Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Posts: 1482 Location: The Caribbean of Canada
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:35 am Post subject:
Interesting and scary info above. Thanks! Never surprised the lengths to which people will go to make a buck. What corporate tobacco did was/is criminal while government sat slack jawed and drooled on itself.
The 31-year-old churchgoer collapsed in bed after smoking a cannabis cigarette that led her to have moderate to high levels of the class B drug in her system. A mother-of-three is believed to have become the first woman in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.
Gemma Moss, a 31-year-old churchgoer, collapsed in bed after smoking a cannabis cigarette that led her to have moderate to high levels of the class B drug in her system.
Tests of her vital organs found nothing wrong with them although it was suggested she might have suffered a cardiac arrest triggered by cannabis toxicity. Miss Moss' death was registered as cannabis toxicity and a coroner recorded a verdict of death by cannabis abuse.
Deaths directly from cannabis are highly unusual. In 2004 a 36-year-old man from Pembrokeshire became the first person in the UK to die from cannabis toxicity.
_________________ "Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Southpark Fan:
What corporate tobacco did was/is criminal while
government sat slack jawed and drooled on itself.
A compelling image which does rather
show who REALLY runs the show, now don't it!
And while we come to terms with the fact that governments are
totally lobotomized while Corporate Tobacco lines up millions of
new smokers for its craving-enhanced, cancer-inducing product......
....comes this frankly, startling new info which seems to turn on its
head everything the medical profession has been telling us for
decades about the mechanisms of smoking-activated lung disease:
So what exactly DO we know about smoking issues?!?
Quote:
Smokers' Lungs Used in Half of Transplants
Patients given the organs of 20-a-day donors
are as likely as others to survive
ROGER DOBSON Sunday 02 February 2014
Almost half of lung transplant patients were given the lungs taken from
heavy smokers, with one in five coming from donors who had smoked at
least one packet of cigarettes a day for 20 or more years.
Despite this, new research shows that those people given the lungs of
smokers were just as likely to be alive up to three years after transplantation
as those who had organs from non-smokers. In some cases, they had
improved survival rates.
"Donor lungs from even heavy smokers may provide a valuable avenue
for increasing donor organ availability," says André Simon, director of
heart and lung transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at Royal
Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust.
"I believe that candidates significantly decrease their chances of survival
if they choose to decline organs from smokers."
[...]
Results show that one-year and three-year survival figures were about the
same for all three groups.
Those with lungs from non-smokers even fared slightly worse in terms of
one-year survival. A total of 77.7 per cent with non-smoking donors' lungs
were alive after the first year, compared with 90.8 per cent with smokers'
lungs. !!!
There were also no differences in a number of other measures, including
overall effectiveness of the lungs, the amount of time spent in intensive
care, and the length of time in hospital.
The researchers, reporting their findings in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery,
say that while there is now considerable research on the ill effects on
health of cigarette smoke, including lung cancer, there are differences
between individuals.
Smoking-related lung injury varies, they say. While some people have
excessive lung damage, others carry on functioning despite several years
of smoking........
Ok, let's decode that last telling admission above
by these researchers who had no axe to grind:
"While some people have excessive lung damage, others
carry on functioning despite several years of smoking........ "
TRANSLATION:
"Only a minority of people suffer serious lung injury from smoking,
and many smokers have very little localized lung health impairment"
That's not a green card to smoking heaven though. The cancer risk
is triggered by systemic drivers - not just the local lung functioning.
And there were LOTS of people whose lungs were so badly structurally
damaged from smoking that they were rejected for transplantation.
But that, folks is a long way from the prevailing wisdom(propaganda).
And it hints that the harm reduction tactics outlined in this thread, could
pay off big-time for most people - despite perhaps a lifetime of smoking. _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 257 Location: Inverness, Scotland
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:48 pm Post subject:
That is most intriguing.
My grandfather smoked for 70 years and long outlived all of his non-smoking brothers and sisters, (as well as countless GPs who had advised him to stop smoking.)
But one thing occurs to me from this study - the survival rates are only measured over a three year period and that isn't a particularly long timescale. _________________ My real name is Gerry.
ManAtTheWindow:
But one thing occurs to me from this study - the survival rates are only
measured over a three year period and that isn't a particularly long
timescale.
Sure, and it's not completely definitive measured short-term.
But of about 100 who got non-smokers' lungs - 78 were alive at 1 yr.
And of the approx 105 who got smokers' lungs - 94 were alive at 1 yr.
Which makes a smoker's lung preferable, if anything, over 1 yr!
Quote:
My grandfather smoked for 70 years and long outlived all of his
non-smoking brothers and sisters, (as well as countless GPs who
had advised him to stop smoking.
Folks like your Granpa' are real, and some of them may even
be gaining some still unexplained advantage from smoking.
As usual the truth is more complex than the slogans.
Was he smoking a significant amount (20+)
and every day, or just smoking sporadically? _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Just a quick note on adjusting the moisture level of chemical-free tobacco.
Because there is no humectant, the tobacco will have been fully dried.
To re-mositurize the tobacco, just wet a single loose smoking filter, or
both ends of a cotton bud stick, then lightly dab off excess wetness and
pop the damp filter/bud into a pouch of dry tobacco for a few hours.
Works great!(Too great, even. So real easy on the water. ) _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Vype e-cig advert:
Big Tobacco offers ‘pure satisfaction’ in its return to TV
British American Tobacco has launched a TV, press and poster
campaign for its e-cigarette, Vype
OLIVER WRIGHT - WHITEHALL EDITOR Monday 17 February 2014
A man and a woman run down a street before taking off into the air with
a tail of white mist behind them. Both have an exaggerated look of
contentment in their eyes. A voiceover tells the viewer:
“Pure satisfaction for Vypers.”
Confused? Well, so probably were many people watching the ITV ad break
at 9.45pm on Monday night. But they were witnessing a small television
landmark: the return to our screens of Big Tobacco advertising for the first
time in nearly 50 years.
British American Tobacco (BAT) on Monday heralded its foray into the
lucrative e-cigarette market with a TV, press and poster campaign for
Vype, its electronic substitute for smoking. Over the next few months the
advert is slated to appear more than 300 times in the breaks between
shows as diverse as Brit Cops: Zero Tolerance, Mock The Week, and
even 24 Hours in A&E.
The total campaign is expected to cost BAT several million pounds as it
attempts to establish a foothold in a market which is already worth $3
billion worldwide.......
E-cigarette users no more likely to quit smoking
than other smokers, study finds
Angela Mulholland, CTVNews.ca - March 24, 2014 9:46PM EDT
E-cigarettes might be growing in popularity, especially among regular
cigarette smokers. But a new study suggests that as a tool to help
smokers quit, they may not be very effective.
The study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San
Francisco was a small one, looking at 949 smokers, including 88 smokers
who reported they also had used e-cigarettes in the last month.
Most of the smokers said they wanted to quit one day, either in the next
six months or later. Those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to say
they planned to quit, with only 5 per cent of e-cig users saying they didn't
expect to ever quit, compared to 13 per cent of those who didn't use e-cigs.
But when researchers asked the participants one year later whether they
had successfully kicked smoking, the quit rates between the smokers and
the e-cigarette users were not that different. After one year, 10.2 per cent
of the e-cig smokers – eight smokers -- said they had quit smoking,
compared to 13.8 per cent of the regular cigarette smokers.
“You’ll hear lots of stories from people that say that e-cigarettes help them
quit, but what we found was when we actually studied that systematically,
we didn’t see a significant effect on cessation,” study co-author Dr. Pamela
Ling told CTV News.....
Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 1716 Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:13 pm Post subject:
Did they count people who had quit tobacco but were still vaping as still being 'smokers', though? And what kind of vapourisers were they all using - when was the study data actually collected, because vaping tech has moved at light speed over the last few years, with available devices changing rapidly from quarter to quarter.
I ask this because those figures seem *really* low to me just from my own experience, both from my own perspective on quitting, and also the people I've communicated with and read the progress of on forums and also IRL people, a lot of whom I introduced to vaping.
Quite a few people try and then quit vaping when using those crappy, gas-station 'pens' or the weak, unsatisfying 'Blu'-type units, but especially nowadays, more powerful, consistent devices are available, affordably and widely.
Some people both still smoke tobacco (albeit a reduced amount) and vape, but quite a significant number start vaping, and just find their need/desire to smoke tobacco just go away - that's what happened to me. My partner bought me an inexpensive (£20 at the time) 'started kit' that consisted of a cig-a-like device which I used for a couple of weeks, decided I liked, and then she got me the upgraded version starter kit (another £20 for a 'pen-type' eGo/CE4 device) and from then on I just didn't smoke any more.
It's *definitely* the additives in commercial tobacco that enhance the addictiveness of nicotine - when you vape, which is just pure nicotine, noting else, you don't *crave* a 'smoke' like you did when smoking cigarettes. Most people find that they can forget their vape when they go out to do errands or whatever, and you don't even bother going back for it most of the times, because you can just wait until you get back home to use it. This does *not* happen like his for the majority of people who smoke cigarettes! LOL _________________ The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Continuity:
Did they count people who had quit tobacco
but were still vaping as still being 'smokers'....
Damn right them's cooked statistics!
They can hide the meaningful data by designing studies
which divide study participants into only TWO groups:
Smoking Or Vaping & Smoking
Instead of THREE groups:
Smoking Or Vaping & Smoking Or Vaping Only
If someone is Vaping 50% & Smoking 50% they are reducing harm by 50%!!
And the Vaping Only group should not be considered smokers at all !
Quote:
Continuity:
It's *definitely* the additives in commercial tobacco that enhance the
addictiveness of nicotine - when you vape, which is just pure nicotine,
noting else, you don't *crave* a 'smoke' like you did when smoking
cigarettes.
Abso-frikkin-loutely.
Acetaldehyde is like a meth craaaaave.
Additive-free tobacco a good move.
Only downside I saw was some users start to consume lots of vaped
nicotine. It's a mild tranq - and anti-bacterial, but it's an immune system
and CNS suppressor and may also not be great for gum health. _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 728 Location: Surfing The Waves
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:27 pm Post subject:
I was a Major smoker
Major is only sold in Ireland and some specialist tobacconists in the UK. They have always been regarded as the strongest cigarette here. Up to Jan 2014 I could not even smoke a different brand, it was psychological, the colour and shape of the pack, the size of the cigarette. I was smoking twenty plus a day, a massive cost in today's increased prices. €11.50 per pack, that's a day plus the extra.
I changed to Pueblo tobacco, rolling my own. Cost €10.50 a week, thereabouts.
I find my addiction has decreased. I can go hours without smoking. I cannot stand the smell of regular cigarettes and if I have had occasion to smoke a regular cigarette due to lack of Pueblo I don't enjoy it.
I bought one e-cigarette pack once and it did not help to get me off or to reduce my desire for cigarettes. I don't have the same cravings I had on regular cigarette's.
I have no cough since changing and I smoke about a quarter of what I had been smoking.
I agree with Fintan on seeing people who changed to vaping using a lot more nicotine as they use the vapes in places they are no longer permitted to smoke regular cigarette's. Changing to chemical free tobacco for me means when I am some place smoking is not permitted, I do without or have to go stand in the cold and rain.
However I am still smoking, even if it is less and I agree it affects the gum health. Maybe someday I will get fed up, but I enjoy the remainder of this bad habit for now _________________ IMAGINE
Truth fears no questions
I've been vaping for more than five years now. My wife was fed up with my tobacco stink and was afraid about my health. I have never felt a need to go back to tobacco since. The thing is you have to find a system and a juice that scratches your itch. Since I live in Japan where there is no nicotine juice allowed by law (but that may change soon) and no chance to shop around I started off buying online and then shipping here the most expensive system there was figuring it would be the best. So I bought into the Cirrus brand which doesn't allow for me to recharge their cartridges with my juice. Not good for the environment. Nonetheless, I bought the strongest level of menthol flavor carts they sold and while I have had a little trouble with the batteries I am a happy customer. Cirrus is good because it is a small cigarette-sized system and slips into my shirt pocket and doesn't leak. About six months ago I started saving money by using a big vape pen filling it with little bottles of juice. I use it when I am at home at my computer and I use the Cirrus when I go out. Among the drawbacks are my teeth are stained brown and I feel a little rheumy in my lungs from time to time. But I go to the gym and, while I am a lot slower in my workouts than I used to be - maybe its 65 years of age or maybe it's the vapping - but nonetheless i never feel particularly short-winded like with tobacco. I do warn people who wonder about vapping if you smoke and can't quit, vape. If you do neither, for the love of God, don't start vapping. It is a waste of money and really, really addictive!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
A compelling image which does rather
