Don't let anyone tell you that nicotine is a poison...
- Thread starter DC2
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
well, i did kinda say that one could make the argument that at the recreational doses that we use, nicotine isn't toxic. perhaps i should have qualified it more...
zzzzzzzzzz
The first 5-6 pages on this thread are the worst, it just so happens to be the ones people tend to read and not bother with the rest, that combined with the bad choice of title is a disaster.
I wasn't gonna, but it's just too tempting.
WAKE UP Nirk.
Wake up and smell the coffee....
Oh wait, you better not. It's got "poison" innit.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled activities....
If you can't see anything wrong with those quotes or the tread title I don't know what to tell you. Either way I have to go to work, good luck with the trolls and hopefully the mods will fix that moronic title.
my comparisons are usually to cheese or chocolate
I am just saying that I think this thread is misleading and you are trying to justify nicotine as being harmless using flawed logic. I understand the idea of the thread but it is misleading.
I wasn't gonna, but it's just too tempting.
WAKE UP Nirk.
Wake up and smell the coffee....
Oh wait, you better not. It's got "poison" innit.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled activities....
idiot......
By quoting the posts you did, you have clearly demonstrated that you don't get the point of this thread.
And I'll stand by those posts all day long and twice on Sunday.
Since you have a big problem with the title... have you asked them to change it?
Dosage is important. This is a generic dose response curve that illustrates the differences between the concepts of therapeutic, toxic and lethal doses. This is NOT the curve for nicotine...it's an illustration.
The Y-axis represents the size of the effects. The x-axis represents the dose. Halfway up the curve is the half maximal response. Please note that the X-axis is always logarithmic on these types of curves. So for this illustration there are several orders of magnitude difference between the different effects. (sorry the image is so big).
When i talk about lack of toxicity, I'm thinking the curve furthest to the left...where there are a range of of therapeutic doses. The the lowest doses in the that range will have little or no effect. The higher therapeutic doses can overlap with doses that have toxic effects. The closer the curves are together, the more toxic the agent is and the harder it is to find an effective dose that doesn't have side effects.
The Y-axis represents the size of the effects. The x-axis represents the dose. Halfway up the curve is the half maximal response. Please note that the X-axis is always logarithmic on these types of curves. So for this illustration there are several orders of magnitude difference between the different effects. (sorry the image is so big).
When i talk about lack of toxicity, I'm thinking the curve furthest to the left...where there are a range of of therapeutic doses. The the lowest doses in the that range will have little or no effect. The higher therapeutic doses can overlap with doses that have toxic effects. The closer the curves are together, the more toxic the agent is and the harder it is to find an effective dose that doesn't have side effects.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
I don't disagree with the assertion that 'poisonous' is a function of toxicity and amount. Never have.
The first reply in this thread is me agreeing with the premise that water is toxic as well, at the right dose.
I don't disagree with the assertion that 'poisonous' is a function of toxicity and amount. Never have.
The first reply in this thread is me agreeing with the premise that water is toxic as well, at the right dose.
I apologise if my position is too nuanced for you to grasp.
It really isn't that hard though.
1) All compounds are toxic at a certain dose.
2) That notwithstanding, there are things that through common experience humans divide into 'poisonous' and 'not poisonous'. Mushrooms are a pretty good example. You can kill yourself with any type of mushroom you like. But we still accept that some mushrooms are rightly called 'poisonous' and some are called 'non-poisonous'.
Get it?
It really isn't that hard though.
1) All compounds are toxic at a certain dose.
2) That notwithstanding, there are things that through common experience humans divide into 'poisonous' and 'not poisonous'. Mushrooms are a pretty good example. You can kill yourself with any type of mushroom you like. But we still accept that some mushrooms are rightly called 'poisonous' and some are called 'non-poisonous'.
Get it?
- Status
Similar threads
