Nicotine isn't the same as smoking. Smoking affects everyone around the person smoking. Nicotine only affects the person using it. I've read several articles stating that it can be beneficial for covid and the treatment of covid vaccine side effects. It's safe to assume at this point that anything they don't want you to use is probably beneficial.
Once upon a time, Hitler smoked. Then he quit, and like many ex-smokers he hated smokers and smoking - the vile stuff!
So...he told his health advisers to come up with a story. Something that would make people revile smokers and smoking.
And they did. The story was that if you were near to, or God forbid, in the same room as someone who was smoking ... well, you'd get emphysema or asthma, or even cancer! because that second-hand smoke was even more poisonous than the first-hand smoke!
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. You may not like the smell, and yes, it's rude of anyone to smoke in a small room with a non-smoker, but it won't kill you. It's just an unpleasant smell.
When the smoking wars started up again, around 1976, the same lie was promoted. Mostly to once again make smokers reviled, because they didn't care who they killed with their poisonous fumes.
But that's about as true now as it was then. Just another 'justified' lie.
I think nicotine is generally beneficial - it seems to be protective against cold and flus. Anecdotally, with everything wrong with me - I very seldom catch colds or flu. Maybe three times since I've been an adult.
I think I've mentioned before about Konstantin Farsalino's experience during the first horrible wave of covid in Bergamo. The hospital where he worked was full, and he expected most of them were smokers. He was wrong - it was the non-smokers who were getting hit.
But, of course, cigarettes are bad (this is true), so the anti-smoker brigade swears that nicotine is of the devil (this is not true)
I prefer science without hysteria - but how often do we see that anymore?
I should have mentioned in the article that certain actors in Big Tobacco are behind the nicotine smear campaign. o3:
Key Considerations:
Economic Constraints and Strategic Choices:
Some analyses suggest that when the traditional cigarette business was under intense scrutiny and litigation, the profitability of switching to alternative nicotine products was not always straightforward. For certain companies, the cost of pivoting to new technologies or products that might cannibalize their core revenue streams appeared less attractive compared to defending the established market. This economic calculus might have contributed to strategies that included funding campaigns to discredit nicotine alternatives rather than embracing them wholeheartedly.
Evidence of Disinformation Campaigns:
Historical documents and internal memos—accessible through resources like the UCSF Tobacco Industry Documents Library—have revealed instances where tobacco companies invested in public relations efforts that sowed doubt about the safety and efficacy of new nicotine products. While these documents show a complex and varied strategy across the industry, they support the notion that some players preferred to undermine alternatives rather than risk diluting their traditional market.
Nuances in Industry Behavior:
It’s important to note that the tobacco industry is not monolithic. While some companies might have funded smear campaigns against nicotine alternatives, others have diversified their portfolios to include e-cigarettes and other nicotine delivery systems. For instance, several major tobacco companies have publicly invested in vaping technology, indicating that profit prospects in the alternative market were attractive for at least part of the industry. This dual approach complicates the narrative and suggests a competitive internal debate over the future direction of nicotine delivery.
Critical Assessment of Sources:
Mainstream narratives often rely on aggregated industry data and public statements that can gloss over these internal conflicts. In contrast, non-mainstream analyses and investigations into internal documents reveal a more fragmented picture. Studies like those reviewed in Tobacco Control highlight how selective funding of research and targeted public messaging were used to shape public perceptions and policy debates regarding alternative nicotine products.
Astonishing and presumably somewhat coordinated attacks.
Nicotine isn't the same as smoking. Smoking affects everyone around the person smoking. Nicotine only affects the person using it. I've read several articles stating that it can be beneficial for covid and the treatment of covid vaccine side effects. It's safe to assume at this point that anything they don't want you to use is probably beneficial.
Storytime.
Once upon a time, Hitler smoked. Then he quit, and like many ex-smokers he hated smokers and smoking - the vile stuff!
So...he told his health advisers to come up with a story. Something that would make people revile smokers and smoking.
And they did. The story was that if you were near to, or God forbid, in the same room as someone who was smoking ... well, you'd get emphysema or asthma, or even cancer! because that second-hand smoke was even more poisonous than the first-hand smoke!
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. You may not like the smell, and yes, it's rude of anyone to smoke in a small room with a non-smoker, but it won't kill you. It's just an unpleasant smell.
When the smoking wars started up again, around 1976, the same lie was promoted. Mostly to once again make smokers reviled, because they didn't care who they killed with their poisonous fumes.
But that's about as true now as it was then. Just another 'justified' lie.
I'm really not okay with these sort of tactics.
I think nicotine is generally beneficial - it seems to be protective against cold and flus. Anecdotally, with everything wrong with me - I very seldom catch colds or flu. Maybe three times since I've been an adult.
I think I've mentioned before about Konstantin Farsalino's experience during the first horrible wave of covid in Bergamo. The hospital where he worked was full, and he expected most of them were smokers. He was wrong - it was the non-smokers who were getting hit.
But, of course, cigarettes are bad (this is true), so the anti-smoker brigade swears that nicotine is of the devil (this is not true)
I prefer science without hysteria - but how often do we see that anymore?
I should have mentioned in the article that certain actors in Big Tobacco are behind the nicotine smear campaign. o3:
Key Considerations:
Economic Constraints and Strategic Choices:
Some analyses suggest that when the traditional cigarette business was under intense scrutiny and litigation, the profitability of switching to alternative nicotine products was not always straightforward. For certain companies, the cost of pivoting to new technologies or products that might cannibalize their core revenue streams appeared less attractive compared to defending the established market. This economic calculus might have contributed to strategies that included funding campaigns to discredit nicotine alternatives rather than embracing them wholeheartedly.
Evidence of Disinformation Campaigns:
Historical documents and internal memos—accessible through resources like the UCSF Tobacco Industry Documents Library—have revealed instances where tobacco companies invested in public relations efforts that sowed doubt about the safety and efficacy of new nicotine products. While these documents show a complex and varied strategy across the industry, they support the notion that some players preferred to undermine alternatives rather than risk diluting their traditional market.
Nuances in Industry Behavior:
It’s important to note that the tobacco industry is not monolithic. While some companies might have funded smear campaigns against nicotine alternatives, others have diversified their portfolios to include e-cigarettes and other nicotine delivery systems. For instance, several major tobacco companies have publicly invested in vaping technology, indicating that profit prospects in the alternative market were attractive for at least part of the industry. This dual approach complicates the narrative and suggests a competitive internal debate over the future direction of nicotine delivery.
Critical Assessment of Sources:
Mainstream narratives often rely on aggregated industry data and public statements that can gloss over these internal conflicts. In contrast, non-mainstream analyses and investigations into internal documents reveal a more fragmented picture. Studies like those reviewed in Tobacco Control highlight how selective funding of research and targeted public messaging were used to shape public perceptions and policy debates regarding alternative nicotine products.
Aware of this. Canada is so screwed up. I like vaping, but with the prices now? Just no.
Of course you can buy cigarettes at the corner shop- for 27$ per pack.
And they can't figure out why black markets (4$ per pack and better cigarettes, too) persist in popping up.
I tell you, it's a mystery.