It’s clear from the way the media across Canada reported the Winickoff study that few took the time to read even the abstract from the actual study. Most newspaper articles appear based on the assumption that Winickoff’s study itself demonstrated that tobacco residue from secondhand smoke was hazardous.
For example, the Toronto Sun reported: “The study results published in this month’s Journal Pediatrics found small children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure . . . “ The same phrasing was used in the majority of newspapers across Canada (and the US). (Very) few actually got the story right.
None of the articles that I’ve read even mentioned the Matt study, although the Toronto Star noted “researchers have found that . . .”
Although I haven’t come across a copy of the actual press release from Winickoff, it is apparent that most of the stories were written directly from the same document, with the same quotes and inflammatory language. A few printed quotes from local members of the anti-smoker brigade who were only too happy to wax eloquent on the hazards of third hand smoke.
But otherwise little investigation appears to have been done to confirm what Winickoff’s study actually said, let alone whether the Matt study, on which it was based, may have been flawed. An hour or two surfing the net was apparently too much effort for the anti-smokers shills in the media.
The manner in which the Winickoff study was presented to the public speaks volumes about the bias inherent in the media on the issue of smoking and secondhand smoke. It fits the definition of propaganda to a “T”
And, just where in hell did even miniscule airborne nicotine levels come from in non-exposure homes?
from the study:
Little is currently known about the differential health risks associated with the inhalation or ingestion of ETS and its toxic components or the health risks associated with ETS exposure within minutes, days, or months after tobacco smoke was emitted. As a first step, research is needed to better understand the validity of nicotine as a marker of ETS in air, dust, and surfaces over the time course of ETS contamination. Next, efforts are necessary to better measure and model the cumulative effects of exposure to ETS through different contamination sources. This and other studies suggest that dose of exposure is a complex function not only of amount of secondhand smoke, timing, and duration but also of different sources and routes of exposure.
Questions:
1. how does this study make any conclusion of harm when, as they state, they don't know of any? All this study proves is that they where able to measure very small amounts of nicotine? "Infants of smokers are at
risk of ETS exposure in their homes" - what harm does this exposure cause?
2. "Note that dust samples were analysed from IEG and DEG households only, because pilot data revealed no detectable nicotine levels in nonsmoking household"
- is that normal not to test the comparison group?
3. "Moreover, skin contamination did not differ between mothers in the DEG and IEG households as is expected because smoking rates were similar in the two groups. ETS can remain in the home even if smoking took place days, weeks and months earlier1 10 30 through contaminated dust and surfaces, including the frame of an infant’s bed and a smoker’s finger. "
- Is this not the first step in building the "toxic smoker" ?
4. "Findings of this study suggest that interventions and public policies to reduce secondhand smoke exposure may have to be revised. There are three major concerns.
- First, smoking outdoors, in different rooms, or when non-smokers are absent does not completely protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke, although it significantly reduces the likely level of exposure. Thus, children of smokers, non-smoking staff cleaning designated smoking areas in hotels and restaurant, and non-smokers renting or buying cars, apartments, and houses of smokers, are at risk of secondhand smoke exposure and the associated health risks.
- Second, because ETS contaminates surfaces, dust, and skin, serious consideration should be given to efforts necessary to decontaminate homes, cars, furniture, etc, of smokers.
- Third, because contaminated indoor environments may present significant health risks to unsuspecting non-smokers, public policies may be needed, requiring disclosure of the smoking status of former tenants of apartments and offices and/or owners of cars and homes. To understand and evaluate the health risks associated with ETS exposure, we must take into account the complex physical and chemical properties of ETS, the extent and persistence of ETS contamination of residential environments, the multiple exposure pathways, the cumulative effects of ETS exposure, and the differential vulnerability of risk populations. There is yet much to be learned before we know how to comprehensively assess the risks of ETS exposure and effectively protect non-smokers from ETS.
- how did they come to this conclusion based on their findings? or was their study used to justify these already preconceived opinions?
"And, just where in hell did even miniscule airborne nicotine levels come from in non-exposure homes?" - Matt
Its in their food
The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/cont...tract/329/6/
437
If you minutely examine the fibres of their carpets you will surely find a trace.
Solanesol air testing is difficult for the same reason.
"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco
plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper. The potential interference due to these
sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An
interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP." http://www.coresta.org/Recommend...hods/
CRM_52.pdf
Note to self: Place this article in "Growing Evidence of Scientific Fraud" folder to present to Congress during the resulting hearing.
Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke Widespread
"Nearly 9 out of 10 non-smoking Americans are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS, or second-hand smoke), as measured by the levels of cotinine in their blood, according to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The data, reported by the CDC in this week's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows measurable levels of cotinine in the blood of 88 percent of all non-tobacco users. The presence of cotinine, a chemical the body metabolizes from nicotine, is documentation that a person has been exposed to tobacco smoke. Serum cotinine levels can be used to estimate nicotine exposure over the last 2 to 3 days"
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/p...rel/
second1.htm
Per Dr. Siegel, "Twice As High As a Miniscule Number is Also a Miniscule Number"
But "there is no safe level."
Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Your criticisms about the dangers of third hand smoke are just as weak as the criticisms made about the dangers of second hand smoke 20 years ago.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
I just bought a bag of seed potatoes, I don't want to be sin taxed for both consuming nicotine AND to prevent obesity.
More good news for breathers as Taiwan's smokefree workplace law went into effect yesterday.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/...1/12/
2003433510
More good news for bad breath breathers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/healt...ral-
cancer.html
Mouthwashes can cause oral cancer and should only be available on prescription, say researchers.
I think I am confused. Was this really a study or a survey as reported last week?
Bill, how long do you think it takes for Taiwan's smoke to reach your doorstep? What makes you think I would care? When you post at 12:18 pm, are your on your bosses time clock? Shouldn't we be more worried about your loss productivity when you spend so much time searching Asia's newspapers and then posting here?
I suggest when Bill posts something which has no value in terms of our discussion and he does so solely to get the goat of persons on this blog we ignore him rather than jump at the bait.
Please send a form email opposing the federal tobacco tax hike to your U.S. senators and representative using the Philip Morris link--regardless of what you may think of this company.
www.stopthefetincrease.com
Good news everyone!
I am sure Bill will join us in wishing Helmut Schmidt (ex-Chancellor of Germany) a wonderfully happy 90th birthday.
How he reached 90 is a scientific mystery, given that the bloke smokes 80 cigarettes a day, AND uses snuff.
According to the CIA World Factbook, he should have died many years ago.
So should his wife. She is 89 and has been smoking since she was 10 years old.
German average life expectancy:
male: 76.11 years female: 82.26 years
The story can be found here:
http://forces-germany.blogspot.c...ut-
schmidt.html
This couple have been smoking for 150 years between them. They both look great for their age.
Tell me again how harmful second hand and third hand smoke is........
Stephen,
I did it, let's see if it helps. Also did some calling for NYCCLASH this morning, along with sending an email to Obama. Also sent out the link to several friends throughout the States and told them to fill out the survey too. Hope it helps, now lets see if they are listening.
Dr. Siegel, to put your "twice a miniscule number" thought into some perspective...
If you go to
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...198203/?
src=hsn
you'll find a reasonable estimate of the mass of a single grain of salt from a salt shaker to be 6 micrograms.
If you wander up to your bathroom and fill your tub to the brim with water it would probably hold about a cubic meter of water.
So dropping that grain of salt into the water would produce a salt solution about ... hmmm... twenty times as concentrated as the nicotine air concentration in these "indirectly exposed" homes where the evil parents are sneaking a smoke out in the garden.
What the study authors have done is similar to what I would be doing if I made the statement, "Drinking salt water can kill you. That bathtub now holds salt water. Drinking it can kill you."
I call that a lie.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
My dear Michael, what you say is a lie is only a lie because it is not about the "evil tobacco smoke."
There are no LIES about how evil is that evil tobacco smoke, in fact there exist no adjectives to fully illustrate just how evil.
I guess I better add a sarcasm tag here for the anti-smoker cartel members who have no grasp of the reality of what evil they have wrought upon our society.
Gabz
It does seem rather tragic that the delicious aromas wafting from the kitchen at dinner time, by next morning have settled and been designated toxic thirdhand smoke.
Third hand smoke is becoming the giggle it should be. All over the internet; the discussions which allow reasonable moderation, are all coming up the same way.
Third hand smoke is McCarthy's extreme left cheek.
Perhaps instead of arguing, we should be cheering them on to fame and fortune, as the joke of the century.
Hubris by the barrel [or kool aid] is waiting for distribution among the TC faithful.
Do you prefer Red or white?
Solanesol
Which I suspect to be the deadly tar in a baked potato ( fatty alcohol discovered in 1956 )
Solanesol, extracted from tobacco leaves, is used in synthesis of high-value bio-chemicals such as vitamin-K analogues and Co-enzyme Q10 (Co Q10). Solanesol, the starting material used in the synthesis of Co Q 10 and Vitamin K analogues, is also a potentiating agent in these medicines. Studies indicate that by introducing solanesol radical into the structure of some medicines, the effects increase noticeably. With solanesol as its primary material, Co-enzyme Q 10 is useful in the treatment of heart diseases, cancers and ulcers.
Co-enzyme Q 10 is a physiologically active substance with high pharmaceutical activity. It is a popular nutrient known to increase cellular energy in the user. Since it is produced by the body, it is technically not a vitamin (vitamins are not manufactured by the body but ingested). Co Q10 is produced in small quantities by the body that are insufficient to provide any of the health benefits and thus supplementation is necessary" http://www.novoagri.com/
prod_sol..._solanesol.html
"More good news for breathers as Taiwan's smokefree workplace law went into effect yesterday."
Tiawan eh. Fish gut city?
Have you ever been there Bill?
Smoke would only improve the smell.
They outlawed prostitution as well.
No one seemed to notice.
There are over 200 languages spoken in the Philippines. The no smoking signs didn't help much, when everyone who was charged claimed they didn't speak that language.
Kevin writes: 'Perhaps instead of arguing, we should be cheering them on to fame and fortune, as the joke of the century.
The third hand smoke joke earned CAGE more media interview requests in one week than we had gotten in 6 months. Yes we should indeed be thankful for the help they're giving us towards their own demise 
I got to wonder how Dr. DeVilliers ever got his medical degree....????
Third-hand smoke now an issue - New study shows toxic chemicals cling to furniture, clothing, toys (COMMENT WELCOME)
CHRISTOPHER MILLS - Herald-Tribune staff
http://www.dailyheraldtribune.co....aspx?
e=1383888
According to the study, the toxins in third-hand smoke include arsenic, lead, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.
"With kids, they have young lungs, they breathe faster, so it's more of a concern," said Dr. Albert DeVilliers, medical officer of health for Alberta Health Services, Peace Country Health.
DeVilliers said the research is still very new, but it seems like credible information and something people will hopefully start considering when they thing about the negative effects of smoking.
The new research raises strong concerns wherever children are involved, even with an issue like a teacher stepping outside to have a cigarette and then coming back into the classroom, DeVilliers said.
"It's an alarm bell for me, to say we should not allow that, or to make sure they always have clean clothes or something to make sure they don't bring the toxins back in, especially where the little kids are," he said.
Second-hand smoke has long been a concern, with fears and studies associating it with the development of lung cancer in non-smokers. But it seemed to be a common belief that when the smoke was gone, so was the danger. Not anymore.
Both Dr. DeVilliers and Ava Dale, Action on Smoking and Health’s (ASH) northern Alberta media representative, speculated that advances in technology have finally created the ability to examine the tobacco toxins that cling to things.
“New technology has made it easier to pick up on these kinds of chemicals,” DeVilliers said. “Second-hand smoke, it’s easy, you can see the smoke. You need a little bit finer instruments to test it afterwards, because the levels are going to decrease, but it’s still bad enough to cause cancer or asthma.”
Dale said she hasn’t had much opportunity to look into the new research, but if she determines it to be legitimate, it will definitely be something that ASH looks to add to their information packages and programs.
“We’re all about education, so if this is something we can use to increase that education and show people the negative effects of smoking, we will definitely do that,” she said.
DeVilliers said he hopes the new discovery will change people’s minds, but it depends on the person as to what measures it will take.
“It’s kicking a bad habit. Smoking is one, but there are lots of other bad habits; there’s lots of psychology involved,” he said. “Some people react better to laws being created, some people respond better to say I love my kids and I’ll try not to harm them in anyway, or I’ll cut down, or smoke really far away.”
i think it is up to the person being exposed to the toxins to decide if they feel that their exposure is "insignificant."
It is nothing more than warfare. The achievement here relies mostly on tapping the most vile of anti-smokers.
More good news, the general public is informed enough to understand the health risk of third hand smoke;
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardf...he-new-leprosy/
This should reinforce our hopes that even bartenders may some day be informed enough to understand the dangers of second hand smoke and be allowed to make their own choices as well.
A study from 2005 promoted as a new study or new research?" Which consists entirely of a telephone poll with leading questions?
Yellow journalism is a new advertising commodity which escapes the "false and misleading" title because the medical community is on board?
At the British medical journal they have devoted an entire section, to what is referred to as "Tobacco Control" and from it's editor the description and promotion of something he likes to call "denormalization" while the rest of the world knows it as bigotry.
Eugenics rears it's ugly head and the media we thought would never allow this to happen again, is making record profits promoting it?
I believe third hand smoke is the exposure we all needed, to understand Tobacco Control and the globalist rendition of "disease management" is McCarthy's extreme left cheek.
Enough already.
That quote from the "study" proves my conjecture: smokers will be banned from rental apartments in more and more places; and banned from renting cars (all cars) and from all hotels; the homes and cars they own will be drastically discounted if they try to sell them; and, as Doc and this Canadian article suggested, they won't be hired for any teaching positions, and soon, any other positions either.
Any time you holdouts are ready to admit that analogies to what the Nazis did to the Jews is apt...
And while I'm happy to see the Doc has linked to the article in junkfoodscience, the also gives us this--emphasis mine:
... the simple fact that nicotine levels in indirect exposure conditions was [sic] twice as high as in direct exposure conditions does not necessarily mean that thirdhand smoke is a substantial health risk. In fact, based on the nicotine levels reported in the paper, it does not appear that thirdhand smoke results in airborne exposure to nicotine that is high enough to represent a significant
Cut off:
health risk.
Pussy-footing around the bush again, eh? What's that about, Doc? The fact that it's 3 molecules per house doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe??? Oh wait. You won't even commit yourself to safe. No, it doesn't even necessarily mean that it doesn't cause "substantial" "significant" risk. Meaning it could still cause meaningful, but just not "significantly substantially significant" risk. So it seems once again that you're leaving the door open and standing in the threshold awaiting eventual proof that it might, in fact, actually cause a chunk of harm, though in doing so you align yourself more with the fools who perpetrate and believe this dangerous nonsense than with the clear-thinking goodguys. Why would that be?
I note, rather nastily, but I'm feeling pretty nasty when I read just how far this propaganda is going, that you're not such a stickler for the concept of "significance" when it comes to ,say, something like "statistical significance" since you buy into so many studies that lack it.
So where will you be when they evict us from our homes, can us from our jobs, and make us walk the gutters in washable plastic ponchos (so they can "send us to the showers" before they let us into the bar?) Will you not necessarily be significantly upset?
If you would be, it's time to put some balls into your language, and stop kicking the dirt.
:
Walt;
"So where will you be when they evict us from our homes, can us from our jobs, and make us walk the gutters in washable plastic ponchos (so they can "send us to the showers" before they let us into the bar?) Will you not necessarily be significantly upset?"
So the American Public just elected a child abuser, who will be forced to strip naked on the White house lawn and be hosed down by a hazmat team after stepping outside for a smoke?
If he doesn't, according to the experts in the media; he will be permanently contaminating the White House and forcing the EPA to classify it as a Toxic Waste site.
The question being; Would that be a bad thing?
New directives for White House correspondents. Due to the rising death toll from the pandemic toxins of third hand smoke, all members of the press gallery will be advised in order to attend future presidential announcements, proper hazmats suits with tanked oxygen supply are mandatory.
The growing fear that a handshake could cause the spread of fourth or fifth hand smoke and contamination spreading to future contacts including the infant members of your own families. One on one interviews will be by remote cameras contact only and all video feeds will be filtered to reduce toxic transmissions.
The president has decided to repeal all child abuse laws, to reduce the level of accusations leveled against the office of the President internationally by lobby groups, claiming he is living above the law as a known child abuser himself.
Is Obama on the no fly list?
What has been puzzling me is why a normal nonsmoking home would NOT be expected to contain tiny amounts of airborne nicotine.
If you can smell the food cooking, that means particles are airborne, likewise in the steam from the hot food on your plate.
I have had this odd sinking feeling for a while now, that for all the endless discussions on nicotine, no one in TC has investigated the plant itself and its relationship to other vegetables in the nightshade family.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
After all, the plant and its close relations are central to the whole subject.
I first came here to learn more about the plant from the experts, things I might have missed, but ended up doing all the more detailed research myself.
If antismokers are having fits imagining molecules of nicotine building up on their walls and carpets, having no idea where this insidious plague is coming from, and blaming all around them, don't you think they should be told?
I thought this was all generally known, but seemingly not.
The panic after "The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables" was rather obvious.
Now that we are are down to the molecular level, it becomes even more relevant.
Broadcast the list of vegetables to avoid and they will never have to worry about the cotinine levels in their bodies again.
I know it will lead to a very dull diet, but there is a principle at stake here.
Rose, I may be wrong, but I would doubt there'd be any detectable levels of airborne nicotine from cooking almost anything except large quantities of burned eggplant. Again, I may be wrong, but I think the relative concentrations of nicotine in the other members of the "family" are an order of magnitude or more less than tobacco... plus, most foods are not thoroughly burned to ash during the cooking process.
Welllll.... ok.... maybe if *I'm* the chef they are, but that's jes' me.
:>
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
MJM
So how do you think that you can smell that your lunch is ready, when you are in another room?
No particles, no smell.
http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/te...nk/
smell2b.html
"As the anti-smoking organization, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) points out, “If you can smell it, it could be killing you!"
On reflection, nicotine being very volatile would probably rise during the preparation of the raw vegetables.
I have had this odd sinking feeling for a while now, that for all the endless discussions on nicotine, no one in TC has investigated the plant itself and its relationship to other vegetables in the nightshade family.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Wish I could help you out there, Rose, but I can't.
You see, if you listen carefully, you will discover that it is NOT the plant or even the nicotine itself that they are against. It is ONLY the smoking of it. It's perfectly acceptable for you to use their preferred method of consumption.......just don't smoke it.
It's about the smell they hate, that's all it's ever been about. And they will do and say anything to eradicate the source of that smell (smoking the plant).
it does not appear that thirdhand smoke results in airborne exposure to nicotine that is high enough to represent a significant
Is nicotine toxic? Then why is it sold freely in chewing gums and on patches?
Is nicotine toxic? Then why is it sold freely in chewing gums and on patches?
That would be because big pharma controls those products and makes tons of money from them. They are the only ones allowed to do so apparently.
Actually there is a broad perspective in assessing risk, in relation to smell.
An individual measures smell individually and a large part of that perception can be controlled the same way people are being taught to hate anyone who chosses to use cigaretrtes simply because they like the smell or the effect.
Smoking is considered a nuisance primarily because it is being promoted as a nuisance. It was not that long ago non-smokers would provide an ashtray to their visitors. Today non-smokers are encouraged to be much less tolerant so they are.
Rose's link explained how it works here is an explanation of why it works;
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Dep...nsf/all/
agin320
"Human sense of smell
The human sense of smell is a primary factor in the human sensation of comfort. "Research shows that smell perception is unique to each individual and varies over time because of changes to the physical condition of the individual and the individual's memory of exposures to similar odours," says Perih.
Smell reaction from an individual is the result of the stimulus created by the olfactory bulb, located at the top of the nasal cavity, coming in contact with odorous molecules. Signals are sent to the olfactory centre in the brain through five nerve fibres. The odour impression is created and compared with the person's odour "memory," based on individual perceptions and social background.
Psychological response to odours is more complex and less understood than the physiological response. "Evidence suggests that each of us learn to like or dislike certain odours," says Perih. "Children like most smells, but it is only as we mature and begin to talk about odours that we develop a sense of which smells we like and dislike.
"This is one reason why reaction to odour emissions from livestock production may appear subjective and can vary from one community to another," she says. "There are examples from rural communities where people have complained about odour emanating from a hog facility when it was actually empty."
The human nose reacts to the odorous mix and not to a single compound in that mix, says Perih. Research is attempting to relate odour measurement to specific chemical components, such as ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and fatty acids.
FIDO analysis
"Research linking chemical levels to odour levels is developing, but it is difficult to relate a specific chemical concentration to odour levels," she says. "Extreme variability of sources, environmental factors and human responses make it difficult to measure odour intensity or determine an acceptable limit for livestock odours."
The response to odours does not always correspond to its intensity or odour concentration. Therefore odour nuisance is generally defined by the FIDO factors: frequency, intensity, duration and offensiveness.
* Frequency. How often an odour occurs.
* Intensity. The strength of an odour.
* Duration. The length of time the odour is encountered.
* Offensiveness. The unpleasantness or character of the odour.
These four factors contribute to determining whether a given odour may or may not be a nuisance problem. "Although, it is odour intensity that has received the most attention as an indicator in measuring the presence of odours," she adds."
Kevin wrote, "Smoking is considered a nuisance primarily because it is being promoted as a nuisance. It was not that long ago non-smokers would provide an ashtray to their visitors. Today non-smokers are encouraged to be much less tolerant so they are."
Very true and very well put Kevin. People are affected far more by societal conditioning and expectations than they realize. Ten minutes a day of MTV commercials giving out nasty messages about smoke and smokers and suchlike has a HUGE psychological influence over the years.
Nowadays it's probably very rare to see couples starting off with mixed marriages (smokers/nonsmokers) while in years past it was so common such situations served as the bulk of the data for the dozens of spousal studies on secondary smoke and lung cancer.
When I was a kid growing up I didn't like smoke and I made no small bones about letting adults know that. I was the ONLY kid I knew who felt that way, and remember adults saying things to each other about how odd my reaction was. Looking back on it I now realize that at least part of my reaction came from a grandmother who would lecture me about what horrible and nasty things cigarettes were. Of course once I tried them as a mid teen and discovered after the first bit of coughing that they were actually very nice my reaction to smoke smell changed a lot.
Societal conditionings and expectations play a HUGE role both in simple statements of preference and in psychosomatic reactions to stimuli. Twenty years ago when I was in the height of my activities as a bicycle activist I would physically feel my throat closing up from the assault of exhaust fumes or the sickening smell of gasoline at a gas station. I would have felt quite comfortable swearing that I was experiencing allergic reactions. All in my head of course: once I moved to a more moderate world view my reactions disappeared.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
"I would physically feel my throat closing up from the assault of exhaust fumes or the sickening smell of gasoline at a gas station"
I still do.
Lynda said, "You see, if you listen carefully, you will discover that it is NOT the plant or even the nicotine itself that they are against. It is ONLY the smoking of it. It's perfectly acceptable for you to use their preferred method of consumption.......just don't smoke it."
Unfortunately, you can ONLY use nicotine provided by BP in some places, even if you don't smoke it. Apparently, only BP nicotine is free of harm.
‘Electronic cigarettes’ banned in Victoria
Dec 31, 2008—The Australian state of Victoria will, from tomorrow, ban the use of ‘electronic cigarettes’ that contain no tobacco but deliver nicotine through an atomizer.
According to a report by Robyn Grace for The Age, a new regulation will outlaw the manufacture, sale, supply, purchase, possession or use of unregulated nicotine delivery systems.
The new regulation will have no effect on the sale of nicotine replacement therapies.
In justifying the ban, Health Minister, Daniel Andrews, said, in part, that long-term exposure to nicotine was associated with cardiovascular disease, which was caused by the effects of nicotine on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiac contraction.
Nicotine does cause that in green tobacco.
They inject animals with the raw stuff and then injure the poor things, and of course as nicotine is a vasoconstrictor they heal badly.
Then assume that burnt nicotine has the same effect.
‘Electronic cigarettes’ banned in Victoria
Dec 31, 2008—The Australian state of Victoria will, from tomorrow, ban the use of ‘electronic cigarettes’ that contain no tobacco but deliver nicotine through an atomizer.
That's because they look like cigarettes are are used the same way (put in mouth, draw, inhale, exhale). I told you, it is the "act of smoking" they are against...........they don't give a crap about the nicotine, etc. As long as you do not even look like you are smoking a cigarette.
Lynda F wrote:
"That's because they look like cigarettes are are used the same way (put in mouth, draw, inhale, exhale). I told you, it is the "act of smoking" they are against...........they don't give a crap about the nicotine, etc. As long as you do not even look like you are smoking a cigarette."
In fact, those pushing bans on e-cigarettes (which are nicotine inhalers that are far less hazardous nicotine alternatives to cigarettes, but aren't approved by government regulators as smoking cessation aids) are the same anti-tobacco anti-nicotine extremists who lobby/ied for bans on far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products.
Unfortunately for public health, banning the least hazardous nicotine delivery devices primarily protects existing markets for the most hazardous nicotine delivery device (cigarettes).
The only reason most of these extremists/prohibitionists haven't publicly advocated banning cigarettes yet is because they don't have the political clout or support for attaining that goal.
So they've been going after lower hanging fruit so far, as the smokeless tobacco and e-cigarette industries have very little market share and virtually no lobbying clout in most countries.
Actually Bill, you anti's have stated repeatedly that electronic cigarettes are a way to beat the ban on smoking indoors and should not be allowed.
THAT is all I've heard from your side since they became popular. It really IS the act of smoking that disturbs them.
On the good news front though, your beloved smokeless is also in for a dramatic tax increase IF SCHIP passes.
Welcome to our world Bill - hope you enjoy it!
"your beloved smokeless is also in for a dramatic tax increase IF SCHIP passes."
To use Bill's favorite phrase: "The good news is ..."
And to repeat my own questions: "What's in it for me?" Nothing, I couldn't care less. If somebody wants to roll their own from an old rug or pullover, hey, why not?
The only reason most of these extremists/prohibitionists haven't publicly advocated banning cigarettes yet is because they don't have the political clout or support for attaining that goal.
It's good you have someone to call an extremist--for now, Bill. But they're becoming mainstream. Maybe if you see how fast they are becoming mainstream, you can empathize with smokers a bit.
And you yourself go after low hanging fruit/the lowest common denominator by taking the comments most out of context here and messing with them, instead of the most pointed critiques, or repeating a cliche/piece of received knowledge that we've already cast doubt on.
So don't be surprised people more motivated by money than you do the same. And don't be surprised when they accelerate the whole effort. There are so many ways left out there to do so, and the--err--fun may be just beginning.
Commenting by HaloScan
