Just saw this - Page 2 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

drewterry · 04-03-2009, 01:05 PM

I mean think about it. One could smoke say potatoe or tomatoes leaves instead of the leaves of a tobacco plant and still be smoking something with nicotine in it. It just seems sort of odd to me that the powers that be and the supposed scientists can say "well you can eat all of it you want but if you smoke it magically becomes harmful to you". See it doesnt make sense. Think about what happens to plant matter as it burns. Wouldnt some of the nicotine be burned off as you smoke it? Another thing that strikes me as interesting is that you could blow tobacco smoke in a cow's face all day long and the cow would be just fine. But if that same cow ate tobacco plants then it would suffer poisoning and die. And yet we are told eating nicotine in potatoes and tomatoes and our diet in general is okay but smoking it will harm us. That just seems backwards to me. Not to mention the studies done on nicotine helping with altziemers and high blood pressure. They are actually growing a supposed cure for diabetes in tobacco now.

LaceyUnderall · 04-03-2009, 01:31 PM

Drew - You bring up some good points. I think the invention of the ecig is going to bring forward a new breed of tests that are going to see nicotine differently. If we look at it like a banana, now that all of the crap has been peeled away, we can finally look at nicotine for what it is and not for what it has been in.

I have found tons of studies on my travels through the internet where nicotine is good and has healing properties. They are even testing it in a lotion for diabetics to help with skin conditions that lead to gangrene and then amputation. Psychologically they have done numerous studies showing that nicotine helps depression and other mental issues. I am no means insinuating that it is a wonder drug, it still has it's downsides. But they really are minimal and compare quite nicely with caffeine, which is sold open and freely to children.

It is all of the chemical intervention that has occurred in the curing, the harvesting and the delivering of nicotine that has made it a demon.

TropicalBob · 04-03-2009, 01:58 PM

I agree with Lacey that nicotine has benefits, as well as hazardous consequences. That's true of many substances. And scientists simply haven't sufficiently studied inhaling just nicotine, without smoke. Studies focused on damning smoking. Now it's nicotine's turn.

It likely is good for some people, a negative for most.

But this much is certain: You could not eat enough potatoes or tomatoes to be impacted by their nicotine. And you don't want to eat tobacco, even though it is an antioxidant rich vegetable. Digestion versus inhaling are two very different things.

Also, think of this: Why do plants produce nicotine? Answer: It's a deadly poison that kills attacking insects. True, the dead insects do not suffer Alzheimber's and do die with a smile, but ...

drewterry · 04-03-2009, 02:00 PM

Well yeah. See at one time big tobacco actually had to add chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive because it wasnt addictive enough. Thing is though that the scientists are all politically motivated by grant money. The scientists will say whatever the politicians want them to say. They wont tell people the actual truth if its not politically correct and now the politicians have given the FDA control over tobacco so that the FDA can keep the big tobacco companies safe from products like e cigarettes. I mean if you think about it the FDA has no leg to stand on scientifically if they approve nicotine delivery systems such as gum and patches and inhalers etc. If they approve those then they are actually saying that nicotine is safe to use. But if you read the other section on here about e cig news the FDA has moved to ban all electronic cigarettes even though the FDA has approved nicotine for use and consumption in the form of gums and such. Its a hypocritical BS double standard move to maintain a monopoly in the tobacco market for big companies. That is also why the taxes on roll your own cigarette tobacco have sky rocketed. Because the big tobacco companies werent showing as much of a profit as they wanted to.

drewterry · 04-03-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

I agree with Lacey that nicotine has benefits, as well as hazardous consequences. That's true of many substances. And scientists simply haven't sufficiently studied inhaling just nicotine, without smoke. Studies focused on damning smoking. Now it's nicotine's turn.

It likely is good for some people, a negative for most.

But this much is certain: You could not eat enough potatoes or tomatoes to be impacted by their nicotine. And you don't want to eat tobacco, even though it is an antioxidant rich vegetable. Digestion versus inhaling are two very different things.

Also, think of this: Why do plants produce nicotine? Answer: It's a deadly poison that kills attacking insects. True, the dead insects do not suffer Alzheimber's and do die with a smile, but ...

I have eaten tobacco. It made me a bit sickish but that was it. No ill effects. And that was from accidentally drinking from a coke can that someone had used as a sluice can for their chewing tobacco. I took a big old swig felt like I was going to throw up suppressed that and felt just fine after a few minutes. I have also eaten roll your own tobacco that didnt make me feel sick at all.

drewterry · 04-03-2009, 02:06 PM

See you will never learn the truth about tobacco or nicotine from scientists or from scientific magazines. They are all too politically motivated. Did you know for example that its actually the sugar in the tobacco that is the most harmful to you aside from the chemicals that are added to it? There is no tar. What tar is, is sugar that is produced by the combustion of the plant matter. All plants contain sugar or sucrose. That is what that yellow stuff is that gets on your fingers when you smoke a cig and stains your teeth. Its sucrose or sugar. The most harmful substance that is readily sold to anyone and marketed specifically to children is sugar. Sugar is more harmful to your health than smoking tobacco. Well let me clarify smoking organic natural tobacco with no added chemicals.

drewterry · 04-03-2009, 02:13 PM

Another interesting thing for you to think about is the fact that the only things that the FDA will approve are things that make you sick or ill and make you have to go to the doctor. The FDA likes tobacco from the big tobacco companies because it makes you sick it makes you have to go to the doctor that in turn makes you have to buy perscription drugs that the FDA gets paid to approve but they will only approve them if they make you sick with the side effects because that in turn will make you go back to the doctor to get more prescription drugs.... etc.. etc.. This is why marijuana is illegal. Because it has health benefits and doesnt make you sick. Its too good for you so its banned. E cigarettes are too good for you so they are banned..

LaceyUnderall · 04-03-2009, 02:14 PM

Drew - I can totally see why you would think what you do. And if I believed half of the stuff on here, I would think exactly the same way.

But the fact is this: The form letter that floats around here that starts all of this is only one part of a very large picture. That letter is delivered to suppliers who have mention of the words quit, safe, or health. That mention can be in the manual, on a website, even in a URL. The FDA has every right to stop a product that makes claims that fall in their jurisdiction.

The FDA has not banned ecigs nor have they said that they would. The language from the spokespeople at the FDA is all cleared by a lawyer for future renderings. They have made no clear statement other than, if you choose to market these as a health product, a safe product or a quit product, we will have to ask you to prove it and apply for a new drug status. They have every right to do this.

I know this will spark a debate and it is not my intention because all over this forum there are threads about this issue, but it does go back to the "don't believe everything you hear".

But take your confusion and take your passion for your favorite smoking device and use it. God knows that we need members on the front lines with the suppliers. It is all of our voices together that will make the largest statement. Have you been to Right To Vape - Index More info over there as well.

TropicalBob · 04-03-2009, 02:22 PM

Drew, I've rarely read such consistent nonsense. I kept looking for some truth in what you wrote; it's nonsense.

Quote:

if you think about it the FDA has no leg to stand on scientifically if they approve nicotine delivery systems such as gum and patches and inhalers etc.

There is an approval process set up for drugs. Nicotine is a drug. The FDA is the regulatory agency. All of the nicotine delivery systems (NRT) on the market were tested and approved by the FDA. Testing costs a fortune. But that's the legal way to get a nicotine product approved.

The rest of the ramble I'll leave to others ...

wv2win · 04-03-2009, 02:26 PM

If suppliers would simply state that electronic vaporizers (they should STOP using the "cigarette" term) are an "alternative" to tobacco products without the "known" cancer causing substances in tobacco products, I would think they would not be violating FDA marketing regulations but still pointing out that electronic vaporizers are a better alternative.

04-03-2009, 01:31 PM	#12
LaceyUnderall USA Supplier Forum Sponsor Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: US and Canada Posts: 2,707	Drew - You bring up some good points. I think the invention of the ecig is going to bring forward a new breed of tests that are going to see nicotine differently. If we look at it like a banana, now that all of the crap has been peeled away, we can finally look at nicotine for what it is and not for what it has been in. I have found tons of studies on my travels through the internet where nicotine is good and has healing properties. They are even testing it in a lotion for diabetics to help with skin conditions that lead to gangrene and then amputation. Psychologically they have done numerous studies showing that nicotine helps depression and other mental issues. I am no means insinuating that it is a wonder drug, it still has it's downsides. But they really are minimal and compare quite nicely with caffeine, which is sold open and freely to children. It is all of the chemical intervention that has occurred in the curing, the harvesting and the delivering of nicotine that has made it a demon. __________________ INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes and Blog \| I Support the Electronic Cigarette Association \| Right To Vape - A Consumer Organization Defending Your Right To Use a Personal Vaporizer

04-03-2009, 02:14 PM	#18
LaceyUnderall USA Supplier Forum Sponsor Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: US and Canada Posts: 2,707	Drew - I can totally see why you would think what you do. And if I believed half of the stuff on here, I would think exactly the same way. But the fact is this: The form letter that floats around here that starts all of this is only one part of a very large picture. That letter is delivered to suppliers who have mention of the words quit, safe, or health. That mention can be in the manual, on a website, even in a URL. The FDA has every right to stop a product that makes claims that fall in their jurisdiction. The FDA has not banned ecigs nor have they said that they would. The language from the spokespeople at the FDA is all cleared by a lawyer for future renderings. They have made no clear statement other than, if you choose to market these as a health product, a safe product or a quit product, we will have to ask you to prove it and apply for a new drug status. They have every right to do this. I know this will spark a debate and it is not my intention because all over this forum there are threads about this issue, but it does go back to the "don't believe everything you hear". But take your confusion and take your passion for your favorite smoking device and use it. God knows that we need members on the front lines with the suppliers. It is all of our voices together that will make the largest statement. Have you been to Right To Vape - Index More info over there as well. __________________ INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes and Blog \| I Support the Electronic Cigarette Association \| Right To Vape - A Consumer Organization Defending Your Right To Use a Personal Vaporizer

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-03-2009, 01:05 PM	#11
drewterry Full Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 89	I mean think about it. One could smoke say potatoe or tomatoes leaves instead of the leaves of a tobacco plant and still be smoking something with nicotine in it. It just seems sort of odd to me that the powers that be and the supposed scientists can say "well you can eat all of it you want but if you smoke it magically becomes harmful to you". See it doesnt make sense. Think about what happens to plant matter as it burns. Wouldnt some of the nicotine be burned off as you smoke it? Another thing that strikes me as interesting is that you could blow tobacco smoke in a cow's face all day long and the cow would be just fine. But if that same cow ate tobacco plants then it would suffer poisoning and die. And yet we are told eating nicotine in potatoes and tomatoes and our diet in general is okay but smoking it will harm us. That just seems backwards to me. Not to mention the studies done on nicotine helping with altziemers and high blood pressure. They are actually growing a supposed cure for diabetes in tobacco now.

04-03-2009, 01:58 PM	#13
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	I agree with Lacey that nicotine has benefits, as well as hazardous consequences. That's true of many substances. And scientists simply haven't sufficiently studied inhaling just nicotine, without smoke. Studies focused on damning smoking. Now it's nicotine's turn. It likely is good for some people, a negative for most. But this much is certain: You could not eat enough potatoes or tomatoes to be impacted by their nicotine. And you don't want to eat tobacco, even though it is an antioxidant rich vegetable. Digestion versus inhaling are two very different things. Also, think of this: Why do plants produce nicotine? Answer: It's a deadly poison that kills attacking insects. True, the dead insects do not suffer Alzheimber's and do die with a smile, but ...

04-03-2009, 02:00 PM	#14
drewterry Full Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 89	Well yeah. See at one time big tobacco actually had to add chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive because it wasnt addictive enough. Thing is though that the scientists are all politically motivated by grant money. The scientists will say whatever the politicians want them to say. They wont tell people the actual truth if its not politically correct and now the politicians have given the FDA control over tobacco so that the FDA can keep the big tobacco companies safe from products like e cigarettes. I mean if you think about it the FDA has no leg to stand on scientifically if they approve nicotine delivery systems such as gum and patches and inhalers etc. If they approve those then they are actually saying that nicotine is safe to use. But if you read the other section on here about e cig news the FDA has moved to ban all electronic cigarettes even though the FDA has approved nicotine for use and consumption in the form of gums and such. Its a hypocritical BS double standard move to maintain a monopoly in the tobacco market for big companies. That is also why the taxes on roll your own cigarette tobacco have sky rocketed. Because the big tobacco companies werent showing as much of a profit as they wanted to.

04-03-2009, 02:06 PM	#16
drewterry Full Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 89	See you will never learn the truth about tobacco or nicotine from scientists or from scientific magazines. They are all too politically motivated. Did you know for example that its actually the sugar in the tobacco that is the most harmful to you aside from the chemicals that are added to it? There is no tar. What tar is, is sugar that is produced by the combustion of the plant matter. All plants contain sugar or sucrose. That is what that yellow stuff is that gets on your fingers when you smoke a cig and stains your teeth. Its sucrose or sugar. The most harmful substance that is readily sold to anyone and marketed specifically to children is sugar. Sugar is more harmful to your health than smoking tobacco. Well let me clarify smoking organic natural tobacco with no added chemicals.

04-03-2009, 02:13 PM	#17
drewterry Full Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 89	Another interesting thing for you to think about is the fact that the only things that the FDA will approve are things that make you sick or ill and make you have to go to the doctor. The FDA likes tobacco from the big tobacco companies because it makes you sick it makes you have to go to the doctor that in turn makes you have to buy perscription drugs that the FDA gets paid to approve but they will only approve them if they make you sick with the side effects because that in turn will make you go back to the doctor to get more prescription drugs.... etc.. etc.. This is why marijuana is illegal. Because it has health benefits and doesnt make you sick. Its too good for you so its banned. E cigarettes are too good for you so they are banned..

04-03-2009, 02:26 PM	#20
wv2win ECF Veteran Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: GA by way of WV Posts: 2,488	If suppliers would simply state that electronic vaporizers (they should STOP using the "cigarette" term) are an "alternative" to tobacco products without the "known" cancer causing substances in tobacco products, I would think they would not be violating FDA marketing regulations but still pointing out that electronic vaporizers are a better alternative.