Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Obama blunder 2 fail 2 de-escalate Drug War?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,256 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:39 PM

Sear. I'm not saying you should use it... there's clearly no reason for you to inhale it. However, for someone like me who was a 2 pack a day smoker for 30 years, who could NOT quit no matter how hard I tried, it's a spectacular harm reduction tool.

The FDA, USDA and my doctor, all agree that PG is by far and away thousands of times safter than anything combustible. No carcinogens, no nicosamides, nothing that's known to cause harm at this time. Since asthmatics have been using it in their lungs for decades via their nebulizers and inhalers... I'm feeling pretty ok with it. I sure as hell don't want to go back to smoking cigarettes!

Oh, and the cilia in my lungs... those little tiny hairlike receptors that smoking kills by giving you emphisema and lung cancer? Ya, mine are all clean now and on the way to repairing themselves. I have full lung capacity back and my bloodpressure, heart rate and cholesteral are perfect. And I know this because it was all carefully checked and monitored six weeks ago. That wasn't the case a year ago before I quit smoking combustible cigarettes. And, my skin is significantly better than it was a year ago as well.

You must also take into account thar there are different types of propoylene glycol. There's industrial and pharmaceutical. The little horror story you posted above about its toxic effects are for the industrial PG... the exact same misguided article the anti-smoking nazis used to scare people into believing ecigs contain antifreeze... it's not accurate. The PG in ecigs is pharmaceutical grade. The same stuff that goes into prescription athsma inhalers and nebulizers.

You can't avoid everything... a VERY small segment of the population does have a sensitivity to PG, but it's tiny. Of course a small segment of the population has a sensitively to almost anything. I'm allergic to hazelnuts and strawberrys.... I'm not running around telling people how they're satans food.

I find it odd that you think you want all drugs legalized but you're ranting about the only effective harm reduction tool for smokers? Really? LOL.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#47    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:10 PM

Quote

"harm reduction tool" MW
Yes, not harmless.

Quote

"No carcinogens" MW
So you say.

Quote

"It has been shown to be linked to cancer, developmental/reproductive issues, allergies/immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption." from post #45
Which opinion would you expect me to incline toward?

MW,
Let's cut to the chase.
Please don't infer more than I imply.
I'm not asserting Propylene Glycol doesn't have use. I'm merely observing that needless inhalation of its vapor should be avoided where practical.
The last chapter on its safety for humans has not yet been written.

Quote

"You can't avoid everything" MW
The absolutist's refuge?
We can't achieve 100% perfection, therefore no sensible reason to strive at all?

Let us please not be absurd here MW. It is prudent to avoid needless risk.
If you're asserting you've minimized it here, that's fine. But let's not pretend that minimized though it may be in your case, that there is zero risk. It's merely reduced risk, compared to tobacco.

Quote

"... a VERY small segment of the population does have a sensitivity to PG, but it's tiny." MW
I suspect a misperception on your part here MW.

Perhaps what you'd mean to assert is that ... a VERY small segment of the population does have a manifest sensitivity to PG. But we're all human. I don't know any human that, with sufficient exposure, would be immune from any ill affect.

Quote

"I find it odd that you think you want all drugs legalized but you're ranting about the only effective harm reduction tool for smokers? Really? LOL." MW
Probably because you misapprehend, on multiple levels. You fail to distinguish between my legal perspective, and pragmatic perspective.
I endorse the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I think daughters should all cuss their mothers.

I'm opposed to the martial oppression of Drug War. That is in no way an endorsement of recreational drug abuse. I simply don't think I (the ostensible victim of the victimless crime of drug abuse) should be taxed, to punish a "crime" that is already its own punishment. I don't refuse to be a heroin junky because of law. I refuse to be a heroin junky because it's a miserable lifestyle!


#48    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,256 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:11 AM

I'll just give you an in-depth, long-term study on e-cig "niquids" (niquid is PG and nicotine and some food flavorings, some niquids include VG as well... mine are half PG half VG). It was a 4 year study (because e-cigs have only been on the market about that long really) ... the concern is NOT with the PG in them... the concern is with the nicotine added to them. You can get "niquids" without nicotine. I use no nicotine fairly frequently.

It's still somewhat unknown if the nicotine has adverse side effects. If you are REALLY interested, and have a high school chemistry background that's still fresh in your mind, this shouldn't be too difficult reading for you. But it is a scientific study, so it's moderately challenging. I read EVERY page--twice. I did NOT make a change from smoking a combustible material to something that's equally as bad. My own health tests in the last six weeks prove it. They've improved exponentially in 12 months.

http://www.healthnz....rt30-Oct-08.pdf

The test was conducted by Health New Zealand.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 30 March 2013 - 01:15 AM.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#49    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,256 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:21 AM

View Postsear, on 29 March 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Yes, not harmless.

I said harm reduction for a very very specific reason... Harm reduction is used because e-cig liquid contains... Nicotine in most cases. About that equal to a light cigarette... now before you FLIP your lid. You have to do some very deep research on nicotine. The research on that is in the PDF file above. The Readers Digest version is that yes, nicotine is addictive, about as addictive as caffiene. Nicotine alone does not carry carcinogens, BUT it is HIGHLY toxic in its pure form but, so is pure caffiene... Carcinogens are present in material that has been COMBUSTED. tar, ash, carbon... Carcinogens are not present in an e-cig because there's no combustion. There's more carcinogenic risk in eating charbroiled burgers. Or bacon.



Quote

MW,
Let's cut to the chase.
Please don't infer more than I imply.
I'm not asserting Propylene Glycol doesn't have use. I'm merely observing that needless inhalation of its vapor should be avoided where practical.
The last chapter on its safety for humans has not yet been written.

Show me an in-depth study about how inhaling vaporized PG with an ecig or pot vaporizor is going to kill me, or kill you from my "second hand" vapor. You won't find one... it doesn't exist. But educate yourself... go look!



Quote

The absolutist's refuge?
We can't achieve 100% perfection, therefore no sensible reason to strive at all?

Right, I don't drink and drive, and when I do drink, I can count the number of times on 10 fingers I do it in a year, and likely have fingers left over. I don't smoke anymore, I live a relatively stress free life. Unfortunately, I'll be around to harass you for decades more, and I ain't necessarily young either!


Quote

Let us please not be absurd here MW. It is prudent to avoid needless risk.
If you're asserting you've minimized it here, that's fine. But let's not pretend that minimized though it may be in your case, that there is zero risk. It's merely reduced risk, compared to tobacco.

At this time, the known risk is virtually ZERO. I've been seeing an internationally known and respected Oncologist for 6 months now... when he found I was an e-cig user, hahaha, he knocked over $500 off my bill on my 1 year smoke free anniversary! I don't have cancer, never have had it, and I have no precursors for it (in fact, no blood relation of mine has ever even had cancer) I'm only seeing an Oncologist because I had to have a very very complicated surgery that required the most skilled surgeon in the city and he was it.


Quote

Probably because you misapprehend, on multiple levels. You fail to distinguish between my legal perspective, and pragmatic perspective.
I endorse the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I think daughters should all cuss their mothers.

I believe that I did say I voted for legalization in Washington State but I have never been nor will ever be a pot smoker, eater, or otherwise. I also have an Rx background and believe the research on cannibus is sound. It's not a drug with a lot of really really dangerous side effects. It has social, medical, and industrial uses.  I want my state to utilize it's benefits.

I, unlike you would NEVER NEVER in a million years advocate nor vote for legalizing ... oh... meth, crack, heroin, opiates, or other powerful and deadly drugs. Absolutely never. And I'd fight tooth and nail against it.

Quote

I'm opposed to the martial oppression of Drug War. That is in no way an endorsement of recreational drug abuse. I simply don't think I (the ostensible victim of the victimless crime of drug abuse) should be taxed, to punish a "crime" that is already its own punishment. I don't refuse to be a heroin junky because of law. I refuse to be a heroin junky because it's a miserable lifestyle!

Drug abuse despite your utopian rose colored glasses is NOT a victimless crime. My cousin just mowed over and killed a pair of grandparents and critically injured a mother with her 1 week old son 2 days ago because he was drug influenced. He'll be doing 20 years in prison. Don't you tell me there were no victims of drug abuse there. There were... they were perfectly innocent victims.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#50    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:15 AM

Quote

"Show me an in-depth study about how inhaling vaporized PG with an ecig or pot vaporizor is going to kill me, or kill you from my "second hand" vapor. You won't find one... it doesn't exist. But educate yourself... go look!" MW
It's difficult for me to imagine how you could possibly have misread me more extremely (absurdly).
My original assertion.

Quote

"I'd walk a mile to keep propolyene glycol vapor out of my lungs." sear
I stand by that statement.

Quote

"Drug abuse despite your utopian rose colored glasses is NOT a victimless crime." MW
I'm not the originator of the assertion. I was merely passing it along. Your issue is with those that established the premise.
But since you seem in such a pedagogical mood, please enlighten me.
If Peter robs Paul, Peter is the perp., and Paul is the victim. Right?
If Bruce finds some cannabis sativa growing in his yard, and he trims some leaves from it and smokes it as he watches the hockey game; please name the victim? Why is that inherently different in social impact, from sipping chardonnay, or cognac; or huffing a stogie?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A drunken step-father that gets blind / falling down drunk and takes a belt to his step-child; such drunkenness is NOT victimless.
But recreational medication is not  INTRINSICALLY  non-victimless (victimizing). Child abuse is, whether drug induced / enhanced or not.


#51    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,256 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

I'm bored now. And your posts are too fractured to quote or respond to. Sorry... It's hard to follow when you quote five words and respond under it. I prefer to debate with folks who can read a post, then respond in complete organized paragraphs. It's a preference. I can't digest bite sized pieces and parts without proper context.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users