Interesting view of
nicotine, I don't believe I've heard two consistent quotes about the
drug. I think the
politics of smoking twisted the perception of anything cigarette related to be
evil so less people smoke, almost connotating smoking as sin.
I've heard the views of how horrible nicotine is as a drug but also that it isn't a bad drug. During a global health seminar one of the cigarette research leaders here at the University of Iowa gave a presentation on the issue of the changes on tobacco marketing. Evidently the major advertisement area by contemporary cigarette producers is aimed at women. The smokings per capita of lesser global economic influencing countries have seen an almost exponential rate of growth in female consumers. It was very interesting to see how a hundred or so years ago a cigarette ad never depicted a woman actually inhaling, only burning off to the side. Societal view of women smokers was slightly taboo or unbecoming of a lady. Now we see sexy ads with women at a party sucking down menthols and getting a piece of the action as if to say smoking is liberation. This could be describes as the “You go girl!” attitude of advertising.
During his presentation we talked about why smoking is so harmful. From all the research he's seen nicotine is a very predictable and safe drug under regulation. I can not speak of the dangers of consuming high or pure quantities of nicotine but he did mention that taken in high amounts is not as health damaging as smoking. For comparison Aspirin is a harmful drug if indulged in an orgy fashion (completely irrelevant, but I wanted to say orgy). He did conclude that the danger of smoking is the burning process. Nicotine has a few dastardly effects on the functions of the heart and heart diseases such as hypertension which ensues after chronic use. He also mentioned that Nicotine is cheap, like $20 for a huge beaker and his gesture for a huge beaker was quite large my friend.
We also inquired about the additives as the major cancer of smoking. One specific example was the difference between India cigarettes and the American brand Marlboro. A student from India brought up how weak in content Indian cigarettes are and how Marlboro uses additives such as an ammonium hydride as a catalyst to quicken the absorption of nicotine. She initially estimated a Marlboro is the equivalent of three Indian cigaretts but the number jumped to the high of six or seven. To me this indicated she knew nothing of the sort. The good doctor, on the other hand, did confer about the differences in product composition and that India smokes less per capita, but came back with the same answer. Even a tobacco leaf pure of any externalities such as additives, sugar, or pesticides is still just as dangerous when burned. I wonder how different forms of consumption such as eating would compare to the health effects of smoking. Then it's a short step to the brownie vs. bong debate of weed. It was kind of odd how the lady placed pride on the smoking habits and practices of Indian people. I guess I view smoking as smoking and not a cultural area of pride.
This write up is pretty general because I wanted to get it down before parsimonious finals week starts. I'll get some of the more specifics down later like the name of the presenter and possibly some of the chemical reactions that take place under burning of a bio-organic substance that produces hydrocarbons.
So it's the process of smoking that is the most detrimental aspect of cigaretts. Another user asked about snuff and other chewing tobaccos. I don't know much about these but chewing tobaccos do deposit particles of fiberglass in the mouth. Hopefully you didn't do this as a kid, but I was at an unfamiliar playground for a wedding and I think someone warned me. I went ahead anyway and jumped on one of the support poles of a swingset that was made of fiberglass and slid down. I'm still scared of fiberglass. Back to tobacco, the fiberglass does cause some of the related oral problems with chewing. The chemicals such as Nicotine might also contribute. Science doesn't prove that tobacco directly causes cancer. It can only rule out what doesn't cause cancer and tobacco isn't anywhere near getting exculpated.
Another reason smoking is more harmfull, there isn't a positive replaceable element that can be consumed by the inhalation of a burning product. The best way to decrease the number of smokers is sadly the defacement of the smoking image projected through society. It's also hard to play or listen to really good live jazz like Charles Mingus and not smoke, unless it's performed in a smoking prohibited environment.
I don't endorse the use of any product for the inhalation of smoke from embers.