EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:22 am UTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24439474

Full disclosure: I'm a bit biased in this issue, as I use an e-cig myself. I used to smoke real cigarettes for over 16 years, daily. I tried the gums and inhalers, none of them worked really. Then I bought an e-cigarette in last June, I haven't smoked a single real cigarette in 3 months now. This is all anecodtal, sure, but everyone I know who's taken up using an e-cigarette has at least cut down on smoking, and several of them have, like me, quit smoking alltogether. There are however some studies that heavily suggest that e-cigarettes are more effective as an aid in quitting actual cigarettes, than traditional quitting aids.

Now, the moral guardians of the EU nanny-state are up at arms, because apparently, e-cigarettes are "tempting children into smoking". They're especially pissed because some e-liquid flavours actually taste good, which can't be allowed.

Yes, and by the same logic, all sweet alcoholic drinks need to be banned as well, right? What about sweet caffeinated drinks, such as mochas or even lattes? Hmm, odd, I seem to have missed those particular law proposals...

So just to be clear: we finally have a product that is by all accounts and studies healthier than cigarettes, that can also actually feasibly work as a replacement for cigarettes. But because some kid might want to use it - despite the fact that selling nicotine products to children is already illegal - this is a bad thing for some reason? I fail to see the logic here.

Sadly, since there are so few e-cigarette users, it's probably way too easy for the legislators to push through whatever draconian restrictions they want.
Last edited by dii on Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:58 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:39 am UTC

They're obviously less bad that regular cigarettes, but a small part of me understands why it's happening. One of the vendors in the local mall, for instance, took to blowing smoke in kids faces as a way of getting their parents attention. Presumably with the desire to then make a sale or something. My buddies reaction was less buying, and more threatening his life, but meh...

My feeling is that they're probably safer than cigarettes, and it's likely that regulation will go overboard. Treating them the same as real cigs is probably unnecessary, but on the other hand, imagine if we had separate rules for every minor vice humanity can come up with. Ugh.

I vote we just be allowed to punch the few people that are d-bags with e-cigs and call it a day.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:51 am UTC

dii wrote:Yes, and by the same logic, all sweet alcoholic drinks need to be banned as well, right? What about sweet caffeinated drinks, such as mochas or even lattes? Hmm, odd, I seem to have missed those particular law proposals...


In Britain, I think they actually were trying to restrict alcopops...

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:31 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They're obviously less bad that regular cigarettes, but a small part of me understands why it's happening. One of the vendors in the local mall, for instance, took to blowing smoke in kids faces as a way of getting their parents attention. Presumably with the desire to then make a sale or something. My buddies reaction was less buying, and more threatening his life, but meh...


There's no smoke in e-cigs. That's kind of the whole point of them... That said, that's still a horrible thing to do, and most people I know are very discreet about their e-cig use, and treat them the same way they would normal cigs when it comes to bystanders - that is, no blowing vapour on anyone's faces, no vaping in places that prohibit smoking (unless they also expressly allow vaping).

My feeling is that they're probably safer than cigarettes, and it's likely that regulation will go overboard. Treating them the same as real cigs is probably unnecessary, but on the other hand, imagine if we had separate rules for every minor vice humanity can come up with. Ugh.

I vote we just be allowed to punch the few people that are d-bags with e-cigs and call it a day.


If they were only treated the same as regular cigs, that probably wouldn't be so bad, actually. I personally wouldn't even miss the vanilla/candy/menthol flavours at all (although I still don't see any point in banning them). But the proposed restrictions are actually worse. They want to make e-cigs into "medicinal products" and restrict the strength of liquids to ridiculously low levels, something that would be worse than useless to any long-time ex-smoker.

I seriously don't see the logic. All the time we get these odd measures for getting people to quit smoking. First they put those huge labels on all the cigarette packs (yeah thanks, I was unaware that inhaling smoke was unhealthy, REALLY?) and then they ban all small cigarette packs (yeah thanks, now if I'm trying to quit and relapse, I guess I'll just have to buy the whole large pack instead of just a small). And THEN (at least here in Finland) they came up with this idea, that shops can't show the cigarette packs in visible places, and aren't allowed to tell customers which brands they carry - the customer must ask separately for each brand "do you carry X" before they're allowed to tell. Ok, and this accomplishes what?

And it seems to me, if they're so desperate to get people to quit, that they're trying all these bizarre things to discourage people from smoking... that they should be fucking thrilled to see something like e-cigs becoming available and popular, something that actually has a chance of helping people to quit or at least switch to a healthier alternative. But for some reason, they want to cripple this alternative and regulate it to death. Why, I'll never understand.

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:43 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
dii wrote:Yes, and by the same logic, all sweet alcoholic drinks need to be banned as well, right? What about sweet caffeinated drinks, such as mochas or even lattes? Hmm, odd, I seem to have missed those particular law proposals...


In Britain, I think they actually were trying to restrict alcopops...


In Finland, we had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmiakki_Koskenkorva

Was banned for a few years, then came back after the moral panic died...

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby ahammel » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:55 am UTC

dii wrote:In Finland, we had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmiakki_Koskenkorva

Was banned for a few years, then came back after the moral panic died...
Did you ban it because of moral panic, or because it is the most foul-tasting substance known to science?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:28 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
dii wrote:In Finland, we had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmiakki_Koskenkorva

Was banned for a few years, then came back after the moral panic died...
Did you ban it because of moral panic, or because it is the most foul-tasting substance known to science?


No it's actually quite good.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:40 am UTC

dii wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They're obviously less bad that regular cigarettes, but a small part of me understands why it's happening. One of the vendors in the local mall, for instance, took to blowing smoke in kids faces as a way of getting their parents attention. Presumably with the desire to then make a sale or something. My buddies reaction was less buying, and more threatening his life, but meh...


There's no smoke in e-cigs. That's kind of the whole point of them... That said, that's still a horrible thing to do, and most people I know are very discreet about their e-cig use, and treat them the same way they would normal cigs when it comes to bystanders - that is, no blowing vapour on anyone's faces, no vaping in places that prohibit smoking (unless they also expressly allow vaping).

Vapor, I suppose, would be the more accurate term. Yeah, it's not that it's necessarily dangerous, just rude. That dude is probably a wild exception from the norm, but people like him are probably a lot more visible than the polite folks who are mostly out of sight. Kind of a common problem, really. The few assholes tarnishing the image of the rest.

My feeling is that they're probably safer than cigarettes, and it's likely that regulation will go overboard. Treating them the same as real cigs is probably unnecessary, but on the other hand, imagine if we had separate rules for every minor vice humanity can come up with. Ugh.

I vote we just be allowed to punch the few people that are d-bags with e-cigs and call it a day.


If they were only treated the same as regular cigs, that probably wouldn't be so bad, actually. I personally wouldn't even miss the vanilla/candy/menthol flavours at all (although I still don't see any point in banning them). But the proposed restrictions are actually worse. They want to make e-cigs into "medicinal products" and restrict the strength of liquids to ridiculously low levels, something that would be worse than useless to any long-time ex-smoker.


Barring actual evidence with regard to health, that seems odd. In fact, calling them medicinal products doesn't even seem terribly logical. Are people using these to cure something?

Now, I have absolutely no urge to ever try these things, but if there's no clear harm, and some people enjoy it, *shrug* why not?

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:43 am UTC

I'd love it if there was some kind of minimum standard for laws. One that requires that every law spell out its purpose and the evidence be at least in favor of the law doing what it's ostensibly intended to do.
It's one thing when the people want to kill all the [insert race here] and legalize genocide, at least they're doing what they're trying to do. And with a population like that any form of democracy is doomed anyway. But it's a completely different thing when people decide to reduce crime by banning violent video games and reduce terrorism by spending billions on the TSA.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:54 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:I'd love it if there was some kind of minimum standard for laws. One that requires that every law spell out its purpose and the evidence be at least in favor of the law doing what it's ostensibly intended to do.
It's one thing when the people want to kill all the [insert race here] and legalize genocide, at least they're doing what they're trying to do. And with a population like that any form of democracy is doomed anyway. But it's a completely different thing when people decide to reduce crime by banning violent video games and reduce terrorism by spending billions on the TSA.


It'd be grand, but it's impossible to enforce. Evidence can be manufactured or cherry picked terribly. Lobbyists for laws are absolutely terrible when it comes to misusing science. Statistics in particular is treated poorly. One day, though, hopefully the population will be educated enough to demand this standard.

User avatar
ElWanderer
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby ElWanderer » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:59 am UTC

The proposal to class e-cigarettes as medicinal was rejected by the European Parliament. They did vote to ban menthol cigarettes, though with a five year delay. It's likely there will be more negotiations before anything is enacted.

Note that the unelected European Commission can suggest laws (the BBC suggests that's where the e-cigarette thing came from), but it's the elected bodies that are required to pass laws, first at the EU level, then within the member states.
Now I am become Geoff, the destroyer of worlds

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:50 pm UTC

ElWanderer wrote:The proposal to class e-cigarettes as medicinal was rejected by the European Parliament. They did vote to ban menthol cigarettes, though with a five year delay. It's likely there will be more negotiations before anything is enacted.

Note that the unelected European Commission can suggest laws (the BBC suggests that's where the e-cigarette thing came from), but it's the elected bodies that are required to pass laws, first at the EU level, then within the member states.


Thanks for the update. I wonder though, does that ban on flavored tobacco also apply to e-cigarettes, or is it only for actual cigarettes...? Either way, I personally don't really care, I like my vapour to taste at least somewhat like tobacco, as it helps me stay away from the real stuff. But I still think it's idiotic to ban the flavourings. It's another of these silly "look, we're doing something" measures...

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby setzer777 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the EU parliament has very little real power, and that they try to pass all sorts of stuff for symbolic/political purposes that will never fly in member states.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby elasto » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:43 pm UTC

Pretty much. Until a law is ratified by a member state it has no power in that state - and member states can fail to ratify effectively indefinitely if they wish.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Derek » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:51 pm UTC

What exactly are e-cigarettes? I only know of them from those sketchy looking ads, right next to the miracle fruit and local mom's weird trick.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

It's a suspension of flavor and nicotine in a food-grade viscous liquid that gets vaporized so it looks and feels like smoke. It isn't entirely like smoking but it's close enough to make a decent substitute, I'd say the difference is kind of like artificial sugar vs the regular stuff.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

But since nicotine is the main carcinogen in cigarettes, it's for all intents and purposes equivalently as bad as smoking.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But since nicotine is the main carcinogen in cigarettes, it's for all intents and purposes equivalently as bad as smoking.
Citation needed? Tobacco smoke has approximately 70 cancer causing chemicals. The majority of these are created from inhaling burnt plant matter. Doesn't really matter which plant.

e-cigs don't burn plant matter. They are safer.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Adam H » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But since nicotine is the main carcinogen in cigarettes, it's for all intents and purposes equivalently as bad as smoking.
Yeah, I don't think there's a study out there that concludes nicotine is a carcinogen, let alone the main carcinogen in cigarettes.

But I look forward to being proven wrong.
-Adam

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:22 pm UTC

Wikipedia wrote:Historically, nicotine has not been regarded as a carcinogen and the IARC has not evaluated nicotine in its standalone form or assigned it to an official carcinogen group. While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.[64][65] Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases.[66] Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[67]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[68][69] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[70]N-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN), classified by the IARC as a Group 1 carcinogen, is produced endogenously from nitrite in saliva and nicotine.


So nicotine is possibly carcinogenic, but it's effects, if any, are negligible compared to the rest of the stuff in cigarettes.
In any case, cancer's not the only problem with smoking. Smoking will cripple your lungs and cardiovascular system even if you're one of the lucky ones that don't get cancer. A lot of the damage to the pulmonary system is because you're inhaling burning smoke, not because of the specific chemicals in tobacco. E-cigarettes don't have those problems.

EDIT: Scratch that. I'm not sure where the burning smoke thing came from. The point about nicotine causing only a small part of the harm tobacco causes stands though. Cigarettes have a lot more stuff in them than nicotine, and many of them are harmful.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:12 pm UTC

Alright, I stand corrected. E cigs may not be as bad as cigarettes.

They are just as addictive though, right?

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Xeio » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Alright, I stand corrected. E cigs may not be as bad as cigarettes.

They are just as addictive though, right?
Well, yea, given the nicotine is the addictive part.

Actually, I can't seem to find comparisons if they're more or less addictive though (or the same, if that's the case). Apparently it depends on the cartridge for how much nicotine is present, and they sell cartridges with both more and less nicotine than a regular cigarette.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

I can say from experience that they're easier to chain smoke without thinking about it, since you don't have to keep lighting up to keep smoking. It's definitely still addictive, though the juice comes in different nicotine concentrations all the way down to none.

I don't know about long-term health effects but I will say that, in the short term, it's worth it just to have my throat and lungs feel fine every morning.

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:29 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I can say from experience that they're easier to chain smoke without thinking about it, since you don't have to keep lighting up to keep smoking.


In my experience, it's more that you don't get the nausea from inhaling too much smoke which gets in the way of smoking too much with cigarettes, and usually lets you know to stop smoking. Chain-smoking is indeed a thing with cigarettes as well, that's why they call it chain smoking, not chain vaping...

Anyway, with the absence of that nausea, I've actually accidentally vaped enough to get a nicotine high, which probably isn't very healthy. It's a really weird feeling, you get a bit twitchy and light-headed, not really worth it as a drug experience... The thing is, you just need to learn to pace yourself, it's just something that takes some getting used to.

CorruptUser wrote:Alright, I stand corrected. E cigs may not be as bad as cigarettes.

They are just as addictive though, right?


Sure, and methadone is by some accounts even more addictive than heroin, that's not to say that it isn't a good idea to replace your black tar habit with a steady dosage of methadone. When talking about substance abuse, which is what smoking basically is, there's no point in assessing harm in absolute terms, it should be evaluated in relative terms. I don't constantly feel like I'm literally dying anymore, I don't start every day by coughing up phlegm from my lungs, so I'm fine with just being addicted to nicotine. Maybe in the future they come up with a drug that can cure any chemical addiction, or maybe ibogaine treatments become legal worldwide, I don't know, that may be an option then, but for now it's just nice to know that e-cigarettes in all likelihood won't kill me nearly as fast as smoking would.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby curtis95112 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:59 am UTC

Wikipedia wrote:It is worth noting that nicotine, although frequently implicated in producing tobacco addiction, is not significantly addictive when administered alone.[163] The addictive potential manifests itself after co-administration of an MAOI, which specifically causes sensitization of the locomotor response in rats, a measure of addictive potential.[164]


So apparently nicotine isn't the only reason tobacco is as addictive as it is. Does anyone know enough about e-cigarettes to tell us how addictive they are compared to cigarettes?

And looking up this stuff is depressing. I am never going to start smoking.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:29 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
dii wrote:Yes, and by the same logic, all sweet alcoholic drinks need to be banned as well, right? What about sweet caffeinated drinks, such as mochas or even lattes? Hmm, odd, I seem to have missed those particular law proposals...


In Britain, I think they actually were trying to restrict alcopops...

Isn't it cheaper to mix your own?
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:16 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:It is worth noting that nicotine, although frequently implicated in producing tobacco addiction, is not significantly addictive when administered alone.[163] The addictive potential manifests itself after co-administration of an MAOI, which specifically causes sensitization of the locomotor response in rats, a measure of addictive potential.[164]


So apparently nicotine isn't the only reason tobacco is as addictive as it is. Does anyone know enough about e-cigarettes to tell us how addictive they are compared to cigarettes?

And looking up this stuff is depressing. I am never going to start smoking.


Wow, I did not know that. Wonder if anyone has ever suffered serotonin syndrome from smoking...? Must not be a terribly potent MAOI though, otherwise smoking would be counterindicated with SSRI-type antidepressants...

edit. ah, after looking into it a bit more, it appears that tobacco contains harmala-alkaloids (same stuff that is in the stuff the shamans drink) which are reversible MAO-A inhibitors, so not really all that risky... oh well.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Jplus » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:28 am UTC

Cigarette manufacturers add ammonia to make them more addicting. I thought this was common knowledge.
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Derek » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:41 am UTC

And how the does ammonia make them more addictive?

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Jplus » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:06 am UTC

IIRC it helps the nicotine to pass the blood-brain barrier.
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Xenomortis » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:23 am UTC

Jplus wrote:IIRC it helps the nicotine to pass the blood-brain barrier.

That's... surprising. My impression was that nicotine itself had no problem getting through the blood-brain barrier quickly.

Edit:
The powers that be suggest it's freebasing; it's easier for the compound to evapourate when it's not in an ionic form.
Image

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:16 am UTC

Jplus wrote:IIRC it helps the nicotine to pass the blood-brain barrier.


I've always kind of wondered about that. AFAIK, the blood-brain-barrier will not allow polar molecules to pass through it in any case, so even if the nicotine is in salt form, it needs to be converted to freebase form before getting to the brain at some point, anyway. I was under the impression that all alkaloids get converted to freebase in vivo, even if you ingest them in salt form.

So how exactly would making the nicotine freebase help it pass? Is it because more of the nicotine gets through the barrier or something? I'd think, at most, it would just make the nicotine faster-acting.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Internetmeme » Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:27 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:
Jplus wrote:IIRC it helps the nicotine to pass the blood-brain barrier.

That's... surprising. My impression was that nicotine itself had no problem getting through the blood-brain barrier quickly.

Edit:
The powers that be suggest it's freebasing; it's easier for the compound to evapourate when it's not in an ionic form.


It's not so much to do with freebasing as much as it is to do with getting it into your system.

So, Nicotine has two nitrogens, and either of these can hold a hydrogen atom. So, there are three main forms of Nicotine: Diprotonated (two hydrogens; "proton" is just slang for a hydrogen here), monoprotonated (one hydrogen), and freebase (no hydrogens). Note that this only refers to the hydrogens directly bound to the nitrogens. Di- and Mono- are both pretty polar, and both of the nitrogens have a formal charge of +1, so they don't dissolve in fats as easily and tend to stick in the blood. Freebase doesn't have any formal charge, and as a result is much less polar than other the other two forms of nicotine. As a result, it wants to get into lipids (fats) more than it wants to stay in the blood (but it's still polar enough to get in the blood).
Your brain is made of lipids (mostly).

So, our friends at the tobacco companies had to figure out how to make their cigarettes stronger, for that extra "kick" (and addictiveness). To do this, they wanted to keep the nicotine in a freebase form, so they needed something to pull those hydrogens off the nitrogens.
They add the ammonia to make sure the nitrogens are in the deprotonated, freebase form, ensuring more can pass the blood-brain barrier and less is "wasted."


This is actually part of the reason we don't use novacaine any more; to actually get into a nerve cell, it needs to be in the deprotonated form, but because of the blood's pH, the vast majority is protonated. Once it gets there (a small percentage actually can), it wants to physically block a sodium channel to keep the nerve from firing...so it needs to get back into protonated form (which is very easy to do; once it's actually in the cell it's still very favourable for the deprotonated form to go back to protonated). Pretty low bang-for-your-buck for what you inject. So, we made new -caine's that have a much larger percent in deprotonated form, to ensure more passes through that barrier.
Spoiler:

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:25 pm UTC

Internetmeme wrote: "proton" is just slang for a hydrogen here


Nitpick time! Actually, since a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton + single electron, a positive ion of a hydrogen is a proton. So it's not accurate to say that a proton is a hydrogen atom, but it is accurate to say that a proton is a positive ion of hydrogen.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Xenomortis » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

dii wrote:Nitpick time! Actually, since a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton + single electron, a positive ion of a hydrogen is a proton.

Well, 99.98% of the time anyway.
Image

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:31 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:
dii wrote:Nitpick time! Actually, since a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton + single electron, a positive ion of a hydrogen is a proton.

Well, 99.98% of the time anyway.


We were talking about hydrogen, not deuterium or tritium.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:01 pm UTC

Deuterium and tritium ARE hydrogen, much like C14 is still carbon and depleted uranium is still uranium. You mean protium.


Off topic chem question. How much different are molecules made of specific isotopes compared to molecules with different isotopes? Like, a glucose molecule made up entirely of deuterium, c14, and some isotope of oxygen. How much different is it in terms of chemical reactions? Would medicines made entirely of different isotopes behave differently?

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Xenomortis » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:36 pm UTC

Some sensitive biochemical reactions can be affected; the mass increase can alter the strength of various bonds formed.
It takes quite a bit to cause problems in humans though; Wikipedia suggests >50% of water has to be D20 to cause cell death.
Image

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

Yeah but if you were to say, isolate all deuterium and c14, etc, and do lab tests of mice made entirely of stable atoms, would the mice have lower cancer rates or otherwise increased longevity? Would be an interesting study, might cost a few billion, but interesting.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

My guess is some enzymatic and chemical reactions would proceed differently (?), and the cell has a good amount of wiggle for a lot of stuff, but I wouldn't volunteer to consume glucose made entirely of c14.

I actually have no idea if this is true.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests