🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ff571ce9-0a1c-44e6-8356-8a8fd786add2@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
tony499453@googlemail.com <tony499453@googlemail.com> wrote:
>SMOKE SAFELY WITH E-CIGS
>E-Cigs perform somewhat like traditional cigarettes. They look, feel
>and taste the same, but eCigs deliver all the pleasures of smoking
>without any of the tar and carcinogens that are associated with
>traditional cigarettes.
>Electronic cigarettes are more convenient as they can be legally
>smoked anywhere giving the user great freedom unlike normal cigarettes
>which can no longer be smoked in many public places under current
>legislation.
>http://ecigs.atspace.com/

By "pleasure" you mean relief from withdrawal and craving
of nicotine caused in the first place by nicotine and falsely
perceived by the addict as "pleasure."

> By "pleasure" you mean relief from withdrawal and craving
> of nicotine caused in the first place by nicotine and falsely
> perceived by the addict as "pleasure."

You must have forgot that you lost that entire argument, that science
says you are wrong.

But pretend that you were right, as thats all we can do, why is this
falsely perceived?  As you agreed yourself, nicotine does not alter
ones perceptions markedly.

I'm inclined to agree with Burroughs when he said "Perhaps all
pleasure is only relief."

The claim that they're free of carcinogens will result in a false
advertisement suit; we know that nicotine is metabolized to a
carcinogen (IIRC, it's an epoxide metabolite).  These are found in all
sorts of foods though, especially smoked and other sorts of cured
meats.  Hell, anything that's blackened will have this issue though.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are the worst though.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:03:44 -0700 (PDT), katie.pankratz@gmail.com wrote:

>> By "pleasure" you mean relief from withdrawal and craving
>> of nicotine caused in the first place by nicotine and falsely
>> perceived by the addict as "pleasure."
>
>You must have forgot that you lost that entire argument, that science
>says you are wrong.
>
>But pretend that you were right, as thats all we can do, why is this
>falsely perceived?  As you agreed yourself, nicotine does not alter
>ones perceptions markedly.
>
>I'm inclined to agree with Burroughs when he said "Perhaps all
>pleasure is only relief."
>
>The claim that they're free of carcinogens will result in a false
>advertisement suit; we know that nicotine is metabolized to a
>carcinogen (IIRC, it's an epoxide metabolite). 

Epoxides have oxygen in an O and OH; nicotine has no oxygen.
Epoxides are not particularly carcinogenic. 

Nicotine is metabolized in mammals to cotinine, which does have an O but none of the
triangular bond that caracterizes epoxides. 

> These are found in all
>sorts of foods though, especially smoked and other sorts of cured
>meats.  Hell, anything that's blackened will have this issue though.

Smoked and cured meats are "blackened" by Maillard Browning, which involves amino acids
and sugars. Maillard Browning is also responsible for bread crust; the flavor of maple
syrup, roasted coffee and peanuts; and the whole artificial flavoring industry. The
chemicals produced by Maillard Browning are not carcinogenic and nicotine is neither an
amino acid nor a sugar. 

>Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are the worst though.

You're thinking of benzopyrene, which results from the incomplete combustion of
hydrocarbons. That's a concern with grilled meat, where carcinogens come from the fire,
not the meat. Burning tobacco also produces benzopyrene, but the dosage accounts for less
than 1% of cancers seen in smokers. 

Scienteists have been trying for 50 years to figure out what chemicals in smoke cause
cancer. They still have no clue. Radioactivity is a possibility. My bet is on radicals
created by fire. They don't cause cancer directly, they distract anti-radical defenses
enough to prevent defense against unrelated carcinogens. 

In article <f43f8b47-9c34-4d95-944f-ae8f6c50b179@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
 <katie.pankratz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'm inclined to agree with Burroughs when he said "Perhaps all
>pleasure is only relief."

I would expect a heroin addict to say something like that.

The drug has first call on an addict's activities.

While I appreciate the civil response- something rarely seen here, I
guess, being 'corrected' when I have everything straight is awfully
annoying.  I started to write this once, and had a bunch of research I
cited, but my wife closed it out on me, unfortunately, so please
forgive if I don't cite as thoroughly this time.

>
> Epoxides have oxygen in an O and OH; nicotine has no oxygen.
> Epoxides are not particularly carcinogenic.
>
> Nicotine is metabolized in mammals to cotinine, which does have an O but none of the
> triangular bond that caracterizes epoxides.

Epoxide's on aromatic rings are generally very carcinogenic.  This is
a major part of what makes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons so
carcinogenic.

Nicotine has a number of metabolites, cotinine being just one (the
most abundant, which is why it's used as a measure of nicotine
exposure).  I was wrong though; it's not a epoxide metabolite, it's a
nitroso derivative that's associated with bladder cancer.

> Smoked and cured meats are "blackened" by Maillard Browning, which involves amino acids
> and sugars. Maillard Browning is also responsible for bread crust; the flavor of maple
> syrup, roasted coffee and peanuts; and the whole artificial flavoring industry. The
> chemicals produced by Maillard Browning are not carcinogenic and nicotine is neither an
> amino acid nor a sugar.

I'm glad you know the basics, but that's an extreme reduction of what
is a fairly complicated process.  That is part of what happens in
smoking and browning, but it's way more complicated than you make it
sound.  If we're talking about the artificial flavoring industry, then
yeah: using carefully selected amino acids and sugars in a controlled
environment won't produce PAH's.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are
found in all sorts of things.  Smoked and blackened meats contain high
levels of them:

Food Chemistry
Volume 110, Issue 3, 1 October 2008, Pages 794-797
doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.03.004

Cancer Research 54, 6154-6159, December 1, 1994  (finding high levels
of heterocyclic aromatic amines, but lower levels of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons- both groups are potent carcinogens)

This is not a Maillard reaction, but it will occur in pretty much all
of the places a Maillard will, at least in general cooking conditions
(blackening and smoking will all pretty much do so), not in the
closely controlled world of artificial flavoring.  Here it is:

Heterocyclic aromatic amines are formed in protein and amino acid-rich
foods at temperatures above 150 °C. Of more than twenty heterocyclic
aromatic amines identified ten have been shown to have carcinogenic
potential. As nutritional hazards, their reliable determination in
prepared food, their uptake and elimination in living organisms,
including humans, and assessment of associated risks are important
food-safety issues. The concentration in foods is normally in the low
ng g-1 range, which poses a challenge to the analytical chemist.
Because of the complex nature of food matrixes, clean-up and
enrichment of the extracts are also complex, usually involving both
cation-exchange (propylsulfonic acid silica gel, PRS) and reversed-
phase purification.  (http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19050899)

This doesn't have a lot of relevance to nicotine's carcinogenicity,
but it's an interesting conversation worth having, I think.

> You're thinking of benzopyrene, which results from the incomplete combustion of
> hydrocarbons. That's a concern with grilled meat, where carcinogens come from the fire,
> not the meat. Burning tobacco also produces benzopyrene, but the dosage accounts for less
> than 1% of cancers seen in smokers.

Yes, benzo[a]pyrene is one of the PAHs produced in both smoking and
blackening meats, and smoking tobacco.  It'll be produced in the
combustion of pretty much all plant materials.

It's a concern with cooking any meat, especially overcooking, whether
you cooked with fire or not is irrelevant (well, not entirely, you
should have more of them if you cook with fire).  They can very easily
be produced without any fire at all, as the study cited below shows.
Food Chemistry Volume 109, Issue 1, 1 July 2008, Pages 235-242

How about if we consider all the other polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons produced when you burn tobacco?  I honestly haven't
looked at this yes, but I suspect the numbers start adding up.

> Scienteists have been trying for 50 years to figure out what chemicals in smoke cause
> cancer. They still have no clue. Radioactivity is a possibility. My bet is on radicals
> created by fire. They don't cause cancer directly, they distract anti-radical defenses
> enough to prevent defense against unrelated carcinogens.

It's well known that smoking producing radicals, so that's probably a
good part of it.  But you can't deny all the other carcinogens
contained in tobacco smoke, or even nicotine's carcinogenic potential
(the nitroso derivative, which will result from any in humano use).

With carcinogens, it seems it's rarely just one thing, but a whole
group of things adding up  Take the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
the heterocyclic aromatic amines, the Polonium-210, radicals, the
nitrogen oxides, etc and you have a really bad drug.

But then again, even the heaviest cannabis smokers have little
increased risk of lung cancer, but this may be something of a fluke.
It's the other plant material that's heavily smoked, so it makes sense
to compare them.  Anyway, I don't think the reason for this is known
yet, but I would strongly suspect that it's because of the cannabidiol
contained in cannabis.  It's been shown to have strong anti-cancer
effects (I think by increasing apoptosis in the right places, but it's
been a while since I looked into it).  Cannabidiol is non-
psychoactive, but moronically, it's scheduled.  It's also a fairly
potent antipsychotic (the changes in breeding, pushing higher levels
of dronabinol and lower levels of cannabidiol are likely at least
partially associated with the new-found psychosis-inducing aspects of
cannabis use, but this research is spotty at best)  Cannabis contains
a lot of other non-psychoactive drugs that have varying degrees of
anti-cancer properties, which has gotten it in the media a lot lately.

I'd like to see cannabidiol unscheduled (it shouldn't have been
scheduled to begin with) and tested as an additive to cigarettes and
other inhaled tobacco products.  It's an oil naturally, so it'd be
easy to add, and potent so not much would be needed.  I suspect it
could greatly reduce the cancer risk cigarette smoking poses.

Actually, someone (not me) should study this; compare the cancer rates
in rodents with the cannabidiol laced cigarettes to plain old
cigarettes, with all the other additives left the same.  Taste might
be terribly effected, though; I dunno.

In article <818becfd-02af-4064-8dd9-0e3979f74d58@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
 <katie.pankratz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'd like to see cannabidiol unscheduled (it shouldn't have been
>scheduled to begin with) and tested as an additive to cigarettes and
>other inhaled tobacco products. 

Why?

You would be adding it to tobacco which contains a highly
addictive drug while cannabidiol is weakly so, if at all.

 >I'd like to see cannabidiol unscheduled (it shouldn't have been
> >scheduled to begin with) and tested as an additive to cigarettes and
> >other inhaled tobacco products.
>
> Why?
>
> You would be adding it to tobacco which contains a highly
> addictive drug while cannabidiol is weakly so, if at all.

Because you could quite possibly avert most of the negative effects of
smoking.  I'm thinking it would then be in a class closer to nasal
snuff, which to date, there is no evidence indicating danger (hence
the UK tax exempt status).

cannabidiol is certainly not addictive.  As far as I've been able to
tell, it's only weakly sedative, and not sedative in the sense of a
recreational sedative (secobarbital, diazepam) but apparently because
of anticholinergic effects.  Best I've been able to tell so far.

People are much less interested in researching the non-recreational
drugs, so most have focused on the 'cool' cannabinoids.  I guess I'm
one of those less interested people, too, though.

In article <cedf09ff-0408-4d8d-87eb-474052a4c579@z5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
 <katie.pankratz@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I'd like to see cannabidiol unscheduled (it shouldn't have been
>> >scheduled to begin with) and tested as an additive to cigarettes and
>> >other inhaled tobacco products.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> You would be adding it to tobacco which contains a highly
>> addictive drug while cannabidiol is weakly so, if at all.
>
>Because you could quite possibly avert most of the negative effects of
>smoking. 

Being highly addictive is not a negative? And a serious one at
that? You would be at the mercy of the people who push it (and
those who tax it). You would have to pay their price. And
be subject to their additives and whatever else they do to it.

Why add it to tobacco? Why not just use it by itself
and forget tobacco?

In article <cedf09ff-0408-4d8d-87eb-474052a4c579@z5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
 <katie.pankratz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'd like to see cannabidiol unscheduled (it shouldn't have been
>> >scheduled to begin with) and tested as an additive to cigarettes and
>> >other inhaled tobacco products.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> You would be adding it to tobacco which contains a highly
>> addictive drug while cannabidiol is weakly so, if at all.
>
>Because you could quite possibly avert most of the negative effects of
>smoking.

It wouldn't avert the most negative effect, nicotine's
powerful ability to addict.