/lit/ - Literature

>>12077310
>Pretty much all of the medical literature just concerning the effects of nicotine suggests that it's practically benign.
At the equivalent of 40 cigarettes, it is a substantial amount of nicotine. I use nicotine as needed, but never in such high doses. The cardiac load of pure nicotine is worse than tobacco smoke for the the reasons described here >>12077128

>>12077310
>I guess the world is doing a good job brainwashing it's subjects.
Conspiracy right off the bat. I have nothing against typical use of vaping but consuming nearly 40mg of pure nicotine per day is an insanely high amount and is going to yield significant vasoconstriction and hypotension, worse than were it tobacco smoke. The reason you don't see nicotine patches in greater than 21mg amounts is because high-dose nicotine replacement therapy recorded too many adverse reactions. Rest assured, if GlaxoSmithKline could sell 40 or 42mg patches (they back multiple small studies using these doses), they would.
>Vaping is better than sucking burning crap into your lungs.
Based on? It sounds better? The other "burning crap" actually contained constituents that lessened the cardiovascular effects of the amount of nicotine you were consuming. Oh well.
>Light cigs are better for you than full flavor but now they are not even allowed to advertise that some are more healthy than others
They aren't. The proliferation in the cigarette enable more air to be taken in, where the smoke is further aerosolized which enables it to work it's way deeper into the lung.

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i51

"Filter ventilation 1) alters tobacco combustion, increasing smoke toxicants; 2) allows for elasticity of use so that smokers inhale more smoke to maintain their nicotine intake; and 3) causes a false perception of lower health risk from “lighter” smoke."

>they are not even allowed to advertise that some are more healthy than others.
That's because it was nonsense in the first place, created to satisfy the canard that the main danger of tobacco consumption was the quantity of the icky tar consumed, mostly to appeal to the dolts subscribing to your "burning crap" argument. There is a reason why the John Wayne style smokers smoking 60-100 unfiltered cigarettes GENERALLY had better oncological diagnoses, mostly large cell cancers, limited to the the pulmonary periphery compared to what we now see in pack-and-a-half a day light-cigarette smokers who have adenocarcinoma in the innermost recesses of the lung and and much more aggressive small cell cancers.