Politics is war pursued by other means.
Unattributed
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
Moshe Dayan
Politics is war pursued by other means.
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
The only thing I am anti is anti-ANTZ.
By a bunch of biased and/or corrupt researchers who are paid large sums of money to try to find anything that can be used as propaganda....but there is a substantial body of research pointing to it being carcinogenic.
Said while drinking their caffeine-laced beverage of choice...What really gets to me (especially in many college programs) is the attitude "oh, that's nicotine? cigarette! Evil!
Direct quotes only please, that's pretty much dishonest.
"Nicotine is not a suspected carcinogen" is a stronger statement than "Nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I'm not suggesting that you only need one nutter to think nicotine is carcinogenic before you can lump it in, but there is a substantial body of research pointing to it being carcinogenic. To lump it in with the "nots" you would need to be able to basically say "none of the research suggesting it is a carcinogen is credible". Feel free if you like, it'll just paint you as an idealogue though.
I think part of the confusion earlier in the thread was people failing to grasp the distinction between NRT / snus and nicotine. Again, "there is an association between NRT and cancer" is a stronger statement than "nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I never said the former, and you're on very shaky ground if you really want to contest the latter.
Nicotine is a suspected carcinogen, and linked to pancreatic cancer at least, I think.
...again, "there is an association between NRT and cancer" is a stronger statement than "nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I never said the former, and you're on very shaky ground if you really want to contest the latter.
To lump it in with the "nots" you would need to be able to basically say "none of the research suggesting it is a carcinogen is credible". Feel free if you like, it'll just paint you as an idealogue though.
I remain at the position of there is insufficient evidence to conclude that nicotine alone is even a 'suspected carcinogen'.
The only thing I am anti is anti-ANTZ.
I wouldn't even consider myself to be anti-smoking.
There is nothing wrong with tobacco.
It is only the burning of tobacco that causes any reasonable degree of potential harm.
The same is true for the burning of pretty much anything.
It's not the tobacco that kills, it's the smoke.
By a bunch of biased and/or corrupt researchers who are paid large sums of money to try to find anything that can be used as propaganda.
As far as I'm concerned epidemiology always trumps what happens in a couple of petri dishes.
And in this case the epidemiology from the study of snus in Sweden for over 30 years pretty much shows that nicotine usage does not lead to increased cancer rates.
As far as I'm concerned that means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not cause cancer.
What really gets to me (especially in many college programs) is the attitude "oh, that's nicotine? cigarette! Evil! we should make those illegal." but in the same conversation "pot should be legal, man, it's safe.".
I'm just sitting here like I'm not the one lighting anything on FIRE to get my fix.![]()
How was I being dishonest?
...
I'm in a good mood, I'll let you off this time
How generous! So you're saying that you normally post when you're in a bad mood?
Ever considered raising your nic level?
Hi I'm Bucky Goldstein and I'm a vapaholic![]()
Hi Bucky... And Welcome.