This Aint Packers Talk v69

[AlexGreen#20]

6 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

Thanks for the response AG. A quick peek confirms what you say on nicotine introduced into the body through tobacco use as a potential catalyst of downstream causations of cancer, but it also said that the delivery system mattered, and that gums, patches, and vaping seemed to mitigate the issue.

Should nicotine be banned?

Should THC be banned?

Vaping is a great way to stop smoking. It is also a great way for young people to begin a life-long nicotine addiction. Please tell your kids the truth: nicotine is addictive. Don’t feed them bull**** related to an entirely different problem involving THC.

I don’t care for telling other people what to do. I also don’t care for people promulgating lies and distortions to serve their own narratives. 

Quote

Articles were analyzed and 90 relevant articles were included in the review. All the animal and human studies that investigated the role of nicotine on organ systems were analyzed. Studies that evaluated tobacco use and smoking were excluded. 

 

Quote

 

The stimulation of nAChRs by nicotine has biologic effects on cells important for initiation and progression of cancer.[26] It activates signal transduction pathways directly through receptor-mediated events, allowing the survival of damaged epithelial cells. In addition, nicotine is a precursor of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), through nitrosation in the oral cavity.[32,33] It is shown that nitrosation of nicotine could lead to formation of NNN and NNK. This effect of nicotine may be important because of its high concentration in tobacco and nicotine replacement products.[13] NNN and NNK are strongly carcinogenic.[34]

Nicotine forms arachidonic acid metabolites which cause increased cell division. Binding to Bcl-2 and action on vascular endothelial growth factor and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) causes increased cancer proliferation and survival.[35,36] Promotion of tumor angiogenesis accelerates tumor growth which is mediated by β-adrenergic activation and stimulation of nAChRs.[35,37,28,39] Nicotine also suppresses apoptosis by phosphorylation mediated extracellular signal regulated kinases of Bcl-2.[40,41] Recent studies show that nicotine, activates nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB)-dependent survival of cancer cell and proliferation.[42]

In normal cells, nicotine can stimulate properties consistent with cell transformation and the early stages of cancer formation, such as increased cell proliferation, decreased cellular dependence on the extracellular matrix for survival, and decreased contact inhibition. Thus, the induced activation of nAChRs in lung and other tissues by nicotine can promote carcinogenesis by causing DNA mutations[26] Through its tumor promoter effects, it acts synergistically with other carcinogens from automobile exhausts or wood burning and potentially shorten the induction period of cancers[43] [Table 2].

 

Vaping should definitely be banned.

So long as THC proves itself to be non-addictive, and safe in reasonable doses, I'm not sure why it would need to be banned.

But Vaping is not in any way a good way to quit smoking. It's just a different kind of smoking. 

[Uffdaswede]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

 

Vaping should definitely be banned.

So long as THC proves itself to be non-addictive, and safe in reasonable doses, I'm not sure why it would need to be banned.

But Vaping is not in any way a good way to quit smoking. It's just a different kind of smoking. 

What about THC vaping? The source of all recent hospitalizations? Banhammer?

[Donzo]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

IMO vaping, gums, patches etc are a good way for people to stop smoking who are either weak minded and/or havent truly decided they want to stop. 

Some people have told me vaping has made their nicotine addiction worse.  The nicotine is more pure, I guess.

I'm sure if they used it properly to step down on the nicotine it would work OK.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Uffdaswede said:

What about THC vaping? The source of all recent hospitalizations? Banhammer?

Until the FDA actually does their damn job and evaluates the affects, I'm not sure you can at the moment short of an act of legislature. 

But the illegal black market capsules sure as **** need to be cracked down on. 

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

But Vaping is not in any way a good way to quit smoking. It's just a different kind of smoking. 

Agree entirely. It reintroduces some of the addictive chemicals into your system (but supposedly in a lesser amount) - but it strongly reinforces and continues the behaviorial pattern of smoking.

You're still a smoker . The behavior remains ingrained into your actions, persona, self perception - until you put them down and break that chain.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Donzo said:

Some people have told me vaping has made their nicotine addiction worse.  The nicotine is more pure, I guess. I'm sure if they used it properly to step down on the nicotine it would work OK.

Could be. I've never done it and will never try - so I cant speak to the technicalities of the product other than to offer the opinion that for anybody to "inject" a relatively unregulated gas/smoke into their body and think there's some benefit - well, its more a reflection of marketing technique than anything real.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

[ThatJerkDave]

I don't like the lawsuits against the companies though.  I feel like these individuals made a poor choice, but the choice was theirs to make, and they now are reaping what they have sown.  

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I don't like the lawsuits against the companies though.  I feel like these individuals made a poor choice, but the choice was theirs to make, and they now are reaping what they have sown.  

I think the question comes down to whether the advertisement was fully forthcoming with all the health risks.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the advertisements weren't misleading in nature, but that's all advertisements to one extent or another. 

God help them if some judge rules that they were marketing to kids. 

[Leader]

13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think the question comes down to whether the advertisement was fully forthcoming with all the health risks.

You mean like those with the laundry list of "could be's" added at the end?

"Could cause incontinence, EDF, mental impairment, neurological dysfunction, a foot to fall off, eating disorders.....but otherwise, that fungus under your big toe? Theres a 30% chance that'll be cleared up in about six months"

[Rainmaker90]

It’s a very interesting debate on what we should ban or not. Society would be a lot better without certain things,  but where’s the line between doing what’s best for society and “ being free” ( I use it in quotes because we’re not.) 

[OneTwoSixFive]

10 hours ago, Leader said:

Agree entirely. It reintroduces some of the addictive chemicals into your system (but supposedly in a lesser amount) - but it strongly reinforces and continues the behaviorial pattern of smoking.

You're still a smoker . The behavior remains ingrained into your actions, persona, self perception - until you put them down and break that chain.

What worked for me (to give up smoking) was eating a polo mint every time i wanted a cigarette. For  a while i ate a lot of polos. No patches, no inhaler, no nicotine tablets. That was almost 30 years ago. I did have to wean myself off of polos once I had cigarettes done and dusted. Horses did pretty well out of me (they just love polos).

Edited September 15, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[Kepler]

I just switched to weed

[Leader]

1 minute ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

What worked for me (to give up smoking) was eating a polo mint every time i wanted a cigarette. For  a while i ate a lot of polos. No patches, no inhaler, no nicotine tablets. That was almost 30 years ago. I did have to wean myself off of polos once I had cigarettes done and dusted. Horses did pretty well out of me (they just love polos).

Congrats are in order.

I used to smoke a pack+ a day. When I determined it was time to end things - I rationed myself at work: 1 smoke before noon ; 1 smoke before 5 (or whenever I left) ; none at home   -    and it worked.

Any stress or anxiety I felt from not smoking was "absorbed" by the hectic pace of my job.

So - in essence - I'd changed the equation. I wasnt actually quitting a pack+ a day - I was quitting two cigarettes a day. The New Years Eve of whatever year that was - I snubbed out my last smoke.

 

[Cakeshoppe]

8 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

It’s a very interesting debate on what we should ban or not. Society would be a lot better without certain things,  but where’s the line between doing what’s best for society and “ being free” ( I use it in quotes because we’re not.) 

The justification for paternalism for me is this: humans are simply not as rational as we'd like to think. The human brain has flaws in the way it processes things that have been very persistent over time, and people have developed ways of exploiting those deficiencies quite well. Judging risk is one of those things that humans are near universally very bad at, as is judging probability. In areas like these I definitely think there's a justified interest for the state to step in and limit the free free choice of its citizens with regard to behaviors harmful to themselves. Gambling, drug use, seat belts, etc. are all ares that fall under that umbrella. Propaganda is a more controversial area but one that I think is worth at least having a conversation about. Now, I think the state can do a lot better than just sanctioning end users on these matters but I do think it's justified in acting to prevent people from harming themselves by these means.

[Uffdaswede]

8 minutes ago, Cakeshoppe said:

The justification for paternalism for me is this: humans are simply not as rational as we'd like to think. The human brain has flaws in the way it processes things that have been very persistent over time, and people have developed ways of exploiting those deficiencies quite well. Judging risk is one of those things that humans are near universally very bad at, as is judging probability. In areas like these I definitely think there's a justified interest for the state to step in and limit the free free choice of its citizens with regard to behaviors harmful to themselves. Gambling, drug use, seat belts, etc. are all ares that fall under that umbrella. Propaganda is a more controversial area but one that I think is worth at least having a conversation about. Now, I think the state can do a lot better than just sanctioning end users on these matters but I do think it's justified in acting to prevent people from harming themselves by these means.

Are you being funny or have you really been trained to think that an elite class must rule over a class they, by fiat, adjudicate to be stupid?

And then, of course, it follows than anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.