Sign In
Create Account
0
Smoking, Tobacco, Nicotine and Health - Part 4
Posted by
Rusty
,
17 October 2011
·
244 views
In Part 3, I pointed out that the government do not want us all to be 'smoke-free', they do not even want us to be 'tobacco-free', they really want us to be 'nicotine-free' - I have no idea why they want that and I do not really care. I do care about how they have gone about it.
The general public have been led to believe that nicotine and smoking are the same thing. This has been happening for many, many years;
Who had nicotine stained fingers or ceilings? I didn't because it was the tar in the smoke that caused them!
Who believes that nicotine is more addictive than heroin and that is why people find it difficult to stop smoking? I don't because I found it hard to stop smoking whilst getting nicotine from my patches, inhalators etc., smoking is more than just an NDS.
Who believes that nicotine harms other people? I do not as in the quantities I inhale it, it has minimal health concerns (similar to a coffee or cola drinker) and a passive smoker would inhale much, much less nicotine than myself.
As nicotine poses minimal risk to the smoker and close to no risk for the passive smoker, the vast majority of the general public would not worry about smoking in the same way that they do not worry about coffee drinking.
The governments realised this, so they played upon smoking's weakness - the smell!!!
The smell of burning tobacco was a cause for concern to the non-smoker, many just didn't like it, it made everything stink, and the stench lingered on their clothes and upset their children. I remember cries of "you are polluting my air", the same thing I used to say when someone broke wind near me
This is where governments and the anti-smokers started to use pseudo science - to try and prove a link between the smell of burning tobacco and tobacco related diseases in non-smokers. I am not going to go into any depth about this, but give you a link to an excellent website about this.
If the powers that be only wanted to eliminate smoking, they could ban the sale of cigarettes and even tobacco, but they will not for financial reasons - NOT Health reasons, they even seem to have won the arguement on passive smoking despite a lack of REAL evidence. They have encouraged pharmaceutical companies to produce 'medicinal' nicotine to treat smokers addiction to the evil drug that supposedly keeps them smoking - they do not work BUT they make money.
If a non-smoking person wants life insurance, why do the insurance companies test for Cotinine (a metabolite of Nicotine)? They should be analysing the levels of Anabatine.
Smoker - their fluids will contain relatively high levels of Cotinine and Anabasine but LOW levels of Anabatine.
Smokeless Tobacco User - their fluids will also contain relatively high levels of Cotinine and Anabasine but also HIGH levels of Anabatine.
Pure-ish Nicotine User - their fluids will contain high levels of Cotinine BUT none of the other 2 alkaloids I identified in Part 1.
Levels of Cotinine in the blood, saliva or urine only identify Nicotine use, not Smoking. It is another tool in making the recreational nicotine user feel like a second class citizen - It is nothing to do with HEALTH. Because Nicotine is now available in a 'medicinal' form, it makes Nicotine users diseased or ill people that need treating - Why,,,,,,?
Many smokeless tobacco and ecig users have stopped smoking for good. You do not need administer a medicine in the eliquid to get this to happen because recreational nicotine users do not have a disease or an illness to treat - they are just trying to enjoy their lives and are not harming others around them.
Smokers are recreational nicotine users who are just trying to enjoy their lives, they are demonised because of the inferred harm they are doing to others because of the way smoke smells, not because of any scientific FACTS.
I choose to vape more than I smoke because I perceive it as a healthier option - others may disagree and I say "Good on ya!"
Russell VR Ord
The general public have been led to believe that nicotine and smoking are the same thing. This has been happening for many, many years;
Who had nicotine stained fingers or ceilings? I didn't because it was the tar in the smoke that caused them!
Who believes that nicotine is more addictive than heroin and that is why people find it difficult to stop smoking? I don't because I found it hard to stop smoking whilst getting nicotine from my patches, inhalators etc., smoking is more than just an NDS.
Who believes that nicotine harms other people? I do not as in the quantities I inhale it, it has minimal health concerns (similar to a coffee or cola drinker) and a passive smoker would inhale much, much less nicotine than myself.
As nicotine poses minimal risk to the smoker and close to no risk for the passive smoker, the vast majority of the general public would not worry about smoking in the same way that they do not worry about coffee drinking.
The governments realised this, so they played upon smoking's weakness - the smell!!!
The smell of burning tobacco was a cause for concern to the non-smoker, many just didn't like it, it made everything stink, and the stench lingered on their clothes and upset their children. I remember cries of "you are polluting my air", the same thing I used to say when someone broke wind near me
This is where governments and the anti-smokers started to use pseudo science - to try and prove a link between the smell of burning tobacco and tobacco related diseases in non-smokers. I am not going to go into any depth about this, but give you a link to an excellent website about this.
If the powers that be only wanted to eliminate smoking, they could ban the sale of cigarettes and even tobacco, but they will not for financial reasons - NOT Health reasons, they even seem to have won the arguement on passive smoking despite a lack of REAL evidence. They have encouraged pharmaceutical companies to produce 'medicinal' nicotine to treat smokers addiction to the evil drug that supposedly keeps them smoking - they do not work BUT they make money.
If a non-smoking person wants life insurance, why do the insurance companies test for Cotinine (a metabolite of Nicotine)? They should be analysing the levels of Anabatine.
Smoker - their fluids will contain relatively high levels of Cotinine and Anabasine but LOW levels of Anabatine.
Smokeless Tobacco User - their fluids will also contain relatively high levels of Cotinine and Anabasine but also HIGH levels of Anabatine.
Pure-ish Nicotine User - their fluids will contain high levels of Cotinine BUT none of the other 2 alkaloids I identified in Part 1.
Levels of Cotinine in the blood, saliva or urine only identify Nicotine use, not Smoking. It is another tool in making the recreational nicotine user feel like a second class citizen - It is nothing to do with HEALTH. Because Nicotine is now available in a 'medicinal' form, it makes Nicotine users diseased or ill people that need treating - Why,,,,,,?
Many smokeless tobacco and ecig users have stopped smoking for good. You do not need administer a medicine in the eliquid to get this to happen because recreational nicotine users do not have a disease or an illness to treat - they are just trying to enjoy their lives and are not harming others around them.
Smokers are recreational nicotine users who are just trying to enjoy their lives, they are demonised because of the inferred harm they are doing to others because of the way smoke smells, not because of any scientific FACTS.
I choose to vape more than I smoke because I perceive it as a healthier option - others may disagree and I say "Good on ya!"
Russell VR Ord
Later...