Smoking is... good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morgan
  • Start date Start date
Nicotine and autism treatment

For inspiration:

Q: What other things does nicotine do?
A: Raises defenses.
Q: What kind?
A: Immunological.
Q: Anything else?
A: Excites neurotransmitters. You require less sleep.
Q: Is this true for everyone?
A: No.
Q: (A) How much nicotine is necessary?
A: 100 mg per day.
Q: (A) Can it be in pill form?
A: Cigarettes infuse it to brain tissues most effectively.

Q: Well, I am certainly relieved! Now I know that I do not have a 'smoking demon'
possessing me! I was really getting worried!
A: Those who fit this profile find it nearly impossible to "quit" completely.
Q: So, there are people who are actually benefited by smoking?
A: Genetics will offer proof of this.
Q: You mean that one can see changes in DNA before and after smoking?
A: Close

Q: Is this also true for F****?
A: Yes.
Q: Why us?
A: It is simply part of your "profiles."
Q: Is that also why I have been having more stomach problems than usual?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, I always noticed that smoking could settle my stomach. It also stimulated my
bowels... (F) Yes.
A: (A) What is serious here is the number. How many milligrams... (L) How many cigarettes
does the number translate into?
A: 20.
Q: Well, I never smoked that much! Only about 15...
A: No.
Q: Well, I told myself 15!
A: It was not.
Q: Ark doesn't need to smoke, does he?
A: No. He does not fit the profile. He actually had to "work" to start smoking.


(980627)
 
Nicotine and autism treatment

Well what about us that can't smoke!-(Because of certain ailments, not that it bothers me particularly much anymore:-)... not smoking that is...
 
Nicotine and autism treatment

jlarka said:
Well what about us that can't smoke!-(Because of certain ailments, not that it bothers me particularly much anymore:-)... not smoking that is...
As you can see in the above post by GRiM:

C's: 980627 said:
Q: Ark doesn't need to smoke, does he?
A: No. He does not fit the profile. He actually had to "work" to start smoking.
This perhaps means that smoking is not for everyone. It has to
come from within, whether or not you have that "urge" to smoke
and perhaps more importantly - whether or not it is beneficial to
your body - but how would you know for sure if you hadn't tried
it for yourself? If you decide to "try it out", perhaps you ought to
pay close attention to what your body is telling you, only then,
you might know if you are a smoker or not?

Seems like a paradox, does it not?

FWIW,
Dan
 
Nicotine and autism treatment

Yeeaah!.............

That was really a 'slam-dunk' from you Dant.
...point taken . feeling stupud now. . . creating n noise
 
When Myelin Is The Cause, Might Nicotine Be the Cure?

The SOTT forum posts on smoking and autism prompted me to contribute this article I wrote last year: When Myelin Is The Cause, Might Nicotine Be the Cure?
http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/07jan/myelin.html
Fascinating forum you have here!

The development, maintenance, and repair of myelin is the single most important factor affecting cognition and behavior, according to a UCLA neurology professor who has collected extensive data on the nerve insulator. In an article to be published in an upcoming issue of Biological Psychiatry, George Bartzokis, MD, asserts that myelin may be the universal cause or contributor to a wide range of neuropsychological brain disorders, from autism to Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Bartzokis, who directs the UCLA Memory Disorders and Alzheimer’s Disease Clinic in Los Angeles, suggests that using noninvasive imaging technology to view the miles of myelin in the brain as it grows and breaks down throughout a human life cycle may offer insights leading to the development of new treatments for brain disorders. Nicotine, which studies have suggested enhances the growth and maintenance of myelin, could be one such novel treatment.

In some of the first research to approach brain disorders from a myelin-centered point of view, Dr. Bartzokis studied the effects of cholinergic treatments, including acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) that are used to improve a neuron’s synaptic signaling in people with diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Some data suggest that such treatments may even modify or slow the progression of Alzheimer’s as well as other diseases.

Nicotine, Age, and Disease

Dr. Bartzokis hypothesizes that cholinergic stimulation at neuronal synapses affects the myelination process throughout brain development in the course of a human’s lifetime.He found in clinical trials that cholinergic treatment protects brain cells, while postmortem and imaging data have shown cholinergic receptor changes during brain development and degeneration. Trials have also revealed epidemiologic evidence that nicotine from tobacco may have a protective effect on degenerative diseases of old age and younger psychiatric populations. Cholinergic treatments have also shown efficacy in the aging process and age-related neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, as well as some neurodegenerative diseases like autism and ADHD.

According to Dr. Bartzokis, myelination development resembles an inverted “U” over the course of a lifetime, with increasing myelin development peaking in middle age and breaking down and declining in later years. Following the analogy of the Internet, Dr. Bartzokis says the “connectivity” provided by myelination increases speed by 10-fold and decreases refractory time by 34-fold. Thus, myelination increases the “bandwidth,” or processing capacity, of our brain’s Internet by 340-fold and is “indispensable for developing our uniquely elaborate higher cognitive functions.”

Different cortical regions myelinate at different ages, with later-myelinating oligodendrocytes growing increasingly more complex as we age. Irregular development during the most complex stages of the myelination process contributes to several of the neuropsychiatric disorders that tend to manifest in the early years. These disorders—eg, autism, ADHD, schizophrenia, mood disorders, addictions—are defined by overlapping cognitive and behavioral symptom clusters.

According to Dr. Bartzokis, healthy individuals with normal myelin development typically lose 45% of their myelinated fiber length when they reach the degeneration phase in adulthood. This change in the brain may cause progressive losses of memory and cognitive functions, as well as mild to severe behavioral changes.

The loss of myelin and its components such as sulfatide, myelin basic protein, and cholesterol begins early in the development of Alzheimer’s disease, well before diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. The myelin breakdown process is further modified by risk factors such as the presence of APOE ε4 or environmental factors such as a head trauma.

Nicotine's Effect on Myelination and Repair

Recent research has unveiled some surprising findings on the influence of nicotine on myelination and the aging process. Direct nicotinic stimulation associated with smoking has been shown to increase nicotinic receptors in the late myelinating frontal and temporal intracortical regions. Unlike most agonists, nicotine causes an up-regulation of its receptors and has been shown to accelerate brain function recovery when white matter is damaged.


Nicotine dependence is common among people with psychiatric disorders. Some researchers have suggested the high prevalence of nicotine use among the psychiatric population represents an unconscious effort to “self-medicate.” Research on proteins has suggested that nicotine may marginally increase the expression of myelin proteins; other addictive drugs (eg, cocaine, alcohol) along with developmental diseases (eg, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression) show a decrease of these proteins.


Other research has found an association between nicotinic stimulation and protective effects in schizophrenia and autism, where cortical myelination deficits have been documented. While nicotine has well-known negative effects on overall health, smoking during later years is also associated with a reduced likelihood of the development of degenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Using the myelin-centered model, the apparent beneficial aspects of smoking on brain disorders can be attributed to nicotine’s stimulation of oligodendrocyte precursors. Dr. Bartzokis believes that nicotine, delivered through a patch, not through smoking cigarettes, should be studied for its efficacy in promoting the growth and maintenance of myelin, and that AChEIs “deserve much closer scrutiny” as a therapy for the prevention of both developmental and degenerative brain disorders.

—Kathlyn Stone

Suggested Reading
Bartzokis G. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors may improve myelin integrity. Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Oct 26; [Epub ahead of print].
Bartzokis G, Lu PH, Mintz J. Quantifying age-related myelin breakdown with MRI: novel therapeutic targets for preventing cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2004;6(6 suppl):S53-S59.
Doody RS, Geldmacher DS, Gordon B, et al. Open-label, multicenter, phase 3 extension study of the safety and efficacy of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2000;58:427-433.
Morens DM, Grandinetti A, Reed D, et al. Cigarette smoking and protection from Parkinson’s disease: false association or etiologic clue? Neurology. 1995;45:1041-1051.
 
Study shows smoking lowers risk for rare breast cancer

Just goes to show you these researchers dont know what they are talking about. We still dont know the human body and all these drugs we are taking will probably end up killing is in the end.
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

[urlhttp://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html]here[/url] is an interesting article that shows how smoking PROTECTS against lung cancer. Go to the link to see the photos.
p.s. sorry if it's alread been cited, I haven't been able to find it on the site.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003
If you would like to help this keep this ailing web site on the Internet, you may do so by clicking on the PayPal link below and making a donation. No amount is too small, and might keep the reports flowing for a few weeks longer. Thank you for any assistance you can provide.


Vitamin B17 Operation Shekhinah Bali Bombing Remote Control Vialls Home
Steve Seymour, Software Design, Click Here



Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.
Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.
Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.
Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.
Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.
Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”



The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.
In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:
“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.
“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”
This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.
The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.
If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.
How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.
Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.
The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.
Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.
Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.
The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.

Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.
How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.
Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.
The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.
All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.
'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'
Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.
Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!
Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.
Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.
Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.

The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.
Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”
This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.
All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

Joe Vialls is a pretty questionable source - possibly even COINTELPRO. And his article above doesn't really give good evidence that smoking PROTECTS from lung cancer. Rather, it should have been entitled: "Smoking - a scapegoat for nuclear testing?" osit.
 
Nicotine and autism treatment

laura said:
It's funny how, at the beginning, it sounds like they are saying that nicotine is implicated in causing the problems, but what is really going on is that smoking HELPS people with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Autism. But you don't figure that out until the end.
Which is pretty obviously the reason it was released at all. When I was looking for the connection between nicotine and autism treatment, there were only two other links that seemed to be promising (from the description below the supplied google link), but when I tried to open them, the "page was not found". Also, the fact that they end the article with the fact that they are reasearching a drug that can "be capable of influencing the nicotine receptors", doesn't pose that great of a threat to the anti-smoking propoganda.
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

I quit smoking two years ago, and I have health problems since then nothing serious but for example , flu every winter ,urinary infections, 8 kg more..maybe it is connected...did not notice any good changes (skin or hair improvement..)
 
The Cigarette of the Future?

So-called 'electric cigarettes' are claimed to circumvent the problem of smoker/non-smoker segregation discussed in Henry's article.
Product Description said:
Mechanism. According to the patent, CA 2518174 (inventor Hon Lik, China), lip pressure sensed by the mouthpiece primes the electric circuit. The user draws in diluting air, which after a momentary delay switches off the electric pump and heater after each puff. Nicotine is vaporised ultrasonically at high temperature (atomised) in a fine aerosol (0.2- 3 um diameter) of non-toxic propylene glycol, which condenses in room air into a visible puff of mist. (PG is used for this effect in stage productions). The particles are small enough (0.2- 3um) to rapidly reach the alveoli of the lungs. A few percent of the solvent weight is flavour, but without tobacco. The white vapour mist exhaled is not smoke, so it can be “smoked” indoors. Drawback activates a red glow at the tip – produced by the rechargeable battery, not by combustion.
Their main selling points are that e-cigarettes are safer than normal cigarettes (no tar or preservatives, just nicotine) and that you can smoke them anywhere because they are "smokeless" (actually vapor-producing, but that apparently doesn't count as "second hand smoke"). I could not find any data on the average size of nicotine particles in normal tobacco smoke though I did find out that "[tar] particles with a diameter of 1-10 um (micrometer) penetrate and remain in the lower respiratory tract", which suggests that smaller particles do not remain in the respiratory tract. The source also says "although tar, particles, and hydrocarbons are responsible for lung damage [...], nicotine is the constituent of tobacco capable of inducing physical and psychological dependence", which suggests that nicotine does not cause any damage to the body at all.
While e-cigs last longer than normal cigarettes, they have substantially less nicotine.
Here's my comparison:
Tobacco Electric Cigarettes
More nicotine Less nicotine
More expensive in the long run Less expensive in the long run (according to manufacturer)
Can't use in smoke-ban areas Can use anywhere
Cheaper to try More expensive to try
You'll look cool You'll look like a weirdo with a smokeless cigarette :D

Has anyone ever used this product and if so, did you feel better (healthier) than you felt smoking regular cigs?
Manufacurer: _ecigarettes.cn
_http://www.healthnz.co.nz/Ruyan_ecigarette.htm
Tar/Nicotine info from "Maintaining Health in Primary Care: Guidelines for Wellness in the 21st Century"
 
The Cigarette of the Future?

Seems to defeat the purpose though... I am of the Ed Friendly school of social reform when it comes to vice. Vice is only fun, well, when it's vice.
 
The Cigarette of the Future?

atreides said:
Vice is only fun, well, when it's vice.
I don't quite get your point here. Which "fun"-laden "vice" would this alternative method of smoking take away for you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you SEEM to be saying that you wouldn't enjoy smoking nicotine unless it

(a) also contained products harmful to your lungs, which could potentially kill you; and/or

(b) also produced "second-hand smoke" potentially harmful, uncomfortable, or annoying to others.
 
The Cigarette of the Future?

Kesdjan:

The product sounds very interesting. If (and it's a big "if") it provided the same delivery of nicotine and "flavour" as regular cigarettes, seems to me that it would achieve the ideal balance between smoker's rights and non-smoker's rights.

From all I have read on SOTT and in Laura's work, it does indeed seem that there are people who seem to require and/or benefit from taking nicotine into their lungs, and I have no wish to interfere with any individual's right to do that if they wish, regardless of the harmful "other" ingredients that cigarette manufacturers stuff the product with. It's their life and health is my attitude. However, I think it would be great if a method of nicotine-inhalation could be found that would NOT harm people's health via the corresponding ingestion of various poisonous ingredients.

Also, as an asthmatic who experiences severe discomfort/symptoms in the presence of cigarette smoke, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to avoid second-hand smoke in their environment, and its associated health risks. Therefore, an alternative method of nicotine-inhalation would greatly benefit people like myself as well -- without interfering with anyone else's right to ingest nicotine.
 
The Cigarette of the Future?

An electric cigarette? Sounds great! As a lifelong smoker, I'd be willing to give them a try, being well aware of the damage that the tar content in an ordinary cigarette is doing to my lungs. How long does one last for; one smoke; several smokes? And how available are they?

I appreciate what pepperfritz says about the discomfort of sitting in the vicinity of a smoker's second-hand smoke, so perhaps this non-cigarette really is the answer.

As long as I get my nicotine 'fix'!
 
Back
Top Bottom