Phanerothyme Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The jury is not out on NRT yet, it hasn't been studied. We have already had overdoses, and NRT is sold to children as young as 12. Probably safer to stick to the fags for the time being. Nope. Garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Nope. Garbage. There have been no long term studies into the affects of nicotine administered as it is now with the NRT. NRT products often deliver more nicotine and are capable of causing overdose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 After the Taliban successfully banned the production of opium (the only group to have done so) in Afghanistan and production fell to a mere 4 tonnes. Not out of any desire to ban the drug. They wanted to drive up the price of their reserves. I was reading about this last night. Christopher Hitchens - Afghanistan's Dangerous Bet [Link] It has been calculated that as much as a fourth of the country’s G.D.P. is opium-related, and that the crop gives a livelihood to millions in the countryside. Some of these are coerced into poppy farming, but until another economy has been created, or this one recognized, it’s futile to be emulating the Untouchables. Thirty years of experience have not yet taught us that Westerners will buy the fruit of this poppy at almost any price, and that therefore Easterners and Southerners will stolidly continue to cultivate it. Many people think that the Taliban did a better job of drug “interdiction,” which is a clue in itself to the madness of this calculus. In fact, the Taliban “banned” the trade in order to drive up the price of the existing tonnage that they held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 There have been no long term studies into the affects of nicotine administered as it is now with the NRT. NRT products often deliver more nicotine and are capable of causing overdose. No, but there have been exhaustive studies, long term, short term and meta studies that closely describe the effects, side effects, risks and benefits of nicotine ingestion administered through all and any means possible. The risk from cigarettes is not nicotine. Nicotine, in moderation, is a relatively safe drug to ingest in small quantities. Blood nicotine levels from smoking peak higher than any other ingestion method. Snus, which delivers much more nicotine than any patch or inhalator, has been used safely (for the most part) for 300 years. So unless there's any non-nicotine related dangers inherent with the various methods of NRT that exceed the health risks posed by smoking cigarettes, you're talking baloney when you say (in relation to NRT) Probably safer to stick to the fags for the time being. It definitely isn't safer to stick to fags for the time being. I may be a smoker, but I don't delude myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forumosaurus Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 He just wants another business opportunity lol VirginSmackheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, but there have been exhaustive studies, long term, short term and meta studies that closely describe the effects, side effects, risks and benefits of nicotine ingestion administered through all and any means possible. The risk from cigarettes is not nicotine. Nicotine, in moderation, is a relatively safe drug to ingest in small quantities. Blood nicotine levels from smoking peak higher than any other ingestion method. Snus, which delivers much more nicotine than any patch or inhalator, has been used safely (for the most part) for 300 years. So unless there's any non-nicotine related dangers inherent with the various methods of NRT that exceed the health risks posed by smoking cigarettes, you're talking baloney when you say (in relation to NRT) It definitely isn't safer to stick to fags for the time being. I may be a smoker, but I don't delude myself. The jury isn't out, your argument has much more support in evidence, but I remain to be convinced. Are there any receptor antagonists that are not being acted upon when one consumes NRT, are there any that are, when one consumes snus. I'm sure we'll find out in due course, and I'll probably have COPD by then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 He just wants another business opportunity lol VirginSmackheads. They do say it is better than sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The jury is not out on NRT yet, it hasn't been studied. We have already had overdoses, and NRT is sold to children as young as 12. Probably safer to stick to the fags for the time being. Nope, it's better to have the NRT. I gave up cigarettes very easily with the use of an inhalator and even enjoyed the inhalator for the year I used it. I could get my nicotine stress free whenever I wanted it, in restaurants, cinemas, planes, etc. And I'm glad that I can still buy cigarettes if I want to, not that I have for the last 12 years. I'd like the chance to buy any other drug I wanted, however dangerous as it's no business of government to tell me what I can't put in my body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html I've agreed with this stance for years. Decriminalise drugs, sell them in licensed premises and tax them. Not really a fan of Branson, but on this matter he's not wrong. The wastage justified in the name of "The War on Drugs" should in itself be criminal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Possibly. The drugs that most commonly cause this behaviour are the most addictive stimulants and opiates. Heroin, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine etc. People addicted to these drugs could be given free drugs as part of a addiction management and harm reduction strategy. Recreational users of Cannabis, MDMA, GHB, psychedelics and the least dangerous dissociatives, would be able to buy their drugs in from licenced vendors at a reasonable price Yes, but it's a question of proportion. At the moment 100% of the trade in Cannabis is on the black market. If that dropped to 20%, then the 80% would be taxable trade worth billions to the taxpayer. You could cut smuggling of fags and booze at stroke by reducing the excise duty (which seems an odd thing in this day and age). The actual cost of a packet of fags is about £1.50, the tax on a packet of fags is about £5. Fags are extremely addictive, so even a small saving on the tax is attractive to users, hence the black market - which I should add is implicitly supported by the tobacco companies, as it means they shift more product. I see your point and have changed my mind, I have just read about Portugal, they legalized all drugs within its borders 10 years ago and it appears to have worked at reducing drug use and associated drug crime as well as HIV and Aids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.