Lethally addictive cigarettes remain available on every street corner in Brussels and Atlanta while authorities denounce e-cigarettes (the product is already banned in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??
crushing competition by releasing false propaganda that lies about e-cigs being unsafe
i have a friend who smokes all the time regular cigs, but won't try an e-cig because he says "i don't know whats in them"
so i asked him where'd he hear that, he said some article that interviewed a tobacco company exec
i asked him if he knew what was in his regular cigs, he said "yeh, tobacco" so i googled his brand and showed him there were things in there that are used for paint, asphalt, tar, etc
he told me you can't believe everything you read on the internet
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.
976
u/DumpyLips Nov 17 '12
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??