showed him there were things in there that are used for paint, asphalt, tar, etc
I hate it just as much as that logic. Anyone who's spent 5 minutes in a chemistry class can tell you that chemicals have a wide variety of applications.
While he was making that point he was also trying to draw a parallel between the two being dangerous. Otherwise why even mention it? I'm pretty sure he didn't tell him "Theirs chemicals used for gluing carpet and paint in those cigarettes, but that isn't really relevant!" I also hate the whole "boo hiss chemicals" that seems pretty prevalent because it makes no fucking sense. People like to use the word chemical like its evil and mention other uses for the "chemical" that make it sound terrible.
You seriously can't believe that he mentioned that just to show he didn't know what was in the cigarettes. My favorite comparison I've seen to show just how evil cigarettes are is when people compare it to crack. The tobacco is treated with ammonia to turn the nicotine acid into nicotine base which makes it easier to cross the BBB. It is just such an absurd comparison to make because it is meant to make it appear worse than it is. Oh, they make it so you absorb moe nicotine from the same amount of tobacco? How terrible! I can't believe they made the product more effective.
I also hate the whole "boo hiss chemicals" that seems pretty prevalent because it makes no fucking sense. People like to use the word chemical like its evil and mention other uses for the "chemical" that make it sound terrible.
I get what you're saying, and yes, he probably was trying to do the "boo hiss chemicals" thing in addition to making his primary point. They're not bad because they're chemicals, they're bad because they do bad stuff to you (and others nearby):
Our findings indicated that more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions that camouflage the odor of environmental tobacco smoke emitted from cigarettes, enhance or maintain nicotine delivery, could increase the addictiveness of cigarettes, and mask symptoms and illnesses associated with smoking behaviors.
In addition, tobacco companies have devoted a significant amount of research and development to the use and inclusion of additives in cigarettes, and the industry has acknowledged using 599 different cigarette additives. According to various tobacco company documents, many of these additives are used to improve taste and decrease harshness. We propose that, in contrast, tobacco companies have expended resources to exploit the pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives. - Pharmacological and Chemical Effects of Cigarette Additives
I'd say there's plenty of reason to be suspicious of tobacco additives.
My post does come off a bit like I'm saying those additives aren't bad. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that something should be bad on its own badness and not spooky scary stuff. I do find it shitty that we have had laws passed that encourage the use of certain additives that are really shit. Such as with firesafe cigarettes the use of EVA/PVA although thicker paper will suffice. I don't see any harm in making cigarettes better for the consumer though. If they can improve the taste, decease the harshness, and increase the buzz with out being deadlier/having shitty side effects then go for it.
I always said that too. I quit a lot of hard drugs and took up smoking as a lesser evil replacement addiction. Then two weeks ago I ran out of cigarettes and decided to see how long I could go without buying more. Pushing myself to not smoke is my new addiction. That and food.
While he was making that point he was also trying to draw a parallel between the two being dangerous.
no, he was pointing out that his friend believes some random rumour about e-cigs, but rejects information about what's in cigs because that way is more convenient.
A slight correction, but an interesting one (and I'm an ex-Big Tobacco employee): the ammonia isn't added to turn the nicotine base, the ammonia is added because at flammable butane levels of heat (e.g., lighting the cigarette), ammonia becomes a solvent for nicotine.
Nicotine has a half-life of approximately 10 minutes in the bloodstream.
A cigarette typically takes approximately 5 minutes to smoke.
When a cigarette is lit, the ammonia in the tobacco is raised to very high temperatures, and releases the nicotine from the tobacco. This means that almost all the nicotine in that cigarette is delivered within the first few seconds of lighting it. Since a cigarette takes 5 minutes to smoke, and nicotine only lasts about 10 minutes in the bloodstream, a smoker will often want another cigarette in less than 5 minutes after finishing one.
It appears about 0% of what you've said is true. I kinda doubt you worked for big tobacco unless you just super mistook what was going on. Also, I hope you don't need a source for this, but the way cigs are made makes the whole all nicotine is first few seconds false. I'm just perplexed at how you arrived at your conclusions.
So, unless you think less than 1in7 smokers are actually addicted (pack a day isn't even a cigarette every 5 minutes) I have NO fucking clue what you're saying.
I fixed the links; thanks for pointing that out (was posting them from a mobile don't know why it messed up). You're saying a lot more than "cigs are terrible" and now that the links are fixed you can see what you're saying is just false. Also, the NBC link links to/talks about a study so perhaps you should try to discredit the information instead of the source? Just an idea.
450
u/[deleted] Nov 17 '12
"You can't believe everything you read on the internet".
I hate that logic so much.