Nicotine Is Not Dangerous

NIce so they said Nicotine isn't addictive. Glad that's settled *gathers pennies to try and buy a pack*

reply to post by lonegurkha


I dont care about links that make something out of nothing. Nicotine is naturally in tomatoes etc. so if it's a poison then why is it that people dont die from them? Because they're not getting a purified dose of it.
Also tobacco isn't the same as nicotine at all. Tobacco has thousands of chemicals and on top of it it's burned. Try making the same argument with e-cigs.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I'm sorry that you feel that way and won't read any thing that proves you wrong. You are entitled to your opinion and I accept that.

However nicotine has been used as a pesticide for many years. You can take cigarette butts , put them in a coffee can with water after a couple of days filter the liquid , dilute slightly then spray on insects and they will die. I know folks who have used this method of controlling pests in their gardens for years.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

I'm sorry that you feel that way and won't read any thing that proves you wrong. You are entitled to your opinion and I accept that.

However nicotine has been used as a pesticide for many years. You can take cigarette butts , put them in a coffee can with water after a couple of days filter the liquid , dilute slightly then spray on insects and they will die. I know folks who have used this method of controlling pests in their gardens for years.

edit on 12/30/2011 by lonegurkha because: Lord please help me to learn to spell

Now being a smoker for 22 or 23 years i never knew that what so ever..lol..cool thank you i just might try that...All i know is that im addicted to smokes and its either the nicotine or the chems or both....good find....

One drop of concentrated nicotine has the potency to kill 10 men, so to say its not harmful is to say that RiCin makes a great artificial Coffee creamer

Originally posted by sweetnlow
One drop of concentrated nicotine has the potency to kill 10 men, so to say its not harmful is to say that RiCin makes a great artificial Coffee creamer

Thats scary just hearing that..since e i have smoked for so long..Would hate to see my lungs now..

reply to post by lonegurkha


I don't read those links cause I've read enough for a long time about the issue. Yes you can kill anything if you overdoze it with nicotine. You can kill a person if you overdoze them with water too. If it's poison do tell me then why aren't people dropping dead all over the place for eating tomatoes, potatoes etc.?

you must also remember that here in Scandinavia, lots of people use nicotine, but we don't burn it, we put it in nice little bags that we put in our mouths. So we avoid lung-cancer and all those nasties. That way there is no second-hand smoke, and we can use it at movies, on airplanes, etc. It is called "Snus".

reply to post by Azmodan85


I don't think there's any doubt at all that nicotine is addictive, changes the brain's chemistry, alters the brain's structures and contributes to health problems.

I also don't think there's any doubt that the tobacco industry was scapegoated to take the fall for a HUGE variety of other now-common substances that are levelling human health and creating the chronic disease NCD Pandemic.

...It's just a Monopoly game for the Big Boyz.

reply to post by Hellhound604


I prefer my e-cig. Has both the habit and the nicotine and it tastes like lemon

My name is creeper, and I'm a reformed smoker of 20 + years. Started at 12, quit at 33.
Nicotine is poisonous, sure.
The ADDITIVES are carcinogenic.

Oddly enough, I've observed in my little world:

Chain smoking grampa inlaw, lived to be 80. A week after he "quit", he died.

Heavy smoking older co worker quit at 60. Diagnosed with lung cancer 6 months later. Wasn't "smoking" related, just one tumor that was removed.

Mom quit smoking. Later diagnosed with lung cancer. Also not "smoking" related as it was just one tumor. Not removable, but successfully treated with radiation and chemo.

Grandpa was a heavy smoker. Smoked "rollies" for as long as I could remember, then grew his own tobacco after being diagnosed with emphysema. His emphysema did not progress much after switching to home grown tobacco. (it smelled a little like weed) He smoked for a further 10-12 years before dying of an aneurism at 75

There were a few more instances where older family members smoked for a very long time and after they quit, got sick from many different diseases. Coincidence? Likely. But definitely observable. My father is of the opinion that the nicotine poisoned the "diseases" too, and kept them at bay. And since the body relied on nicotine to kill everything, once quit, your body didn't know how to fight it. So now he is afraid to quit.

Strange theory. Yup.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by lonegurkha

 

I don't read those links cause I've read enough for a long time about the issue. Yes you can kill anything if you overdoze it with nicotine. You can kill a person if you overdoze them with water too. If it's poison do tell me then why aren't people dropping dead all over the place for eating tomatoes, potatoes etc.?

Yes you can overdose on water. It takes about 5 gallons. Ever try to drink that much water? Yes nicotine is found in many vegetables. However it is found in the leaves and stems not in the veggies themselves. So unless you eat those parts of tomatoes and potatoes then it's unlikely that you would be affected.

As I said before you are entitled to your opinion. I won't try to change your mind as I can see it's already made up.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Very interesting. My dad smoked most of his life. When he was in his eighties he just quit smoking one day. He lived to be 93. No medical problems related to smoking.

It just goes to show you that everybodies different and will react to things in different ways.

reply to post by lonegurkha


Oh yeah, it's just a weird observation is all.
I have a friend who's grammy is 94 and has always a smoke in her hand. If cancer doesn't get her, it will be a fire from sleeping with a lit cig in her hand.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I to have known a few people who, like those in your family have quit smoking and died or came down with smoking related illnesses after they quit. Perhaps there is something to what your father believes.

Like many treatments for disease perhaps it doesn't work for everyone. Every body is different. Chemically individuals are different from one another. For example some people are allergic to milk, others are not.

reply to post by Demoncreeper

While nicotine is indeed addictive, I would like to point out few things that keep getting glossed over on this subject. Thank you for bringing this up.

Nicotine is both a stimulant and a depressant. On the circulatory system, it acts as a stimulant raising blood pressure. This much I have seen on my own self; if I need my BP dropped (as in for an occupational medical exam), I stop smoking for a few hours prior. On the nervous system, however, it acts as a depressant, calming nerves. I myself am a severely type 'A' personality... without nicotine, I can become aggressive, obsessive, and even violent. A few puffs on the old 'cancer sticks' and I become calm and meditative.

I have noticed over the years that this is a common observation in the smokers I know. Almost to a single person, each of them is naturally very excitable and aggressive, even before beginning smoking. Each of them have improved control of their emotional state after smoking. That excitable emotional state in itself is dangerous; when I am trying to temporarily lower my blood pressure I have to be sure I don't go too long between smokes, or my BP will rise higher apparently due to my agitated mental state.

It appears to this observer that the nicotine is acting to correct a chemical imbalance in the brain that leads to increased emotional stress. The results of such stress are not well understood. I have read studies (which I cannot locate at this moment) that tie physical stress to cancer. This makes sense, since cancer itself is an abnormality in the biochemical messengers that regulate cell growth and reproduction. The body is designed to survive, and the flight-or-flight reaction which is an inherent part of this survival instinct encompasses a myriad of biochemical adjustments.

My question is this: is there a difference, so far as the human body is concerned, between physical stress and emotional stress? I say no, because the perception of danger is not a purely physical occurrence. And if there is then no difference between physical and emotional stress reactions within the body, and is it is suspected that physical stress can lead to cancer, why can emotional stress not also lead to cancer? It can, obviously, under those conditions.

Cortisol is one such biochemical messenger that lends itself to this concept. Cortisol is produced in response to stress, similar to adrenaline. Excessive levels in blood serum lead to a condition known as Cushing's syndrome, which is marked by weight gain. Weight gain is also a known side effect of smoking cessation, leading to the possibility of potential effects of nicotine on cortisol levels.

Now, if cortisol levels can be lowered by nicotine, and cortisol is a stress hormone, and stress is a contributor to cancer (all of which have some basis in medical research), is it such a stretch to conclude the possibility of smoking as a method of self-medication for undiagnosed stress disorders? This hypothesis does indeed explain why some people seem to wither away and perish shortly after quitting smoking in later life.

Someday, someone is going to do a real study into these possibilities. They will of course be dismissed and hounded for their efforts (just as many will either dismiss or flame this post), but their results may well set the medical world on its ear. In the meantime, I will continue to smoke. I have survived two heart attacks in my lifetime already, and in both cases there were two consistencies: I was extremely stressed out, and I ran out of cigarettes.

Incidentally, I now roll my own cigarettes. Soon I will be growing my own heirloom tobacco. At that point, I dare anyone to try and stop me from smoking by legislation or force. It will be considered nothing short of an attack on my life, and responded to as such.

TheRedneck

Actually there has been research done on smoking, more than the Swedish, even Simon Fraser University. Japan has a much higher rate of smoking and a much lower rate of associated cancers.

Our tobacco is highly radiated (Japans may be too now), and chemically enhanced. Organic home grown is obviously far better.

However, some of the reasons given that I read was that the muccus it creates in the lungs blocks absorption of the nuclear isotopes that we've been inundated with since 1940's on, and then they are expelled.

OK this is extremely controversial however, it needs to be brought up, because there is always more than one story and its very odd how the tobacco got so inundated with radiation and chemicals in north america, and I've always been of the mind that perhaps the things they promote are not good for us, and the things they make villians out of are not as bad as we thought. They seem to want alot more people dying of cancer.

So tobacco has caused cancer, but it also seems to the opposite, at least in pure form. And its not just the tobacco industry.

On the other hand, it is highly addictive, and the average smoker bottoms out around a pack or so a day, maybe 1 1/2, which then causes other things, so lungs aside, heart, and strokes for example.

Thus I am not promoting it either, but its not one sided.

trentslist.org...

It involves a conspiracy.

This is the real cause of cancer amongst smokers.


Hrayr Karagueuzian on radioactive particles in cigarettes

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Radiactive Tobacco, Equivalent 300-800 Chest XRays, Yearly!

For those who can't quit, I recommend growing your own organic.

reply to post by eeks4

Oh i know, i think i signed my own death certificate from the moment i sparked up the first one 38 years ago

One additional point on the issue of 'contaminants' in cigarettes... it is now, as far as I am concerned, a moot argument for or against cigarette use. The Fire-Safe Cigarettes (FSC) which are now mandated by law in at least most states, contain as the fire-proofing mechanism several strips of glue inside the papers. When this glue burns, it releases chemicals which were not in the tobacco, many of which I would expect to be both toxic and carcinogenic. You don't get it both ways: either you're concerned about the extraneous chemicals, or you aren't. And since extraneous chemicals are now legally mandated to be in cigarettes, that renders all concerns of anti-smokers about extra-nicotine chemicals moot.

You can't slap someone in the face and then complain their face turned red.

TheRedneck