Just kidding folks. I would never do something like that. I love my puppy. Try not to take offense. 
Don't let anyone tell you that nicotine is a poison...
- Thread starter DC2
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have not read this whole thread - I am not particularly interested in the circular arguments going on here, but I will say this in case it has not been said already:
Regardless of whether you think you should refer to nicotine as a poison, it is a vasoconstrictor, so long term use will increase your chance of heart disease. So, suggesting that nicotine is safe to consume in any quantity over an extended period of time is irresponsible.
Regardless of whether you think you should refer to nicotine as a poison, it is a vasoconstrictor, so long term use will increase your chance of heart disease. So, suggesting that nicotine is safe to consume in any quantity over an extended period of time is irresponsible.
The question is "What do you prefer to inhale while you're still hooked on nicotine: tobacco smoke and get that long list of chemicals in your body the cigarette companies add to their products besides the nicotine contained in tobacco, or only the nicotine?
(And even vaping WTA juice gives you only 5% of nicotine related alkaloids.)
"Smoking and cancer: What's in a cigarette?"
Smoking and cancer: What's in a cigarette? : Cancer Research UK
No need to prohibit the sales of e-juices with nicotine because when drunk by a child it will do it harm and can even be lethal if the dose is big enough. Otherwise they might as well prohibit the sales of very many other currently freely sold products also.
(And even vaping WTA juice gives you only 5% of nicotine related alkaloids.)
"Smoking and cancer: What's in a cigarette?"
Smoking and cancer: What's in a cigarette? : Cancer Research UK
No need to prohibit the sales of e-juices with nicotine because when drunk by a child it will do it harm and can even be lethal if the dose is big enough. Otherwise they might as well prohibit the sales of very many other currently freely sold products also.
Last edited:
I doubt you will agree, but you might want to read this...
Chi-Ming Hai is a liar – nicotine does not cause measurable risk of CVD | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Or for something a little more scientific...
http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_75.php
EDIT: By the way it is widely recognized that if you HAVE heart disease, vasoconstriction is a bad idea
EDIT: But that's very different than saying vasoconstrictors increase the chances of GETTING heart disease
Last edited:
I didn't read the entire thread. Sorry in advance if it already has been said. While it is true that "The dose makes the poison" and everything in large enough quantity is toxic, a good measure can be necessity. Water is essential for survival as well as some metals and other organic substances that will kill you if consumed in to large quantity. As far as I know nicotine is not an essential substance for the body. And therefore poison.
So is caffeine, but I doubt you are going to coffee related web forums and telling people who like coffee what scumbags they are.
Maybe you should read the whole thread. You are making a claim "And therefore poison" that you will probably not be able to substantiate.
Coumadin (warfarin) is a molecule that can be extremely beneficial for the treatment of those prone to blood clots. It has saved thousands of lives. I'll leave it to you to Google the information for yourself.
Warfarin is also used as a rodenticide, by taking advantage of the very same properties that make it so useful as a medicine.
So, which is it? A medicine, or a "poison"?
My position in this thread is that the term poison is meaningless unless dosage is taken into account. The scientific discipline of Toxicology substantiates that position.
There are numerous links in this thread that point to excellent information resources to help you retort if someone tells you "you are vaping poison".
Vape on!
Last edited:
water is a poison... it is used in the marine aquaria field to remove/kill parasites form marine fish commonly known as the fresh water dip...
Maybe you should read the whole thread. You are making a claim "And therefore poison" that you will probably not be able to substantiate.
Coumadin (warfarin) is a molecule that can be extremely beneficial for the treatment of those prone to blood clots. It has saved thousands of lives. I'll leave it to you to Google the information for yourself.
Warfarin is also used as a rodenticide, by taking advantage of the very same properties that make it so useful as a medicine.
So, which is it? A medicine, or a "poison"?
My position in this thread is that the term poison is meaningless unless dosage is taken into account. The scientific discipline of Toxicology substantiates that position.
There are numerous links in this thread that point to excellent information resources to help you retort if someone tells you "you are vaping poison".
Vape on!
I won't get into the semantics of making medical use of the poisonous properties of a substance. After all what you said is also true for cancer therapy. I don't doubt that everyone who had to get through chemo can attest to the poisonous effects of it. Or the long list of side effects of common medications. I will call something that is not essential to the body but when ingested/inhaled can have a negative effect a poison.
Edit: Ever had a nicotine buzz, or felt sick from vaping to much?
Last edited:
Wow, that first link is some crazy ranting nonsense. Discounting a scientific study without refuting it using scientific method is not a winning strategy.
The second link is far more interesting, but only deals with the levels of nicotine and delivery methods offered via traditional NRT, like patches or gum. You'll also note the other potential complications, like increased risk of diabetes.
It seems clear to me that more study is needed, specifically at dosages possible via vaping.
EDIT: Here's an interesting study on rabbits. The results are mostly heartening (pun intended), but the significant increase in calcification of the aorta is definitely troubling, as this has been linked to valve failure and other untreatable complications.
Way to over-react and put words in my mouth, "scumbag". Don't be a douche.
I think vaping is a great alternative to smoking, and I'm extremely happy to have converted from tobacco myself, but I also think that it's irresponsible to go around telling people that it's completely safe when that's not been clearly proven yet.
Last edited:
I notice you didn't address the point, you just started calling names. Somehow, I'm not at all surprised.
Carl Phillips is an epidemiologist with an extensive background in tobacco harm reduction.
He is quite familiar with the scientific method, I can assure you.
His blog is all about exposing the lies and the liars.
He does it quite well, perhaps better than anyone ever has, even if you found it lacking.
You've never had a discussion with me, yet you started with the ad hominem and I merely responded in kind. It's pretty disgraceful that because someone believes something different to you, your first response is to overreact aggressively, and having baited them thus, when they respond in kind, you put them down further by suggesting that their response was bound to be punitive because they disagreed with you in the first place. You'll note I'm quite happy to have a substantive conversation if someone else is.
With that said, caffeine is a very different compound, but excessive consumption certainly has undesired side-effects, I wouldn't recommend that to people as entirely safe either.
Something about his argumentative style really rubs me the wrong way. I'll do some more research on his methods and source material, but dismissing a whole discipline of science out of hand doesn't inspire confidence in me.
Did you check out the study I linked to?
Last edited:
I'll let anybody tell me anything. If I want my side to be heard, the least I can do is listen to their's.
Intrinsic respect for your fellow human being is the first step to open and honest debate.
Meant as a reply to the thread title, but maybe applies to a few other posts as well
Intrinsic respect for your fellow human being is the first step to open and honest debate.
Meant as a reply to the thread title, but maybe applies to a few other posts as well
I'll let anybody tell me anything. If I want my side to be heard, the least I can do is listen to their's.
Intrinsic respect for your fellow human being is the first step to open and honest debate.
Meant as a reply to the thread title, but maybe applies to a few other posts as well
So true Topacka. This does however require enough maturity and emotional health to achieve and not everyone out there has that.
Why not discuss the medical use of molecules with toxic properties? It goes to the heart of the debate. Toxicologists (those who are experts on the field of negative effects of molecules on the human body), use the term "level of toxicity". And they are correct to do so.
So, sticking with the topic of the thread, if you are eating eggplant, would you consider it "eating poison" merely because it contains nicotine?
All you have to do is look at a nicotine molecule side-by-side with a caffeine molecule. List the effects on the body side-by-side too. Now remove the names, mix them up like a magician does with a ball under a cup, and tell me which molecule is which. The two are so similar, you might have trouble doing it.
In fact, the biggest difference is that nicotine can kill you at much lower a dose than caffeine. But that doesn't mean caffeine is any less toxic to the body, if you want to use that term. Ever take a pain killer? Take enough of them, and they'll kill you. Ever walk by a car and smell the exhaust? Smell enough of it, and it'll kill you. Hey, do you like your burgers well done, with that nice crispy outer layer? That's carbon, and it's a carcinogen.
I usually say to each their own, but this is chemistry (my field). People that talk about nicotine as if it were unique in it's toxicity are ill-informed and should not be listened to.
In fact, the biggest difference is that nicotine can kill you at much lower a dose than caffeine. But that doesn't mean caffeine is any less toxic to the body, if you want to use that term. Ever take a pain killer? Take enough of them, and they'll kill you. Ever walk by a car and smell the exhaust? Smell enough of it, and it'll kill you. Hey, do you like your burgers well done, with that nice crispy outer layer? That's carbon, and it's a carcinogen.
I usually say to each their own, but this is chemistry (my field). People that talk about nicotine as if it were unique in it's toxicity are ill-informed and should not be listened to.
His style, and indeed his whole blog, is intended to be a slap in the face.
And a much needed one in my opinion.
In fact, he put a quote I made here in this forum on his blog...
So while his style may be rubbing you the wrong way, I think it is an approach that is sorely needed in this debate.
And when I say debate, I really mean war.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
