Ahhhhh opinions! Everyone has one.
Posted on 07/17/2004 5:17:58 PM PDT by MadIvan
Nicotine could soon be rehabilitated as a treatment for schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, as well as hyperactivity disorders.
Research shows that the chemical that has addicted millions to smoking has a powerful impact on brain activity in patients who suffer from psychiatric and degenerative disorders.
Some experiments have shown that nicotine can slow down the onset of Parkinson's symptoms; others have had revealed its power in curtailing the hallucinations of schizophrenics.
'A whole range of psychiatric conditions seem to be helped by nicotine,' said Dr Dan McGehee, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago. 'However, such benefits do not justify smoking. The lethal effects of cigarettes far outweigh any help they provide. On the other hand, our research does suggest that derivatives of nicotine, administered medically, could help to alleviate a range of psychiatric problems.'
Nicotine is known to switch on receptors on the surface of cells in certain parts of the brain, causing these neurones to release the neuro-transmitter dopamine, a chemical that is associated with feelings of pleasure. This effect leads to a person's addiction.
More than 50 per cent of people suffering from clinical depression smoke, while the figure rises to 95 per cent for schizophrenics. But smoking among the general public has dropped to about 25 per cent. 'The assumption is that people with psychiatric conditions are self-medicating,' said McGehee. 'They are smoking because the nicotine in particularly helpful in alleviating their condition.'
This point is backed by Dr Tony George, of Yale University. 'Smoking is a marker for psychopathology,' he states in the current issue of the journal Nature Medicine.
Similarly, it has been found that nicotine can sometimes slow the debilitating symptoms of Parkinson's, a disease caused by the slow destruction of certain types of brain cells.
'Either nicotine stimulates other types of brain cells to compensate for the loss of the cells involved in Parkinson's, or it is somehow providing protection to remaining healthy Parkinson's cells,' said McGehee. 'Either way, the effect is noticeable.'
Freepers come from all walks of life and are not "higher education levels". Oh, my. As they say ROLF.
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed that, though I'm at a loss as to why. Of course FReepers come from all educational levels, from nursery school dropouts to those holding multiple advanced degrees. And, upon occasion, the former group is more enlightening than the latter. But I was referring to averages, or, if you prefer, statistical means. And the AVERAGE FReeper is better educated, and has a higher income, than the average U.S. citizen. And it's not even close. I feel sure that whatever marketing studies have been undertaken by or on behalf of Free Republic would demonstrate as much. And even if there have been no marketing studies whatever, consider the intellectual capacity of the 50 percentile person among the general public, and consider the intellectual capacity of the 50 percentile FReeper, based on his/her posts. It really isn't a fair contest, is it?
Now, there are also many studies which indicate a strong negative correlation between educational level and the level of smoking, as well as between income levels and the level of smoking. Yes, there are well-educated people who smoke. And for all I know (I don't, nor do I care) Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are huffin' on butts even as I type. But overall, statistically speaking, it seems to be pretty broadly accepted that two negative correlations are legit.
About 23% of U.S. adults smoke, according to the last survey I saw. That could be a bit low (people tend to lie about their "bad habits" even if they survey is anonymous), but it's in the neighborhood.
Since FReepers have higher educational levels and higher income levels than the general public; and since there exists a negative correlation between education level and income level on the one hand, and incidence of smoking on the other; it strikes me as a very good guess that fewer than 30% of FReepers smoke. That's all. Nothing pejorative intended.
As I said, it might be an interesting poll for Free Republic to run. But after the election, of course. I trust we all have more important considerations until then.
I have full and complete sympathy for your medical problems, and if we were to meet I would refrain from smoking in your presence.
However, the restaurant owner did not cause them and therefore should not be his responsibility to cater to them. Expecting the government to force him to do so is a leftist, liberal, socialist means of dealing with it.
The 3/4 of you who do not smoke, and less than half of that number really give a hoot, should have all gotten together and started speaking to the owners, instead of running to Big Brother to take care of you.
I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for people that will use the force of government to make others do their bidding......what's next? Banning seafood in all "public" places because some people are allergic to seafood?
I've never had to take anyone to the emergency room because of a reaction to cigarette smoke, but I've taken more than one to the ER for a reaction to seafood. But guess what, none of them are interested in getting the government involved in something they can easily avoid.
As I said, open your own restaurant or bar. I've seen too many of my friends in tears because of the damage done to their business by the government mandated smoking bans caused by people like you.
Never knew about the dopamine factor. Makes sense.
So, what's wrong with that?
From my earliest memory I have loved the smell of tobacco smoke. I remember walking home from school and passing a certain neighbors home where an old timer would be out smoking his pipe. The aroma was simply fantastic!!
Thirty years later I smoke 40 cigarettes a day and love each and every one of them!! I guess some people are just wired differently.
I understand your point, and don't disagree. I dislike rude people, smokers or non. I have never been a rude smoker, and will quickly chastise one (I can annoy people that way).
But two wrongs don't make a right, and now that the vast majority of smokers have been made to feel like second class citizens, the antis feel they can get away with anything and everything they want - including blatant rudeness. Not unknowingly, such as much smoker rudeness was in days long past, but knowingly.
The examples I can state would take me hours to post, but I will give you one.
It was a couple of years ago, Christmas Eve. A group of us had a tradition of getting together for a couple of drinks to celebrate the fact shopping was done! I forget how many of us there were (20 or so) and several of us had our kids with us and so we were in a place that permitted kids.....and smoking. A group comes in and sits down at tables next to ours. They ordered their drinks got them, drank them and when the waitress returned to see if they wanted another round they insisted that we be told to stop smoking. The waitress explained there was another bar area without smoking and she would be more than happy to move them there - they refused and insisted that if she didn't have us stop smoking they would leave and would not pay for their drinks because we were making them uncomfortable.
The poor waitress offered to get the manager, etc., etc.....Nope - we stopped smoking or they wouldn't pay for their drinks. Before the poor girl had to make the decision of paying their tab out of her tips one of the 3 non-smokers of our group piped up and said "let them leave and put it on our bill."
They were so embarrassed that they just picked up their coats and left. These ants were so arrogant they just took for granted we would all just meekly put out our cigarettes and the management would back them up.........
Sorry to have rambled so long.
At least in California and at other FR events across the country thqt i've attended in the last 6 years I would guess that 70% or 2/3 of freepers smoke.
Personally i've been smoking for 55 years and have no intention of quiting.
I have good lung capacity, haven't been sick since I was 8 years old, am still working at 66 and plan to continue doing construction work until at least 80.
I read similar research a few months ago, and tried smoking some cigarettes. They stank and made everything around me stink. I think smokers must get used to this.
Then I bought a nicotine patch to see what would happen.
After a couple of hours, I got woozy and started to throw up and was so nauseated I had to lie down and try not to move for hours. I couldn't even turn from one side to the other without feeling the need to upchuck. It was one of the most awful experiences of my life. Took me at least six hours to get over it.
So, forget nicotine. I think I'd rather lose my marbles than go through that again.
Not only do I not smoke, I only know a handful of people who do. One of them has had several heart attacks and a couple of bypass surgeries, but still smokes.
I had a cousin who smoked several packs a day, got emphysema and cancer of the larynx, had an electronic voice box and one of those buttons in his throat to breath and kept smoking.
I guess you don't eat tomatoes or eggplant or other members of the nightshade family. They all contain nicotine.
But when push comes to shove?
I'm not too sure I understand your meaning here. It's the nicotine within the plant that's "addictive," not the plant itself. And I don't buy the notion of addiction generally. A person decides for himself whether the benefit he gets from an action is worth whatever it costs and behaves accordingly. That doesn't mean he's being forced to perform the behavior. You might hear a long-time smoker say, "I'd like to quit, but I just can't." Well, that's utter bull. What's he's really saying is that the temptation and pleasure he derives from smoking are worth more than whatever bad effects might arise in the future as a consequence, or, that the bad effects he's experiencing now are not sufficiently bad to counterweigh the pleasure.
That's why they say that an alcoholic has to hit rock-bottom before he'll make a serious effort to give up drinking. And it's the same, in my opinion, for every other thing they call "addiction."
And yep! We are all nuts. Geesh!
Yep! 55 million Americans that smoke. We are all nuts. heh!
I'd still rather pass a smoker on the Hwy any day then a drinker!
December 24, 2003 -- IT is that time of the year: parties, presents, family gatherings - and dining-room tables laden with a tempting array of mouthwatering, delicious, seasonal chemicals.
Chemicals? Yes.
We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.
So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names.
Assume you start with an appetizer, then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season, and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.
You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various "carcinogens" (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals), including:
* hydrazines (mushroom soup);
* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad),
* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);
* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);
* furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);
* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);
* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).
Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).
And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your l00-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins - popularly known as "poisons." These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.
Now here is the good news: these foods are safe.
Four observations are relevant here:
* When it comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.
* While you probably associate the word "carcinogen" with nasty-sounding synthetic chemicals like PCBs and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.
* The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural "carcinogens."
* While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.
If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk ("so let's ban it just in case"), we'd have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation's obesity problem!)
The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.
So the next time you hear a self-appointed "consumer advocate" fret about the man-made "carcinogen du jour" and demand the government step in and "protect" us - remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.
Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!
Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health
Ahhhhh opinions! Everyone has one.
And what are YOUR friends smoking?
But not nearly as dumb as eating vegetables.
Sorry for your loss, jacquej.
Hospital bills are well stacked. Many people can't believe that a simple band aid in the hospital has a $2 dollar sticker on it.
And the plastic pitchers and cups and urinals........the patient pays for. It's mind boggling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.