SMOKING HAS BENEFITS. That is why people choose to smoke. It makes that feel better!

Smokers don't inhale nicotene. They inhale Vitamin B3 because they burning of tobacco oxidises nicotene into Vitamin B3. That does not happen with vaping because the temperature is not high enough to oxidise the nicotene.

(so what does this do to the theory that nicotene is addictive - can you be addicted to a vitamin?)

Be careful about just believing everything you are told. Everything you think you know about smoking is NOT the truth.

Smoking is also extremely beneficial in the treatment of depression and mental disorders like schizophrenia and manic-depression.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Wow, is this thread still going?


reply to post by Opportunia

And to your BENEFITS of smoking, BAHHAHAHhaha.

Since I really don't want you to hurt yourself laughing, I'll try to be quick...

Nicotine in the neural system is a substitute for acetylcholine, a natural neurotransmitter. The nicotinic acetylcholinic receptors bind with acetylcholine to produce a myriad of effects. One of these is to decrease alertness and concentration while increasing excitability. By limiting the action of the acetylcholine, effectively "jamming" the nicotinic acetylcholinic receptors, nicotine does the exact opposite.

Alzheiners has been linked to problems with acetylcholine production, specifically an excess in the amount of acetylcholinic activity. Therefore, it is no great leap of logic that regular minute dosages of an alternate neurotransmitter that reduces acetylcholinic activity in the body (nicotine) would inhibit the onset and progression of Alzheimers.

To back up a couple posts to your statement that sugar is "cancer's favorite food"... I'm sorry, but that would be laughable of not so sad. Sugar is life's favorite food! All cells use sugar to operate and will die without some form of sugar, be they neurons, muscle cells, skin cells, liver cells, lung cells, or nose hair cells. The only difference between a normal lung cell and a tumor is that the cellular growth regulators in the tumor are malfunctioning and growing out of control.

Normal cellular growth and reproduction via mitosis is regulated by the hormonal environment surrounding each cell. Certain hormones will cause mitosis to accelerate; others will cause mitosis to slow. Some chemicals will cause the cells to die off at the proper time, while others will prevent them from doing so. The massively complex hormonal system is what controls this and keeps our cellular structure stable by controlling the rate of decay and the rate of mitosis.

In a cancerous tumor, this system goes awry and cells begin replicating at an increased rate, while not dying off at an increased rate to compensate. As a result, the body itself responds to a malfunctioning chemical signal to provide more food and oxygen to support this anomalous condition. Thus, the cancer grows larger and larger and becomes saturated with older cells which have lost their functionality due to their now-unlimited lifespan, eventually replacing nearby tissue with malfunctioning tissue until that part of the body can no longer function.

There is no accepted cure for cancer. I did read a thread a while back about chloroacetate salts being effective (although hard on the liver), but I am no doctor and therefore would not try this on anyone except myself*. The point, however, is that no cure exists because no one, not the researchers, not the scientists, not the doctors, not me, and not you, knows what causes cancer. Without either a hypothetical model for the cause of cancer that demonstrates a direct link between a suspected cause and the result or a plethora of empirical data that clearly and obviously provides a clear and consistent link between suspected cause and effect, to state one "knows" the suspected cause is indeed a cause of the effect is, to repeat, laughable if not so sad.

And the height of ignorance, something I thought we were trying to deny.

(There is no single link for the information above; it is a composite of many years of study. I believe most of the information may be verified by starting here and researching. Don't forget to check the sources!)

* Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you for the information packed reply! While I do have strong feelings about the issues I shared. I only offered them as additional information to help educate, as you have just done for me. Information on both sides of any issue help people to make more intelligent decisions. Ones that more fit their individual situations. I'm all for choice on these matters. I thought that was what this thread was about. Having one's choice taken away because only slanted information is used for the reasoning. Isn't it important to have a more rounded out view to make better decisions for ourselves? Now, because of the information you shared, I'm more educated on facts I didn't know before. Why everyone is pounding on me for sharing information that CAN also be considered as pertinent as the information YOU share, I have no idea, I was even trying to bring the discussion back to the op topic as it seemed things had strayed from that.

Why can't everyone appreciate that we're all able to share this information here so we CAN stand up for our choices. If we don't have the freedom to see ALL the parts and make our OWN choice how will it truly be OUR choice. IT seems to me that IF we only look at one small part, we might miss something that could have given us a better understanding. I hope they can't pass the law. It should be a person's educated choice to use the e-cigs or not.

P.S. yur googly eyes at the top are great, hahaha!
edit on 23-6-2012 by Opportunia because: P.S.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia

You are absolutely right and I could not agree more! The decision to smoke or not, or the decision to use e-cigs or not, is a personal one and should be left to persons instead of some faceless government bureaucracy.

In my case, I have two reasons to smoke: nicotine relaxes me and makes me less... shall we say, volatile?... and it helps with a gastric abnormality I apparently inherited. I have had two heart attacks from the former problem, both non-congestive, both during a time of high stress when for one reason or another I could not get to a cigarette.

For me, my smokes are my meds; they lessen the chance of a heart attack and help with the pain. If anyone else was on medication and was prohibited from taking them, the public outcry would be legendary... but in my case it seems to be desirous to keep me from my medication. Hence, my "militant smoker" stance.

Almost every plant known to man has some purpose... aspirin comes from willow tree inner bark, for example. Tobacco is no different; it has been used since before white men landed on the continent for various purposes. I realize that the tobacco we use today is a far cry from the tobacco used by the American Indians, what with all the curing chemicals and additives put into it; that is a condemnation of the unregulated curing process rather than a condemnation of the tobacco or nicotine itself. It is interesting that the same government which allowed tobacco companies to use chemical curing, the same government that mandated the use of carpet glue in cigarettes, is also the same government that tries to demonize tobacco for all the chemicals in tobacco products.

Now the fight has shifted to nicotine. Why? Could it be related to nicotine being a defense against fluoride accumulation in different organs? Could it be that Alzheimers is caused by an as-yet-unknown agent in our modern environment and someone wants it to continue to be a problem? Could it be that nicotine is seen as a luxury that only the elite should have access to? I assure you, the powerful still smoke their Cuban cigars in back rooms while declaring war on anyone else having access to nicotine.

TheRedneck





top topics
 
29
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join