ROFL
Posted on 03/24/2014 12:12:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It can be bought on the Internet in flavors like chocolate and bubble gum—and just a teaspoon could kill a child: The New York Times takes a look at liquid nicotine, the e-liquid used in e-cigarettes, which it describes as a "powerful neurotoxin ... far more dangerous than tobacco." And with good reason: Reports of accidental liquid nicotine poisonings rose 300% from 2012 to 1,351 cases last year, with 2014's figure expected to be double that.
The victims, many children under the age of four, can experience vomiting and seizures after being exposed to even a modest amount orally or through the skin.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the bottles often convey their flavors with potentially enticing photos of fruits or chocolate, which could attract youngsters; teens, on the flip side, may be combining it with energy drinks to get high, per Fox News Insider.
"It's not a matter of if a child will be seriously poisoned or killed. It's a matter of when," says a director with California's Poison Control System.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
There is one in heaven. Nobody guaranteed that sticking to your constitution won’t blow you apart.
If the airlines actually ran the air scrubbers like they were supposed to smoke on planes wouldn’t have been a problem. As for car windows, well they don’t put ashtrays in cars anymore, when there’s no proper convenient receptacle for things they tend to wind up on the ground.
I agree. I don’t like the ecigs because they are just too darn hipster.
But just because I don’t like something doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to say someone else can’t have them.
Thank you.
There are ash trays that fit in beverage holders. No need to be an obnoxious litter bug. Is that a constitutional right?
I believe he was referring to smoking, not nicotine.
There was a study published in Discover (or Discovery, forget which), which studied pilots and stewardesses, who smoked. They were chosen for this study because they have to undergo forced periods of abstinence from smoking, and because the period of abstinence was highly variable, ranging from just over an hour to over 24 hours.
The goal of the study was to establish a baseline for nicotine addiction, IIRC. But what they found in the study was the completely surprising to them, since it undercut the premise of the study that they were looking at a nicotine addiction.
The participants were required to observe times of cravings, and intensity, throughout the flight. The expectation was that the frequency and intensity of cravings would increase throughout the flight, as serum levels of nicotine dropped. In fact, they were so sure that the pattern would slope “upwards” they were just trying to establish the rate of increase.
What they found was that the pattern was completely at odds with what they expected. Cravings increased initially, and then dropped to a low, steady level for the duration of the flight. About a half hour before expected departure, all participants then had a rapidly increasing rate and severity of cravings. Here is the kicker: it didn’t matter how long the flight was. For long flights, the low, background level of craving occurred for many hours; on short, hour long flight, the low background level of craving occurred for only a few minutes.
This is simply incompatible with the idea that the addictiveness of cigarettes stems from an addiction to nicotine.
Additional, obviously less rigorous studies, showed the same things for prisoners. Prisoners would have roughly the same pattern: initial spike in cravings, dropping down to a low, background level, and then a rapid increase prior to pending release. This would occur whether dealing with an overnight “vacation”, or a sentence exceeding 10 years (when all but the nicotine derived from eating salads would have long since left the system — I assume they get vegetables in prison). The people conducting the studies just couldn’t understand how people could go for decades, in some cases, with little in the way of strong cravings from nicotine (those who had access to tobacco during incarceration were excluded from the study), only to be hell-bent on getting a cigarette decades after “quitting nicotine”.
You are operating from a flawed premise. The addiction to smoking is not derived from a simple addiction to nicotine. There is just no justification to believe that it is, and plenty of reasons to believe that the paradigm is completely wrong.
Exactly.
My guns are very fascinating to children and could definetly kill them. I have every right, or I should say liberty, to own my gun. It is my job as an adult to keep my guns away from children.
Ecig users have the liberty to use the nicotine. It is the responsibility of ecig users to keep that stuff away from children.
Some people don’t like the smell of gun powder and the sound of gunfire travels for miles.
I think we should have been more considerate and now we should outlaw guns.
Then one loses a beverage holder, and they’re not in the right spot. When you treat people like second class citizens don’t be surprised if they don’t worry about your feelings. There was a nice state of detente between non-smokers and smokers in the 90s, plenty of places were non-smoking but plenty of places allowed smoking, ashtrays were conveniently placed so smokers had someplace to put the butts that wasn’t a fire hazard or littering. But it wasn’t good enough for the non-smokers. They wanted more places non-smoking, they felt ashtrays in public places “invited” smoking, they hated the cloud at the door. Well now they’ve got the world they wanted, smoking is pretty much not allowed anywhere, ashtrays are with payphones on the ash-heap of history, nobody can smoke near doors, and they’re still not happy. Maybe if they had a butt once in a while they’d relax.
Just waiting for the FDA/DEA controls to come into place. Best stock up now.
....A special thank you to all of you drug prohibitionists out there....
BINGO but that's only half of it, don't forget Agenda 21. Tobacco users are to relinquish their wealth in the form of cigarette taxes and then die young. 60 - 65 years on this planet is plenty of time to take up valuable food and resources. After that, you are no longer useful to society.
Ecigs are messing that up, big time. People are quitting in droves.
Red herring! Is anybody talking about an outright ban on e-cigs? No. They are just applying the existing bans on smoking in public places and age limits. That's all.
And this article points out that there are some safety issues with liquid nicotine that need to be addressed because they've already seen an increase in about 300 children poisoned.
Red herring! Is anybody talking about an outright ban on e-cigs? No. They are just applying the existing bans on smoking in public places and age limits. That's all.
And this article points out that there are some safety issues with liquid nicotine that need to be addressed because they've already seen an increase in about 300 children poisoned.
When people act like gutter, they tend to get treated like gutter.
Yep. They worked for me.
Much ‘big government’ I sense in you...
“Age limits”? When in the hell did that ever stop anybody from doing anything?
The antis said there would be a great surge in business if smoking were banned in Michigan bars. Instead there was a 20 to 30 percent drop in business.
What really frosts me is the fact that the clowns who wanted non smoking bars didn’t even bother to open non smoking bars as was their right. Instead they chose the scumbag route of using the power of government to do what they didn’t have the ass to do on their own.
When you decide you’re superior to a group you’re probably not. You pushed smokers to the gutter, now you complain that they’re there.
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.