Here is some interesting reading on tobacco additive and other info .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/
Interesting reading on tobacco additive
- Thread starter BigBonner
- Start date
- Status
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
^^^
thats a good link, i didnt know they had done some genetically modifying stuff to it,
to make it more addictive,
no wonder my woman wont come off the brand MARLBORO, she's been genetically modified,
^^^
thats a good link, i didnt know they had done some genetically modifying stuff to it,
to make it more addictive,
no wonder my woman wont come off the brand MARLBORO, she's been genetically modified,
Boboro
Well-Known Member
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
Evil basters.
Evil basters.
leverhead
Well-Known Member
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
"The tobacco industry used few additives in US cigarettes before 1970"
If a normal person said this, it might be a misstatement. These people are smart enough to be called liars!
"The tobacco industry used few additives in US cigarettes before 1970"
If a normal person said this, it might be a misstatement. These people are smart enough to be called liars!
Tom_in_TN
Well-Known Member
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
Yeah, the WAR ON TOBACCO is largely based on the fact that "modern cigarettes are very different from cigarettes of the past, in that they have been extensively engineered to be delivery devices for nicotine and other ingredients. Evidence from tobacco industry documents indicates that additives have been used to increase free base nicotine and addiction potential and to mask and treat symptoms."
A search on this site for "WAR ON TOBACCO" has a lively debate which I maintain should really be a debate between 'commercial' tobacco and NATURAL TOBACCO LEAF. I maintain there would be totally different outcomes based on that research. "Commercial' tobacco has been studied extensively but NO true scientific research has been done regarding the use and smoking of NATURAL TOBACCO LEAF. All MEANINGFUL decisions regarding the use of tobacco, which are POLITICAL decisions, have been prompted and produced by "SHODDY SCIENCE and SHODDY SCIENTIST" who perform their research at the whim (payment of their salaries) of your government. Their findings are factual, we can give them a little bit of a 'pat on the back' but that is as far as their research goes. Why? Because they are not being paid to compare 'commercial' tobacco against 'natural' tobacco leaf because the goal is to ONLY consider all the carcinogenic or otherwise harmful additives in 'commercial' tobacco products.
Get ready folks, your government 'who is only here to help you' is going to make political decisions that WILL affect the future use of any tobacco product including 'natural' tobacco leaves grown for your own personal use or sold as whole leaf tobacco.
Yeah, the WAR ON TOBACCO is largely based on the fact that "modern cigarettes are very different from cigarettes of the past, in that they have been extensively engineered to be delivery devices for nicotine and other ingredients. Evidence from tobacco industry documents indicates that additives have been used to increase free base nicotine and addiction potential and to mask and treat symptoms."
A search on this site for "WAR ON TOBACCO" has a lively debate which I maintain should really be a debate between 'commercial' tobacco and NATURAL TOBACCO LEAF. I maintain there would be totally different outcomes based on that research. "Commercial' tobacco has been studied extensively but NO true scientific research has been done regarding the use and smoking of NATURAL TOBACCO LEAF. All MEANINGFUL decisions regarding the use of tobacco, which are POLITICAL decisions, have been prompted and produced by "SHODDY SCIENCE and SHODDY SCIENTIST" who perform their research at the whim (payment of their salaries) of your government. Their findings are factual, we can give them a little bit of a 'pat on the back' but that is as far as their research goes. Why? Because they are not being paid to compare 'commercial' tobacco against 'natural' tobacco leaf because the goal is to ONLY consider all the carcinogenic or otherwise harmful additives in 'commercial' tobacco products.
Get ready folks, your government 'who is only here to help you' is going to make political decisions that WILL affect the future use of any tobacco product including 'natural' tobacco leaves grown for your own personal use or sold as whole leaf tobacco.
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
Definitely take the information in the article with a grain of salt...it's written with a prejudice. These days, anything produced by the forth layer of a government bueracracy has to read subjectively.
The article combines pieces and part of tons of studies to concoct their own "abstract".
Can someone tell me what they think is so important about the article that four members have nominated it for special consideration? The link was moved from the "Preparing Burley for cigarette blending" thread. I just want to know what I'm supposed to do with this.
Definitely take the information in the article with a grain of salt...it's written with a prejudice. These days, anything produced by the forth layer of a government bueracracy has to read subjectively.
The article combines pieces and part of tons of studies to concoct their own "abstract".
Can someone tell me what they think is so important about the article that four members have nominated it for special consideration? The link was moved from the "Preparing Burley for cigarette blending" thread. I just want to know what I'm supposed to do with this.
leverhead
Well-Known Member
Re: Preparing Burley for cigarette blend
Cherry picking data to support a predetermined conclusion is NOT good science. A big stink was made about that kind of science and climate change on both sides of the divide. I don't think anybody is going to call them on this, that light at the end of the tunnel is rumbling.
Cherry picking data to support a predetermined conclusion is NOT good science. A big stink was made about that kind of science and climate change on both sides of the divide. I don't think anybody is going to call them on this, that light at the end of the tunnel is rumbling.
Tom_in_TN
Well-Known Member
I was not one of those who nominated this thread for special consideration, but I'm considering doing so because threads like this are important in order to keep us thinking and asking questions about why a war on tobacco exists. It generates a large, steady stream of revenue for governments but it is so vilified by the government, and their minions, that tobacco use generates all sorts of emotions in non-users just to be in the presence of a tobacco user. If we believe the World Health Organization's estimated number of tobacco smokers world-wide is approximately 1.3 billion as of the year 2003, and that number is expected to increase to 1.7 billion by 2020 then tobacco use will continue to be lawful and continue to generate large tax revenue.
I also think with the coming new regulations that it would be in our interest to point out to those who will listen that there probably is a great deal of difference between tobacco products sold by big tobacco companies and tobacco sold, or used, by small growers who do not introduce all sorts of additives into tobacco. We need to support the idea that there is a big difference between tobacco sold by the big companies and the small growers and give tobacco users a choice between the two.
I also think with the coming new regulations that it would be in our interest to point out to those who will listen that there probably is a great deal of difference between tobacco products sold by big tobacco companies and tobacco sold, or used, by small growers who do not introduce all sorts of additives into tobacco. We need to support the idea that there is a big difference between tobacco sold by the big companies and the small growers and give tobacco users a choice between the two.
There is a difference between science and an opinion piece. This study is an opinion piece in the guise of science.
"We propose that, in contrast, tobacco companies have expended resources to exploit the pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives.
...especially the use of sweeteners (which many researchers believe were added to entice younger people to smoke)." [emphasis mine]
Do we believe that BPA was added to the plastic used in baby bottles in order to stifle normal hormonal activity in babies? Do we propose that persistent organophosphate insecticides are sprayed on fruits and vegetables in order to poison consumers?
Bottom line: the science that is there is valid, but the beliefs and proposals are opinions based on assumptions regarding the motives of corporate research. The opinions and beliefs are biased. The science is not.
Bob
"We propose that, in contrast, tobacco companies have expended resources to exploit the pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives.
...especially the use of sweeteners (which many researchers believe were added to entice younger people to smoke)." [emphasis mine]
Do we believe that BPA was added to the plastic used in baby bottles in order to stifle normal hormonal activity in babies? Do we propose that persistent organophosphate insecticides are sprayed on fruits and vegetables in order to poison consumers?
Bottom line: the science that is there is valid, but the beliefs and proposals are opinions based on assumptions regarding the motives of corporate research. The opinions and beliefs are biased. The science is not.
Bob
leverhead
Well-Known Member
If they don't about fairness and balance. Should we?
I posted the link for self reading and own opinions . But one reason stuck out to me and I can't find where in the link I read it . It was telling that home grown was possibly worse than manufactured cigarettes .
It stated that big tobacco use of chemicals was no worse than plain whole leaf tobacco .They also use the word formaldehyde alot .
My searching of the site , I though we might could have found the main ingredients used in tobacco that they were supposedly testing .
Type in " home grown tobacco " in the search . This is just one article , remember I think our tax pay for these studys .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764994/?tool=pmcentrez
This may start the gov. to looking at home growers . Who knows what those idiots will do next .
It stated that big tobacco use of chemicals was no worse than plain whole leaf tobacco .They also use the word formaldehyde alot .
My searching of the site , I though we might could have found the main ingredients used in tobacco that they were supposedly testing .
Type in " home grown tobacco " in the search . This is just one article , remember I think our tax pay for these studys .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764994/?tool=pmcentrez
This may start the gov. to looking at home growers . Who knows what those idiots will do next .
Tom_in_TN
Well-Known Member
I did a search for the words 'home', 'grown', 'formaldehyde' and they are not in the document. Regardless, thanks for posting the link. Could be a different document?
I propose home growers and tobacco farmers begin to frame the discussion of the issue by pointing out the single most distinct difference between "natural whole leaf tobacco" and additive laden tobacco sold to consumers. The issue should not be framed on the basis of science but on opinion. People will believe "tobacco companies have expended resources to exploit the pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives." and we should bolster the idea with facts regarding the "inclusion of additives in cigarettes, and the industry has acknowledged using 599 different cigarette additives." A link to the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Does the industry manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes? Prior to the $368 Billion tobacco settlement between big tobbacco and the states that were suing them the companies claimed nicotine was not addictive and the varying levels of nicotine in certain brands of cigarettes was purely for taste.
I propose home growers and tobacco farmers begin to frame the discussion of the issue by pointing out the single most distinct difference between "natural whole leaf tobacco" and additive laden tobacco sold to consumers. The issue should not be framed on the basis of science but on opinion. People will believe "tobacco companies have expended resources to exploit the pharmacological and chemical effects of cigarette additives." and we should bolster the idea with facts regarding the "inclusion of additives in cigarettes, and the industry has acknowledged using 599 different cigarette additives." A link to the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Does the industry manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes? Prior to the $368 Billion tobacco settlement between big tobbacco and the states that were suing them the companies claimed nicotine was not addictive and the varying levels of nicotine in certain brands of cigarettes was purely for taste.
DonH
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest chemical engineering they've done to nicotine is to add things like ammonia to make the nicotine blast the brain quicker. I've never noticed that effect in natural tobacco but I remember it well in commercial cigarettes. The faster an addictive substance hits the brain the more addictive it is. The effect was actually kind of enjoyable...
Matty
Well-Known Member
There has been genetic engineering of tobacco to increase nicotine levels, strain called Y1, a controversial variety bred in the 1990's
Boboro
Well-Known Member
Is the seed available. It mite be good to blend with Frankinsmokes To go with my chickin and corn and no tellin' what else
Tom_in_TN
Well-Known Member
Brown & Williamsom had DNA Plant Technology tinker with the genetics of Y-1 and when they were done it had a nicotine level of 6.2%. A dangerous level. It was used to mix with cheaper tobacco leaf that has low nicotine levels. Y-1, was 1st grown commercially in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil in 1983. A hybrid version created later was said to have over 8%. A very dangerous level.
No, the seed was smuggled into Brazil and grown there. I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure big baccy got a pretty stiff fine. No seeds available anywhere.
Grin lists seeds higher, I don't get the y1 hype anyway
- Status
