Caffeine is also a vasoconstrictor and increases blood pressure. I personally find both nicotine and caffeine to be quite beneficial, but maybe that's just me. YMMV.
Sunday NY Times Features Debate between Siegal and Glantz
- Thread starter Roger_Lafayette
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Caffeine is also a vasoconstrictor and increases blood pressure. I personally find both nicotine and caffeine to be quite beneficial, but maybe that's just me. YMMV.
Nicotine IS beneficial. It helps with concentration and other cognitive brain function. I have mild to moderate A.D.D. (depending on the day), and it helps a great deal without having to turn to the aid of mind altering pharmaceuticals.
Lookup the medical benefits of nicotine online and you'll find studies.
As I said, it has some benefits. It has a similar effect on alertness and concentration as caffeine has and it helps some conditions such as yours. But it isn't good for everyone and it is quite possible to take too much (it is a toxin.) Fortunately, with e-cigarettes, it is possible for to customize your dose so you get the amount you need without overdoing it. With cigarettes, you get the amount BT gives you in each cig.
The proposal to reduce nic content in tobacco cigarettes seems to me like the worst idea ever. It'll will surely cause most smokers to actually smoke more to compensate for the nicotine they need.
I agree. I read it this morning in Orange County Register, where it was reprinted, and I thought that although it tried to present both sides of the debate, Dr. Siegel's arguments were much more persuasive and logical, while his former mentor really came across as a zealot with no rational arguments whatsoever.
Last edited:
Also from the NYT, 17 years ago.
Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits - New York Times
Last edited:
The article also points out that nicotine can be compared to caffeine. The other important thing is that too much regulation will eclipse small manufacturers and that's usually not reported.
Those are all things that an average person can relate to. I think it's important to realize that the movement to regulate ecigs is not coming from the public. In fact the average person may have never seen an ecig or be unaware that they've been around them. This article creates doubt about the face of the standard ANTZ dribble. Why are they banning something that is probably safer and leave killer cigarettes legal? That's a good article.
I'm going to repost this article.
Last edited:
Exactly! Shows how little these "experts" understand smokers (or vapers). Appalling.
Nic. content limits echo EU's TPD (Tobacco Products Directive) which declares that 20mg/ml (2%) e-juice is the max allowable for non-therapeutic puposes. Underlying both of these ideas is the therapy presently offered to {OTHER STUFF} (can't use the word here) addicts: gradual reduction of the {OTHER STUFF} content of {SUBSTITUTE OTHER STUFF} is part of the recovery path.
The key idea here is that nicotine is the principal villain. Once smokers/vapers don't crave nicotine, they'll have no desire to smoke (or vape). Which makes sense to the extent that smokers are basically {OTHER STUFF} addicts in a different form - both in terms of the therapeutic approach that should be taken, as well as with regards to the social norms that society should adopt.
This also may be why the FDA has resisted making nic. inhalers available OTC. The goal w/ a nic. inhaler is that the physician controls the dosage, just as the {OTHER STUFF} addict's opiate intake is controlled via {SUBSTITUTE OTHER STUFF}.
It's an entirely consistent worldview, really. The folks in the lab coats really want to help us, and this is how they plan to save our lives.
One couldn't be more grateful or appreciative for their thoughtfully-tender mercies, methinks.
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't just a guess, it's historically based. I can't recall the years anymore, but there was a big push decades ago to lower tar and nicotine levels. They even made the cig manufacturers lis those levels on the packs. Then when it was realized that it just caused smokers to smoke more, they blamed the tobacco companies. Why do they think the results will be different this time?
Caffeine is also a vasoconstrictor and increases blood pressure. I personally find both nicotine and caffeine to be quite beneficial, but maybe that's just me. YMMV.
Also from the NYT, 17 years ago.
Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits - New York Times
Exactly! Everything from appetite suppressing to restoring damaged brain cells. It's benefits are beneficial to many, which is why we have nicotine receptors in our bodies.
PLOS ONE: RNA Deep Sequencing Analysis Reveals That Nicotine Restores Impaired Gene Expression by Viral Proteins in the Brains of HIV-1 Transgenic Rats
I know right. Been there, done that.
Dr. Farslinos has a research video, that shows smoke and tar kills the live cells dead. When doing the comparison with vapor, it shows that the nicotine vapor sometimes multiplies the live cells. They thrive! This makes up for the smoke and tar, IMO. Delete the nicotine and all that is left are zombies and funerals. IMO. It sounds like an end game to me, assuring that the ANTZ win.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked