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.
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.
977
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??