Democrats to Americans: Abstinence only, or die a long painful death.

[Khendraja'aro]

Hence the word "processed." And yes, the "processing" involves adding crap to the tobacco in cigarettes to make it more... palatable and more addictive.

But now that I think about it, US labeling laws apply to things you eat or drink, not things you inhale, so that's probably why there's no specific ingredient labels on cigarettes or nicoteen vaporizers.

Yeah, but even when you process food, you still have to list all the ingredients - those don't magically vanish after processing, y'know?

I don't know about that... ever tried a hooka? Way less harsh than a cigarette, even using pure tobacco. Of course, American law enforcement's war on personal liberty and self-ownership of our bodies makes them rare in these parts ("it's a [Marijuana] bong, seize and destroy it" ), but they seem to provide a counter-example to your assertion.

It may be that the water the smoke bubbles through frees the smoke of ingredients which make you cough - I mean, there has to be a reason to let it bubble through water in the first place.
edit: According to Wiki, the water cools and humidifies the smoke. That would explain it.

[CitizenCain]

Yeah, but even when you process food, you still have to list all the ingredients - those don't magically vanish after processing, y'know?

And when you process a plant into a pair of skin-tight, assless chaps jeans, normal blue jeans, you don't. Like I said, pretty sure those laws only target things you ingest, due to their historical origins in this country.

[Catgrrl]

My hand soap and shampoo have an ingredient list too...

[RandBlade]

And when you process a plant into a pair of skin-tight, assless chaps jeans, normal blue jeans, you don't. Like I said, pretty sure those laws only target things you ingest, due to their historical origins in this country.

You ingest the smoke of cigarettes though.

[CitizenCain]

If you consider "ingest" and "inhale" to be interchangeable... in which case, you should really stay away from liquids, since inhaling a fifth of 151 is probably a particularly nasty way to drown yourself.

[Aimless]

It helps that they're regulated by the ATF more than (not rather than) by the FDA, and have enough money behind them to both enforce retarded arguments about trade secrets and to seduce Bush into avoiding yet another treaty ie. the framework convention on tobacco control. Let's face it, you have a corrupt system where being able to make more money by harming people more effectively is considered to be a legitimate benefit. It all boils down to that, not to semantic discussions about "ingestion" vs. "inhalation". i'm glad you at least get the occasional TV ad campaign informing people of what's actually in their cigarettes.

[Aimless]

But there are some who go against the norms:

http://www.healingtalks.com/health/a...s-ingredients/

[Aimless]

I stand corrected, under the FCLAA the FDA would probably be able to enforce public ingredients disclosure had the cigarette companies not had more power than God

[LittleFuzzy]

If you consider "ingest" and "inhale" to be interchangeable... in which case, you should really stay away from liquids, since inhaling a fifth of 151 is probably a particularly nasty way to drown yourself.

Smartass. Fine, you metabolize the smoke of cigarettes.

[CitizenCain]

Smartass. Fine, you metabolize the smoke of cigarettes.

No, you really don't. Granted, you metabolize *some* parts of the smoke (like the nicotine and whatever else gets absorbed into the bloodstream), but the whole reason that smoker's lungs look like the freaking black death is because the majority of the smoke isn't absorbed or metabolized and ends up coating the lungs in a gooey, black, carcinogenic layer of ash.

[GGT]

No, you really don't. Granted, you metabolize *some* parts of the smoke (like the nicotine and whatever else gets absorbed into the bloodstream), but the whole reason that smoker's lungs look like the freaking black death is because the majority of the smoke isn't absorbed or metabolized and ends up coating the lungs in a gooey, black, carcinogenic layer of ash.

You just agreed with the goals of EPA, and justified the purpose of OSHA. And why they set standards for air quality in general, and the work place specifically.

Is that an "oops" on your part, or what?

[CitizenCain]

If you want to have a conversation with me, you will need to learn the English language at some point. May as well start down that path sooner rather than later.

[2HD]

I've often wondered what is to stop people from just getting hooked on ecigs since they are actually just a "legal" version of cigarettes. I know it's strange to a smoker who actually smoked real cigarettes to think that one could actually be a substitute for another, but don't think that in a world where kids are inhaling bath salts to get high that they wouldn't just get their hands of some of this stuff instead.

Kids who have never smoked would think smoking a "legal" cigarette would be like thumbing their noses at the establishment, although in an extremely lame ass way. It would be way easier to hide your ecig habit (no smoke, no ash, no pack, no lighter).

Aren't some brands\types ecigs advertised to be cheaper in the long run than regular cigarettes? Tough times call for me to find a lesser addition that costs a little less, I guess.

Fire away.

[CitizenCain]

I've often wondered what is to stop people from just getting hooked on ecigs since they are actually just a "legal" version of cigarettes. I know it's strange to a smoker who actually smoked real cigarettes to think that one could actually be a substitute for another, but don't think that in a world where kids are inhaling bath salts to get high that they wouldn't just get their hands of some of this stuff instead.

Well, nothing, and that's what I do. I don't smoke normal cigs because I have a cheaper, cleaner, much more convenient nicotine delivery device now. And what's wrong with that?

Honestly, I'm starting to contemplate experimenting with this system for other drugs too... start buying bulk quantities of the raw chemicals and doping up different juice mixtures. The PG base is infinitely miscible in water, so you'd figure all the drugs we ingest should be soluble... good way to get wasted for all those diabetic or calorie-counting drunks, great way to get your morning coffee in without the risk of burning your crotch, and so on.

Kids who have never smoked would think smoking a "legal" cigarette would be like thumbing their noses at the establishment, although in an extremely lame ass way. It would be way easier to hide your ecig habit (no smoke, no ash, no pack, no lighter).

Not that what kids would do is a good reason for any law, or that most ecig vendors sell to minors, but what would be so bad about it? Nicotine alone is no more dangerous or addictive than caffeine (in fact, by some metrics, like LD:50, it's the less dangerous drug) and we let kids buy Mountain Dew and energy drinks and Starbucks (etc.), so... why not this? (Other than our current social and government campaign to eradicate annoying little freedoms like the right to choose anything, I mean.)

Aren't some brands\types ecigs advertised to be cheaper in the long run than regular cigarettes? Tough times call for me to find a lesser addition that costs a little less, I guess.

Fire away.

Wouldn't know about the adverts (though the heavily advertised ecigs, and the ones available in like gas stations and such these days are pretty much crap), since I got onto the things when it was still 100% online, and settled into a brand based on word-of-mouth and "features." But they are way cheaper in the long run for anyone with a serious habit. Went from a pack a day (and my former brand's now selling for over $6 a pack) to just under $500 in about 9 months, and that's with about a month's supplies left, so let's call it $50 a month, compared to about 3 and a half times that for traditional smokes. And that includes money spent on some ecigs I ended up not liking and thus, not using and like that there. Up front costs are higher, of course, but if you find a nice reusable ecig you like, well, I'm saving at least $1500 a year.

Oh, and not paying a red cent in taxes on 'em, which is what really gives me the warm fuzzies.

[Aimless]

Not that what kids would do is a good reason for any law, or that most ecig vendors sell to minors, but what would be so bad about it? Nicotine alone is no more dangerous or addictive than caffeine

I'd love to read more about this, cursory googling only yields stuff like this:

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

[Khendraja'aro]

I'd love to read more about this, cursory googling only yields stuff like this:

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

Nicotine actually plays in the same league as cocaine and heroine.

Source here

Not to mention that Nicotine is 4 times as toxic as Caffeine when comparing maximum possible dosage.

[Aimless]

Hmmm I wonder how much more or less addictive nicotine is in this delivery form.

[CitizenCain]

I'd love to read more about this, cursory googling only yields stuff like this:

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

Try searching for articles on the dangers of caffeine, rather than the safeties of nicotine. For example, it's not possible to lethally overdose on nicotine using its preferred delivery vector (inhalation) alone, but caffeine can and will kill you if ingest enough.

Nicotine actually plays in the same league as cocaine and heroine.

Source here

Not to mention that Nicotine is 4 times as toxic as Caffeine when comparing maximum possible dosage.

More than a little disingenuous to equate nicotine to cigarettes after the big deal you made about cigarette additives making cigarettes more addictive and more toxic than they otherwise would be. (And the host of other problems with studies that compare recidivism rates for use of legal drugs and illegal ones as if there's no difference created by criminalization of one or the other.)

[Aimless]

Try searching for articles on the dangers of caffeine, rather than the safeties of nicotine. For example, it's not possible to lethally overdose on nicotine using its preferred delivery vector (inhalation) alone, but caffeine can and will kill you if ingest enough.

... the article I linked to was about how addictive substances are, and that was in fact the part of your post I was referring to. Caffeine protects people from Parkinsons, the fuck does nicotine do?

[CitizenCain]

Treats Parkinsons as well, and has shown value in mitigating some of the symptoms of Schizophrenia. Probably other stuff as well... it's not very well studied, given how thoroughly demonized it's been for decades. Not that its medical uses should matter for recreational purposes, but I guess it does to you on account of the side you've chosen in the war against anything resembling freedom.

[Aimless]

I wouldn't be too surprised if I ended up treating schizophrenia or any other disease with nicotine-based meds 20 years from now wrt PD it's hard to say for sure that it's caffeine and nicotine that are protective. So those e-cigs may even be worse

But this is leading us away from your claim that caffeine is more addictive than nicotine. I'm a curious fellow and I would like to see more on that. Bear in mind that I'm opposed to cigarettes, but I haven't yet developed a strong opinion on nicotine in other forms. I prefer snus to ciggies for obvious reasons. Now stop being a baby

[Khendraja'aro]

More than a little disingenuous to equate nicotine to cigarettes after the big deal you made about cigarette additives making cigarettes more addictive and more toxic than they otherwise would be. (And the host of other problems with studies that compare recidivism rates for use of legal drugs and illegal ones as if there's no difference created by criminalization of one or the other.)

No, no, no.

You're getting that wrong. First of all, yes, some additives may enhance the addictive nature of nicotine. That's NOT, however, the essential part of the nicotine addiction. It's just an enhancement. Or let me put it this way: If there was a cheap chemical which helped you sell 5% more stuff, wouldn't you use that one?

Secondly, you're just plain wrong with the "additives making cigarettes [...] more toxic" thing. You obviously did not understand what I was saying at all. Because I was arguing the absolute opposite, namely that the additives don't play a large role in toxicity.

To wit:

[...]And you're comitting to a logical fallacy when you think that "no additives" makes for a "healthier" option. First of all, the additives are (safe for their intended purpose) almost negligible in their toxicological impact, it's the slow, low-temperature, low-oxygen burn of the tobacco itself that matters. For that matter, cigars are even worse than cigarettes because the burn has even less oxygen and an even lower temperature - which means that it burns dirtier.[...]

Capiche?