backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by SiliconDoc.. on Aug 14 at 11:09 AM


A new FDA study finds that e-cigarettes contain many carcinogens and toxins, like their smoking counterparts. Manufacturers' claims that they make for "healthy" use appear blatantly incorrect.  (Source: Sean O'Key/CNN.com)
Proof yet again that things that sound to good to be true really are

They are billed as affordable and safe ways to enjoy the experience of smoking without the health risks.  Every day thousands of customers across the country "light up" e-cigarettes, a new product that is taking the online world by storm.  E-cigarettes consist of cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals, spiced with flavors such as chocolate, cola or bubble gum.  The "cigarette" typically lights up as it vaporizes the nicotine-chemical cocktail, which it delivers as steam to the user.

As sales for the devices, market as a healthy-living product, have skyrocketed, the Food and Drug Administration became concerned.  Exactly how "healthy" were these cigarette substitutes? 

The FDA began testing them and it quickly discovered that the e-cigarettes, like their smoking counterparts, are hazardous to the health.  The samples from various manufacturers contained dangerous carcinogens.  Further, at least one manufacturer's mix contained diethylene glycol -- a chemical used in antifreeze, and a toxin to humans.

Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California comments, "We know very little about these devices, but to say they are healthy -- that's highly doubtful."

Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA adds, "The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public."

One of the largest manufacturers of the devices, Florida-based Smoking Everywhere has remained mum on the reports.  The devices do appear, thus-far to be legal as a combination drug-device product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium urges people to think of the children, commenting, "It is very important that parents let their children know these are not safe and to make recommendations, or even enforce rules that they not be used."

Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the Office of Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds, "Children who use these products may also be using other tobacco products.  It's a good idea to make sure the child is aware of the dangers of tobacco in products in general."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: wasnt it obvious?
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/24/2009 10:15:05 AM , Rating: 4
Aside from the stress it places on the human body, nicontine itself isn't more harmful than other stimulants like caffeine. However, it does have the unfortunate tendency to easily transform into carcinogenic derivatives, including via biochemical pathways that occur in the human body. Thus its not the nicotine itself that's the most dangerous, barring overdose, but rather its highly carcinogenic bioreactive byproducts.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By aegisofrime on 7/24/2009 10:26:53 AM , Rating: 4
So under what circumstances is nicotine NOT metabolized into those harmful byproducts?


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/24/2009 10:48:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So under what circumstances is nicotine NOT metabolized into those harmful byproducts?


Liver failure or genetic defects in the liver's cytochrome P450 enzymes (though many such defects would prove fatal).

Ironically one of the major metabolite of nicotine cotinine (as well as nicontine itself) have shown promise for improving neural activity and treating schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Unfortunately, its more toxic byproducts -- nicotine N'-oxide, nornicotine, nicotine isomethonium ions, 2-hydroxynicotine and nicotine glucuronide -- make it a dangerous substance to make a habit of ingesting.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By MrBlastman on 7/24/2009 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 3
As Duke Nukem would say to the users: "Suck it down!"

I really don't care if people smoke these - it is their own business. I say if the FDA is concerned, put a warning label on the packaging and leave it at that. They don't cause the annoying second-hand smoke that we all hate, so really they are not infringing on anyones rights anymore by smoking these.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By someguy123 on 7/24/2009 11:30:25 AM , Rating: 3
i think that's everyones reaction to it. the problem here is that they're marketed as being "healthy" alternatives, when they still contain carcinogens.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By bhieb on 7/24/2009 11:37:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I really don't care if people smoke these - it is their own business.

To some extent I agree. With socializeed healthcare being thrusted upon us, people choosing to do things that increase medical expense, by association, increase the cost to the public as a whole.

This is the fine line public health care treads. I am of the opinion that basic care would be a good thing to provide to those that don't have it.

However you get into a situation that, by it's very nature, invites more government control. Take regular cigarettes. Undeniably they can contribute to lung cancer. Do you just exclude any lung cancer from public health care dollars, as it was a condition that the patient knew was a possibility, and therefore it would be unfair to use public dollars to fund drug use. Or do you ban smoking all together.

When you start using public money for things like health care, how do you define the limit on what is someones own business, and what is actually fiscally harmful to others.

There are a pleathora of dumb choices people can make that are well within their legal right, but ultimately may cost them long term health, and then the public gets stuck with the bill. I for one am for legalizing certain drugs, but NOT if public health care is passed. If a person wants to smoke pot, smoke pot, I don't care it does not impact me, but when your broke and cancer ridden later in life I don't want to be the one stuck paying for you care.

Sorry to get off topic, but usually the liberal ideals of sociallizing medicine are in stark contrast to civil liberties aka it is their own business. Just trying to point out that the idea of socilizing something as humane as health care, can/will/should have an impact on civil liberties. You cannot contine to live however you wish, and use public dollars to correct your mistakes (***cough*** GM ***cough***).


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By Murst on 7/24/2009 11:42:59 AM , Rating: 3
As a smoker, I would not mind if lung cancer treatment was not part of a government-subsidized health care program for people who smoke.

However, this should be fair across all conditions. So, for example, I would also expect that diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart attack issues would also not be covered for people who are overweight.

People make choices, and they should live w/ the consequences without the expectation that others will bail them out.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By Jimbo1234 on 7/24/2009 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Both good points, but the government also subsidizes corn growers. This corn is then put into everything we eat in the for of high fructose corn syrup which has just as many calories as cane sugar but does not give you the sense of being full. So until this B.S. is put to an end, I cannot completely agree with the overweight argument.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By Murst on 7/24/2009 2:48:56 PM , Rating: 5
By your logic, I shouldn't have to pay a ticket for speeding because the US subsidizes car companies, who in turn produce cars that can go above the speed limit.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SilthDraeth on 7/26/2009 1:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
Except some people have diabetes and weight issues, and the diabetes wasn't caused by the extra weight, they just managed to gain weight while being diabetic.

Science isn't great enough yet to find out what ant's sneeze caused the boulder to fall off the mountain and crush little Timmie's house.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 8:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah boy oh brother, I bet there are millions of children unaware of the dangers of smoking today - surrounded by ten thousand smoking nazis for their entire life's existence:
" Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium urges people to think of the children, commenting, "It is very important that parents let their children know these are not safe and to make recommendations, or even enforce rules that they not be used."
----
Yes, that's a real problem nowadays, doc. I be they don't know about condoms, sex, evil big oil, warmongers, or cancer causing agents either - heck nor Viaggra for that matter!
( one wonders who is DUMBER nowadays, purported adults, or their precious "village of communist community children that happened to luckily escape the abortion scalpel so all the do-gooders could start "community caring" talk for them)
---
LUNATICS


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
Murst, then we should also ban public healthcvare dollars for all the x-sporters, they engage in highly dangerous activities, and if they break an ankle, it was their choice.
Then we can include anyone who didn't have their seatbelt clicked and got in an accident.
Drunken drivers, too.
Skateboarders.
Skiers - that's very dangerous.
Anyone who sucks down a twinkie or meals over the FDA 4-4-3-2 prescribed balanced dietary meals chart.
Soda drinkers and candy bar lovers.
Health nuts like Arnold the governator, whose heart blew from the massive iron pumping.
Marathon runners who get shin splints, ankle and foot trouble, and have heart explosions too from the giant throbbing over-pump they developed in their chests.
On and on and on....
-----------------------
I'm certain the liberal lefty freaks will develope and enforce a quite arbitrary and unfair politcally correct list of OK dangers and NOT OK dangers, and then force society into compliance through manipulation of their nazi-like Dr. Mengala "choose the worthy" and murder the unworthy "national healthcare plan" that "doesn't cost anyone a dime and in fact saves money"....
I say the first ones we line up for the dollar saving deth knell are the kookballs who support the tyrrany to begin with. Let's see just how dedicated they are.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By ClownPuncher on 7/24/2009 12:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
You made the incorrect assumption that the health care plan being proposed would be a single payer social plan. Read up on it if you're interested. The only people forced in to using the plan would be companies and small businesses that do not help provide private insurance coverage.

From what I have read, it seems like the healthcare plan being discussed will put a pinch on small businesses who don't opt to cover their employees and possibly take a little burden from the hospitals.

I don't know if this is a good idea, I would like to learn more before I pass final judgment. I work for a company that makes medical equipment, and our stock has gone up since the bill was proposed, some of us are optimistic, others... not so much.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 8:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Turning your last few freedoms over to the monstrous trillion dollar endebted for generations to come government is never a good idea lately, fella.
A single clue might be the lying face of power flapping his ears while telling you "it won't cost a dime, it will save money".
A simple check on ALL OF HISTORY for every government entity that existed for all time will disprove that fairy tale lying fantasy, unless of course you believe it's the messiah, for real. ( I take that back, it will still prove it's a bad idea, because you'd have to be a now common nutter to buy it. )


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
Buddy, you were probably around when the overlords just recently told us their neat seat belt law would NEVER RESULT in drivers getting pulled over for not having it clicked, and in fact all of us could only be cited if some other traffic violatiuon initiated a stop. That lasted for what exactly, 2 years ?
NOW, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLARES it's Ad Council "Click it or Ticket ! " national law enforcement ads over the radios of drivers all across the USA, and they SWEAR if you don't click it- YOU WILL BE CAUGHT!
---
Now I hope a humble, loving, reasonable, progressive person such as yourself can put two and two together.
GOOD LUCK.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By UNHchabo on 7/24/2009 12:54:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
To some extent I agree. With socializeed healthcare being thrusted upon us, people choosing to do things that increase medical expense, by association, increase the cost to the public as a whole.


I'm not sure it's been proven that smokers have increased medical expense as a group though. Intuitively, it seems to me that it's quite possible that since smokers tend to die a bit earlier, they don't clog up our medical facilities with the other problems that come with old age.

Which is more expensive: a smoker who gets lung cancer at age 61 and dies after a couple rounds of chemotherapy, or a non-smoker who lives to 93, after having diabetes for 25 years, two hip replacements, and a heart attack?


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By mindless1 on 7/24/2009 3:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the assisted care, nursing home, or hospital for the last few months if not years, let alone the plethora of pills the elderly are prescribed these days. To someone uninitiated with the cost of medicine that can easily be several hundred dollars a month let alone the doctor visits to monitor the prescriptions, billing,etc.

It is easily true that health care costs have and will continue to go up for the nation because people live longer and the associated proactive care so often taken these days.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By ClownPuncher on 7/24/2009 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Smoke for the Freedom of America!


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By BrgMx5 on 7/24/2009 1:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are a pleathora of dumb choices people can make that are well within their legal right, but ultimately may cost them long term health, and then the public gets stuck with the bill. I for one am for legalizing certain drugs, but NOT if public health care is passed. If a person wants to smoke pot, smoke pot, I don't care it does not impact me, but when your broke and cancer ridden later in life I don't want to be the one stuck paying for you care.


That goes not only for tobaco, but for alcohol, fast food, too much exercise too little exercise, work stress, car and factories polution, wreckless driving, etc.

Everything you do is going to reflect on your health.

So, excluding all these, the only people who would qualify for public health would be 80 year old nuns who live in a convent in Montana.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By mindless1 on 7/24/2009 6:04:05 PM , Rating: 1
... or maybe it's all just a lottery and mankind's common vices get blamed because of the religious taint present far too often with conservatives.

We often see examples of quite old people eating bacon, smoking, drinking, etc. Then others do the same and die at half the age and we say "they did it to themselves".

Total nonsense, any sane scientist can see that even if there is a correlation between the lifestyles of those with shorter lifespans, that there are several other factors involved like lack of exercise, worse healthcare, worse diet, etc.

The general trend is the same as always, people take health for granted and if someone is healthy they seek an excuse to claim that when someone else isn't it must be their "fault", it can't be luck or other choices not considered except for the media or pharmaceutical buzz-words.

Personally I think they all miss the point. Better to live well (Not necessarily recklessly) for a normal lifespan, than to constantly deprive oneself just to live a few more years constantly depriving oneself. What kind of life is that?!


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By Alexvrb on 7/24/2009 9:00:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
... or maybe it's all just a lottery and mankind's common vices get blamed because of the religious taint present far too often with conservatives.
One minor problem with that theory, buddy. The people in charge now aren't conservatives, they're liberals. Yes, the same ones (with a few notable exceptions) that are pushing for public health care, and are considering taxing health-related vices to help pay for it. First its the smokes, then soda, then onto cheeseburgers... they'd go for alcohol too, but they have to wait on that one for a while. You need to take away firearms before you take away alcohol, or else things get ugly.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:31:39 AM , Rating: 2
Boy oh brother how that plays I'll never know. NEVER in my entire life have I had a single religious person start lecturing me about eating, drinking, smoking, or anything like it. HOWEVER, I HAVE NEVER HEARD THE END OF THE ACTIVIST LEFTIST FREAK SCHRIEKING THEIR TOFU SALAD CRAP MY WAY! MY GOD IT'S A HORRENDOUS TORTURE ON A DAILY BASIS ! THEY'VE NOW VIRTUALLY BANNED HALF&HALF AND REPLACED IT WTIH SOME LIBTARD INSPIRED LIQUID WHTIE PUKE!
---
" ... or maybe it's all just a lottery and mankind's common vices get blamed because of the religious taint present far too often with conservatives. "
-- YEAH SURE! GOLLY ALL THOSE TV ENAGELISTS ON THEIR TREADMILLS WHILE THEY MUNCH ON A SALAD AND PREACH! ROFLMAO
---
Thanks for straightening out the little brainwashed parrot - but I couldn't pass it up either.
As for the rest of his statement, where he mentions people are diffferent and it's not always what they eat or smoke or do - I agree ( GENETICS plays a huge role ).


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/24/2009 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I for one am for legalizing certain drugs, but NOT if public health care is passed. If a person wants to smoke pot, smoke pot, I don't care it does not impact me, but when your broke and cancer ridden later in life I don't want to be the one stuck paying for you care.
Um, you do realize that you already are stuck paying for their care later in life? Medicare covers them when they reach retirement age, and Medicaid covers many of the poorest in America - who perhaps not coincidentally also happen to frequently have histories with drugs.

The problem is that we're already paying for the most expensive people to insure. It would cost comparatively little to increase coverage to all (I know, that's not on the table), and has had the add-on benefit of reducing costs for equal outcomes in virtually every developed country in the world. I know, we're not exactly a progressive nation - it took half a century and a war for us to ban slavery after Britain did it - but it's about time we recognized that our health care system is making us less competitive in the global economy.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By Samus on 7/24/2009 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 1
This country is going communist right before my eyes...


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/27/2009 4:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know what words mean, do you?

Do you mean communism in the political science-sense, as in a stateless, classless society where the means of production are controlled by all the people together? Or do you mean Communism in the political sense, as in a state similar to the Marxist states of the former Soviet Union, where the government owns the means of production? If you meant the former, you're way off base, since America certainly isn't heading in the direction of becoming a country without a government. So I'll assume you meant the former, although I seriously doubt we're in danger of posting pictures of Lenin all over DC any time soon. Either way, though, your position doesn't make sense in this context.

Whatever the case may be, I find no use in affixing loaded labels to ideas. It's much more useful to evaluate them on their merits and defects. (As a side note, the use of emotionally-laden buzz words (like your use of 'communist' is a classic Nationalist tactic - and I mean nationalism as in national socialism and fascism. It's just an attempt to obscure the issue, especially useful when the facts are not on your side.)

Let's look at nationalizing health care on the merits: It has a demonstrated track record of reducing costs and improving outcomes, and it covers everyone. But in that second merit, there is a defect as well, since it mandates health coverage for all - it restricts personal freedom by compelling working Americans to pay for health care. On the other hand, working Americans are already paying for many Americans' health care (nearly 30% of the population), and most of these Americans are among those with the highest medical costs.

Next, there is the concern about rationing of services. We've heard the horror stories about long waits for medical service in countries with nationalized health care. However, statistics don't actually back that up. What is more, a national health service doesn't necessarily preclude a privatized health service. Those who can afford to pay should be able to seek services outside the system - unlike the Canadian system, for example. This kind of 2-tiered system (while inherently unequal) ensures that everyone is ensured a basic level of care, while those who can afford it could get care more suited to their preferences. Still, there is always the concern that the government could botch things up horribly. However, most Americans who have Medicare or Medicaid are quite satisfied with their coverage.

The general population is concerned about the increasing costs of the government's Medicare liabilities. The general population, though, is also concerned about their own increasing health care costs. The fact is that health care costs are rising much more rapidly than inflation in the US. There are pretty much only three responses to this crisis-in-waiting: The capitalist option - i.e., let the markets set the price, which will be in line with supply and demand, and will make health care unaffordable for more and more Americans as time goes on - or the capitalist-socialist option - the utilizers of health care rally together and, through collective bargaining or denial of custom, force health care companies to control costs - or the 'socialist' option - the government (representing the will with the people) engages in collective bargaining on their behalf. Those are the only three options I see: do nothing, mass protest, and government intervention.

So there are the pros and cons as I see it. For some, certain cons are deal-breakers, and I understand that. Luckily, we can all trust that Americans will stick to their democratic ideals and, whatever the outcome, accept it as the result of the will of the people. Or challenge its constitutionality in court. Or vote in a new lot in order to effect change.

My apologies for the wall of text, and hooray for the rule of law!


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
You've got a string of lies so big there, there is no reaching you.
The last public poll took put "national healthcare" IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL FOR CHOICES WE THE PEOPLE DELCARED TO BE OURS!
---
What you've got is the whining, commoner, crybaby, broken hearted, alarmist, big government takeover, total line of CRAP !
---
Your liar in chief actually got on TV and claimed national healthcare would not cost a dime of deficit nor a dime of increased, compiled, national debt.
---
Healthcare costs are going to keep rising like they have since the dawn of time. The doctor no longer yanks on your achilles while sissy and daddy hold you down and muffle your screaming piehole, slap some plaster on your leg, give you a half dozen aspirin, then tell you to call in the morning while Daddy hands him $15 gold and silver backed US bucks.
Nowadays, it's an ambulance, 4 technicians and a driver, 14 emergency ward people, 3 x-rays on a multi-million dollar machine, some fancy new non plaster DUPONT fiber sharpie pen signable hinged at the knee cast, a hospital bed overnight just to make certain your noggin isn't anymore screwed up than it was, and lord knows how many return visits, a leg shaving when uncasted, and a finalized x-ray regiment to make certain it's all back together just right.
---
HEALTHCARE COSTS WILL RISE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, PERIOD, NO MATTER WHAT ANY GOVERNMENT DOES OR DOESN'T DO.
---
Soon the stem cell injecton to increase bone mending speed at the break sihght, besides the corstisone will be standard practice, and that will cost a pretty penny to match the patients complex gentically specific metabolism.
I mean get a clue fella.
----------------
The way we can reduce healthcare costs is have a gigantic bombing war in the USA and turn most modern science healthcare facilities to RUBBLE - barring that there's no going backwards into "cheaper".


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By wvh on 7/25/2009 12:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously you don't seem to live (yet) in a country where half of your pay check goes to health care, unemployment payouts, pensions and other sorts of taxes...

When you work hard to see large amounts of it go to smokers, alcoholics, drug users, obese people, unemployed people and uneducated immigrants that will never find a job, something fundamental changes in that view of "to each their own". Especially when all of these line up to bother you on your way home after working late.

Nothing kills social behaviour as quickly as socialism, I can tell you that.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:14:29 AM , Rating: 2
A BIG PROBLEM : " I really don't care if people smoke these - it is their own business. I say if the FDA is concerned, put a warning label on the packaging and leave it at that. They don't cause the annoying second-hand smoke that we all hate, so really they are not infringing on anyones rights anymore by smoking these. "
---
Uhh, the village health NAZIS have a big problem - they're tooling down the road in their carcinogenic belching roadster - coughing out 100x the lung infesting, cancer causing, black dirt particle leaving, satanically inspired POLLUTION on every passerby in every big city the throng of activists ever colleected or protested in.
Somehow, our INSANE SOCIETY bans the lesser of the two evils, while the very nazis enforcing their cry upon the populace, lays out their killer smoke trail and noone does a dang thing about it.
The tards, never put two and two together and figure out why non-smokers have nearly as high a cancer rate as smokers -- IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE DRIVING YOUR SMOKING GAS GUZZLING EARTH DESTROYING MONSTER ALL OVER THE PLACE, YOU ANTI-SMOKING NAZIS! YOU'RE MURDERING MORE PEOPLE RUNNING TO YOUR WORLD HEALTH RALLY THAN SECOND HAND SMOKE EVERY DID !
----
Step outside and suck in a deep breath of that ankle to over the head level city smog- suck it up !


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By tastyratz on 7/24/2009 11:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I see...

So long story: it's not dangerous.... but ingesting it is always going to make dangerous byproducts to injest...

short story in other words: ITS DANGEROUS

That is like saying guns aren't dangerous bullets are, but on the plus site sometimes they kill a bad guy.
Hydrochloric acid is perfectly safe undisturbed till it gets poured on my face.

I don't care what people smoke its their own body, as long as they aren't tricked into thinking what they are putting into it is something its not (aka safe)


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By MrBlastman on 7/24/2009 3:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
Guns aren't dangerous, it is the person behind the trigger that you have to worry about. ;)


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By mindless1 on 7/24/2009 6:08:30 PM , Rating: 1
If they are tricked, isn't it darwinism?

I feel nicotine, and especially the cocktail of other chemicals shouldn't be ingested, but ultimately if we concede personal freedom, we have to accept that there are so many things in life that are dangerous like driving a lot, participating in certain sports, eating FRUIT that isn't certified chemical free, where you live, your place of residence...

The list is just too long, I agree totally that it's dangerous and yet, there are so many things in life that are hypothetically "dangerous" that we might as well put a big stamp on everything that reads "living is likely to kill you".


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By ggordonliddy on 7/26/2009 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're a dumb@ss, it seems.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By tastyratz on 7/27/2009 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of things you can ingest and do to your body/self/environment. The point is that people should be able to make their own EDUCATED choices. Anything harmful to our health and addictive as significantly as nicotine is should have a warning label. There is nothing hypothetical about its downsides even if its being promoted as "healthy". What an individual chooses to do with that information is their own right to choose.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
A warning label...really...
Tell you what, go pick up a pack of now taxed to death $7.87 Camel's, non-filter if you're the dangerous type, grab the nearest Bic, and light it up - take a deep draw...
When several minutes later, we pick you up off the floor, after you coughed half a lung out, and slipped on your own wad of spittle that flew out of your gagging piehole, we'll grab the pack of smokes, and JAMMMMM it in your red, distended, capillary bursting face, and HAVE YOU READ THE WARNING, just so you know what's good for you.
-----
I'm sorry for assuming you'd be able to read while your head is still exploding.
-----
Yeah, boy that surgeon general's warning sure did it ! By golly another brilliantly progressive fix! What would we do without our cariung geniuses?!


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By MrPoletski on 7/27/2009 11:27:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ironically one of the major metabolite of nicotine cotinine (as well as nicontine itself) have shown promise for improving neural activity and treating schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.


Irony is where the intended meaning of a phrase or action is opposite to the effectof said phrase or action.

I'm not sure your example fulfills this criteria.

If somebody with schizophrenia took an overdose of nicotine to kill himself because he couldn't deal with his mental condition... only to find himself curing his mental condition... now THAT would be ironic.


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By rdeegvainl on 7/24/2009 10:34:57 AM , Rating: 4
I think any study should show e-cigarettes compared to regular cigarettes. I'm not an expert on these things, but I think cutting out the second hand smoke from the unfiltered end in and of itself would be a good thing, and conveniently allow people to smoke in public. Until a real study is done though I will have to reserve my judgment.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki