h a l f b a k e r y
We got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
I like tobacco, but I don't want to smoke. I also like the
"cigarette" appearance and having something I can hold
onto with two fingers. Electronic cigarettes seem to be a
small finger-held vaporizer. If a cartridge with tobacco in
it (rather than whatever plants it is they put in their
were used, would this work?
I wonder what temperature of air would be required to
vaporize a usable quantity of nicotine? What other
chemical components of the tobacco would also be
vaporized? How does a vaporizer work on a
physical/chemical level in general? For instance, I know
vaporizers are popular for the (medical) application of
cannabinoids, but which cannabinoids are vaporized and
what *else* gets vaporized (and thus inhaled) in the
process? Could this be a (more) healthful alternative to
traditional cigarette smoking?
If this isn't how electronic cigarettes work, couldn't it be
achieved? It could be battery operated with a switch
triggered by air flow, or maybe a tiny turbine which
the unit could be turned by the inhalation. This would
power the heating element and a red LED to simulate the
"cherry". The heated air would pass through the same
and the plant matter and vaporize the desired chemicals
(i.e. nicotine). This seems reasonable to me so far...
||There have been lots of proposals - most of them quite
practical - for safe(r) cigarettes. They generally don't
make it to market because (a) a cigarette company
producing a safer cigarette risks acknowledging that
normal cigarettes are dangerous and in any case (b)
producing an enjoyable and safe(r) cigarette substitute is
considered morally wrong (smokers are just meant to quit,
not enjoy their habit safely).
||There have been, from time to time, cigarettes which use
glowing charcoal to heat air which passes over tobacco (or
a tobacco derivative), vaporising the nicotine without
producing a carcinogenic cocktail of burnt hydrocarbons.
There may even have been electronic versions of the same
(though battery life would be an issue).
||Producing safer cigarettes isn't really very difficult.
However, it is almost impossible to overcome the
moralistic objection to tobacco*, which is indendent of
(though justified by) the health impact of smoking.
||[*see following annotations for examples]
||Would it help to overcome the moralistic objections
if we incorporated an MP3 player into the device?
This way you're enjoying the music rather than the
tobacco, which is obviously morally deficient to
||Yes, but only if you can make a small needle jab you in the
gums every time you take a drag.
||***way*** too many question marks in the post
||//Would it help to overcome the moralistic objections if
we incorporated an MP3 player into the device.// Clever.
Ludicrous, but clever. Could be combined with [MB]'s
small needle jab: some things are pretty painful to listen
||Oddly, I was just this evening discussing health benefits
[sic] of nicotine. Would be huge if the health detriment
problem could be solved. Largely unregulated addictive
drugs that are good for you: a future growth industry. You
heard it here first.
||[mouse] they tried giving non-smoking oldies in retirement
homes nicotine patches and found an improvement in
mental ability (no or negligible harmful effects). But
cigarettes are not permitted to have beneficial effects.
||[MB] Interesting; I didn't know that. Those same oldies are
probably now on more socially respectable cholinergic
||I know someone who, as a child with asthma in the early '40s,
was treated with some stuff which you put a spoonfull of it
in the (metal) cap, set fire to it, & breathed the smoke.
Belladona, I bet, or something like it.
||Probably. You see, it's only tobacco that contains
carcinogens when burned. Things like barbecues, campfires,
incense sticks and good-old-bonfires are absolutely fine,
healthy and downright wholesome.