Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to cause addiction? - Page 2

shanek · 20th August 2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
Earlier you said they were putting more nicotine in only you claim to make them safer.

I also pointed out how putting in more nicotine won't even do what you claim it will.

Quote:

As for more business, they'll always want more business. Many companies will go ahead and do something knowing full well they will get sued because the extra money will be worth it even factoring in litigation over it.

Well, I can see you know jack squat about running a business...

Whoracle · 20th August 2005, 06:43 PM

Yeah because shanek is an addiction specialist. As for running a business you are the one who has no idea how to run one. You have to be pretty dense to not understand that a company can do something that it knows will get them sued but that the profits in doing so far outweigh the cost of litigation. The tabloid industry is famous for this. They get sued all the time but what they get sued over sells so many magazines they still make money. Saying that Tom Cruise is gay sold so many magazines they still made a profit after he sued them. Or if you have seen Fightclub. I know it's a movie but the recall example in the movie is a very real one. Car companies only do recalls if they are cheaper than the litigation. If they are more expensive they just let themselves get sued.

shanek · 21st August 2005, 11:33 AM

Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with.

gnome · 21st August 2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakshow
What did I "expect"? I expected the same thing I always expect from anything involving government: incompetence, corruption, idiocy, fraud, waste, scheming, and lots of other similar words that I don't feel like bothing to list right now.

Why would I expect anything else of government?

Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise?

Freakshow · 21st August 2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise?

Nope, I expect the same of any large organization.

Although I do expect government to be the worst of any type of large organization, due to the power they have. The more power there is, the worse the organization becomes.

Another difference is that with government, I have no choice. I have lots of choices when it comes to dealing with large organizations outside of government. That makes me watch and be more critical of the government than other large organizations.

Whoracle · 21st August 2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with.

I would ask are you crazy but I already know the answer. Sometimes companies will do things knowing they will get sued in advance and still do them anyway because they will make more than enough money to cover the litigation. I realize that you are a hardcore libertarian and will go to any length to defend any business even if it makes no sense so I will just have to end this here as I well never be able to penetrate your psychosis.

Ed · 21st August 2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoracle
I would ask are you crazy but I already know the answer. Sometimes companies will do things knowing they will get sued in advance and still do them anyway because they will make more than enough money to cover the litigation. I realize that you are a hardcore libertarian and will go to any length to defend any business even if it makes no sense so I will just have to end this here as I well never be able to penetrate your psychosis.

Certainly the case with various car defects. It was cheaper to pay settlements than to fix the problem.

shanek · 21st August 2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise?

No, but at least non-government organizations have an incentive to be efficient and can be held accountable for their actions. Governments, if anything, thrive on inefficiency, and most of them enjoy sovereign immunity for their actions.

shanek · 21st August 2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakshow
Nope, I expect the same of any large organization. Although I do expect government to be the worst of any type of large organization, due to the power they have. The more power there is, the worse the organization becomes.

And most organizations that become corrupt do so because the government gives them power in some way. Look at Enron, for example.

Quote:

Another difference is that with government, I have no choice.

That's true. If a big organization is inefficient or corrupt, you can always take your money elsewhere (unless, of course, government has granted them a monopoly). With government, it's YOUR money, no matter what.

shanek · 21st August 2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Certainly the case with various car defects. It was cheaper to pay settlements than to fix the problem.

Sometimes, yes, but as a counterexample, look at how many safety features car companies have developed all on their own, and how many recalls they've done voluntarily. The exception is not the rule.

a_unique_person · 21st August 2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
They know everything, Jay. Stuff that would make you crap your pants and hide under your bed. They know where you are RIGHT NOW, in fact they're watching you. Be careful, very careful. They're on to you, I tell you this as a friend.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
The carp is in the pond.

Understand?

I really don't get this. The companies make a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. That is, even if you want to give it up, you find it hard because of the addictive qualities. Now, they worked very hard at making them even more addictive.

FWIW, if cigarettes had only just been invented, they would never have been allowed to be marketed, because they are so harmful. The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'.

TragicMonkey · 21st August 2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'.

Must...resist....Monica Lewinsky reference....

shanek · 21st August 2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The companies make a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive.

And people willingly buy and use a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. What's your solution? Ban it? That's worked sooo well in the past...

Quote:

Now, they worked very hard at making them even more addictive.

Again, this assumes facts very much not in evidence. It's just an assertion, and a conspiracy theory at that.

Quote:

FWIW, if cigarettes had only just been invented, they would never have been allowed to be marketed, because they are so harmful. The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'.

Or maybe because people remember what happened durung Prohibition and still have enough sense in their brain to counter the pathetic bigotries that cloud your thinking.

a_unique_person · 21st August 2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
And people willingly buy and use a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. What's your solution? Ban it? That's worked sooo well in the past...

Strawman.......

Quote:

Again, this assumes facts very much not in evidence. It's just an assertion, and a conspiracy theory at that.

No, it is backed up by evidence. That is what they did, they worked at making cigarettes more addictive. The more addictive the product, the more money they make.

Plenty of smokers decide to try to give up, then find it very difficult to do so. Actions by cigarette companies to make their product more addictive are, simply, murder.

People can smoke, I'm not going to try to stop them. But if they want to give up, then they should not be hindered from doing so. It's pretty simple.

Quote:

Or maybe because people remember what happened durung Prohibition and still have enough sense in their brain to counter the pathetic bigotries that cloud your thinking.

shanek · 21st August 2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Strawman.......

It's not a strawman; it's a QUESTION. Which you, apparently, are unwilling or unable to answer.

Quote:

No, it is backed up by evidence. That is what they did, they worked at making cigarettes more addictive.

No, they worked at adding nicotine or making it more potent. That is the ONLY thing the evidence says. You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion.

Quote:

I guess using little animated .gifs is a lot easier than responding to the point...

CFLarsen · 21st August 2005, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

CFLarsen · 21st August 2005, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
No, they worked at adding nicotine or making it more potent. That is the ONLY thing the evidence says. You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion.

"Potent"? What's that supposed to mean?

a_unique_person · 22nd August 2005, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Potent"? What's that supposed to mean?

Addictive.

gnome · 22nd August 2005, 05:10 AM

A lot of internal memos were introduced into evidence. Do they speak to the reasons behind adjusting the nicotine content?

a_unique_person · 22nd August 2005, 05:32 AM

They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive.

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive.

Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part.

And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction.

CFLarsen · 22nd August 2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction.

Aha.

Perhaps you could show us just how much nicotine they have put in cigarettes over time, and how potent it was?

Bjorn · 22nd August 2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part.

And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction.

Some investigation brought up this from Phillips Morris research:

Quote:

Senior Philip Morris scientist Victor J. DeNoble began research in the early eighties, into the behavioural effects of nicotine and acetaldehyde in rats. He discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine. DeNoble's research papers for Philip Morris reveal the potential for acetaldehyde to act in this way:
"The results can be summarized as follows:
1 acetaldehyde does function as a positive reinforcer for rats.
2 acetaldehyde at equal doses (mg) to(-) nicotine is more effective at maintaining self-administration behaviour,
3 the endogenous opioid system is not involved in the maintenance of acetaldehyde self administration, and
4) combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered."

Quote:

DeNoble detected a synergistic or "additive" effect with acetaldehyde-nicotine combinations.

Quote:

Following this discovery DeNoble and his team were ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds. According to DeNoble's testimony, once the company had discovered the optimal ratio for addiction they increased the levels of sugar in Marlboro cigarettes to achieve the required increase in levels of acetaldehyde.

"How did they do it? Simple, they added sugar, because if you burn sugar you form acetaldehyde. Now I ask you this. If tobacco companies are reducing acetaldehyde as Philip Morris says why has Marlboro increased acetaldehyde by 40% in ten years and has maintained that increase today?"47 (DeNoble, Verbal Testimony 1997)

ETA: From "Philip Morris, 1983 Victor J DeNoble 'Behavioral Pharmacology annual report'. Tobacco Resolution, Bates Number 206056611"

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
Some investigation brought up this from Phillips Morris research:

But YET AGAIN, that only confirms the initial claim, not the assertion that people are drawing from it.

Come on, people! You're supposed to be skeptics!

Bjorn · 22nd August 2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
But YET AGAIN, that only confirms the initial claim, not the assertion that people are drawing from it.

Come on, people! You're supposed to be skeptics!

???

AUP said:

Quote:

They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive.

You said:

Quote:

Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part.

I posted evidence that DeNoble, on behalf of Phillip Morris, discovered that combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered, and were ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds. According to DeNoble's testimony, once the company had discovered the optimal ratio for addiction they increased the levels of sugar in Marlboro cigarettes to achieve the required increase in levels of acetaldehyde.

You asked for evidence, you got it.

gnome · 22nd August 2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion.

You have been given very specific evidence that they sought to increase the addictiveness of their product. I'm not sure what you're arguing now... can you elaborate?

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
You asked for evidence, you got it.

No, I didn't. I got evidence that the nicotine was made more potent, something that I don't even contest. I'm looking for evidence that this does anything other than cause addicts to smoke fewer cigarettes to get their fix. Don't provide evidence for A, since that's not being contested; provide evidence for B.

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 12:25 PM

Okay, people, at least those of you who still at least pretend to want to learn something...I just went outside with my digital camera and snapped a picture of our cigarette bin. One of my partners smokes, and all but one of the employees in the unit next to us smoke. They're out there several times a day. Take a look at the cigarettes in the bin. There are a lot of cigarettes there that are only partially smoked. Smokers DO NOT finish a cigarette just to finish it or just because it's there. They smoke however much it takes to get their fix or to give them whatever buzz they're looking for, and then they STOP.

Photographic evidence. Here you go. Don't look if you want to say safe and secure in your little world-view of preconceived notions:

Bjorn · 22nd August 2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
No, I didn't. I got evidence that the nicotine was made more potent, something that I don't even contest. I'm looking for evidence that this does anything other than cause addicts to smoke fewer cigarettes to get their fix. Don't provide evidence for A, since that's not being contested; provide evidence for B.

Hehe.

You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for.

Might I remind you once again that AUP said that

they researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive,

and your reply was

Again, EVIDENCE ???

From my evidence, in case you want to re-read it:

research ........ discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine

produce supra-additive effects

ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds

CFLarsen · 22nd August 2005, 12:40 PM

Shanek asked for evidence.

He got it.

He ignored it.

He even claimed that it was not the evidence he asked for.

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
You have been given very specific evidence that they sought to increase the addictiveness of their product. I'm not sure what you're arguing now... can you elaborate?

I don't see any way how I could possibly make it any more clear.

The claim is that the cigarette companies are trying to make their product more addictive, to get more people smoking more cigarettes.

Their offer of proof for this is that cigarette companies are adding nicotine, or making it more potent, or "enhancing its addictive properties" (to use REALLY loaded language). But what ARE the addictive properties?

With nicotine, it's really two things: 1) the chemical dependence, meaning the amount of nicotine the body craves every so often, and 2) the "buzz" you get from the nicotine.

Nicotine is put into the body by smoking. You puff on a cigarette, the nicotine goes into your lungs, to your bloodstream, and in less than half a minute is affecting your brain. So you're delivering a very small amount of nicotine to your brain very quickly.

Your brain is still craving nicotine, so you take another puff...and another, and another, and another, until you reach your level of chemical dependence to nicotine.

If you're going for the "buzz," then you take it further, and take the number of extra puffs beyond your tolerance level to gain the desired effect. This is how people get more addicted; over time, this new amount becomes your tolerance level and you now have to smoke even more to gain the buzz. A purely habitual smoker doesn't do this; only the ones looking for the buzz.

Those are the addictive properties of nicotine. If they're enhanced, or increased, or made more potent, the above effect is still going to take place. The only difference—THE ONLY DIFFERENCE—is in the amount of puffs you have to take off of your cigarettes to achieve whatever effect it is you're going for. And the end result is you smoke FEWER CIGARETTES, and therefore inhale less of the tar and other nasty stuff that messes up your lungs.

The claim goes way beyond this. The claim is that people wouldn't smoke fewer cigarettes, or even smoke the same number of cigarettes, but would smoke A GREATER NUMBER OF CIGARETTES and thus make more profits for the evil, greedy tobacco companies who laugh all the way to the bank as their customers drop like flies. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THIS, and NONE of the purported evidence supports this assertion AT ALL.

How can I possibly make it any more clear than that?

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for.

Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.

Bjorn · 22nd August 2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.

I notice that you feel "made more addictive" is not the same thing as "enhance the addictive nature of".

You forgot to do the definition trick on "produce supra-additive effects", but I guess that is not "make more addictive" either.

Your definition skills are as impressive as ever.

claimee · 22nd August 2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive.

Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part.

And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn

Quote:

Senior Philip Morris scientist Victor J. DeNoble began research in the early eighties, into the behavioural effects of nicotine and acetaldehyde in rats. He discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine. DeNoble's research papers for Philip Morris reveal the potential for acetaldehyde to act in this way:
"The results can be summarized as follows:
1 acetaldehyde does function as a positive reinforcer for rats.
2 acetaldehyde at equal doses (mg) to(-) nicotine is more effective at maintaining self-administration behaviour,
3 the endogenous opioid system is not involved in the maintenance of acetaldehyde self administration, and
4) combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered."

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for.

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
I notice that you feel "made more addictive" is not the same thing as "enhance the addictive nature of".

You forgot to do the definition trick on "produce supra-additive effects", but I guess that is not "make more addictive" either.

Your definition skills are as impressive as ever.

Stop talking around the issue and respond to the above post. Do you have evidence for what I am ACTUALLY asking for evidence for, what is ACTUALLY being claimed here, as opposed to evidence for something I'm not even disputing?

I'm guessing not, or you would have presented it with the same self-righteous egotism that you displayed when you presented your earlier evidence for the part I'm not in any way disputing.

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by claimee
[Same stuff as Bjorn]

READ...THIS...POST!!!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...post1871032060

And respond to it. Do you have the evidence I am asking for?

shanek · 22nd August 2005, 02:41 PM

Man, this is EXACTLY like those stupid Global Warming threads. People post evidence that the planet is getting warmer, and that humans are a cause of it, and then they go into all of these gloom-and-doom scenarios. I (and others) acknowledge the first two, but want evidence that it will lead to the gloom-and-doom scenarios. When asked, they go back to evidence for the warming and the human causes, which is NOT what we asked for. But they pretend that that is the same thing as evidence for their claim, when it isn't

Absolutely the same thing is happening here. And yet again, we see that even people who are skeptical in so many other matters, throw it all out the window when it comes to one of their own pet delusions, in this case, that the big, evil tobacco companies are trying to make people smoke more.

Where's the evidence that this leads to people smoking more cigarettes? You have presented NONE.

Where's the evidence that smokers will have greater health problems as a result of this? You have presented NONE.

Where's the evidence that it will be harder to quit smoking because of this? You have presented NONE.

Where's the evidence that more potent = more addictive? You have presented NONE.

Where's the evidence refuting the notion that people only smoke to the level their addiction requires, and that therefore this will result in the smoker smoking fewer cigarettes? The only refutation so far (which was really just an assertion) I have refuted with photographic evidence.

Remember the assertion here: "They are trying to get people more addicted so they buy more."

(And that's not even getting into this alleged conspiracy of tobacco makers, all of whom compete with each other for business, getting in cahootz to commit "murder"—yes, that's the actual word one of you used.)

These are ALL claims that have been made directly in this thread. This is what I am asking for evidence of. And this is what has NOT been provided.

I have made it perfectly crystal clear what I am asking for. And none of you can provide it. All you can do is try to warp my request into something that I AM NOT IN ANY WAY DISPUTING.

Is that being a good skeptic? Is that how you convince people? Is that how a proper discussion is done?

Santa666 · 22nd August 2005, 03:47 PM

Shanek,

You asked for evidence, well, you may be able to shoot this one down, but here is some evidence for you.

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sep2000/nida-25.htm

Here is a brief quote from the article.

Quote:

Using these criteria, teenagers, women, and whites experience more dependence symptoms while using the same, or fewer, number of cigarettes than other groups - men, older people, and nonwhites. Dependence rates increase sharply as consumption increased, up to a half-pack of cigarettes a day. Dependent smokers are more likely to continue smoking and to use increasingly larger amounts to sustain the nicotine effect.

Now, I am aware that this talks about teens, women, and whites, but you know what, that is A LOT or people. From what I read here, if you increase the amount of nicotine per cigarette, this would only help increase how many more cigarettes those dependent on nicotine would need.

Always checking my list,

Santa

The Central Scrutinizer · 22nd August 2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, people, at least those of you who still at least pretend to want to learn something...I just went outside with my digital camera and snapped a picture of our cigarette bin. One of my partners smokes, and all but one of the employees in the unit next to us smoke. They're out there several times a day. Take a look at the cigarettes in the bin. There are a lot of cigarettes there that are only partially smoked. Smokers DO NOT finish a cigarette just to finish it or just because it's there. They smoke however much it takes to get their fix or to give them whatever buzz they're looking for, and then they STOP.

Photographic evidence. Here you go. Don't look if you want to say safe and secure in your little world-view of preconceived notions:

So one ash tray outside of your trailer is evidence for smokers world wide? Can you say anecdotal? (Not to mention staged. Unless these smokers happen to throw away whole cigarettes)

And who was it who said - "Come on, people! You're supposed to be skeptics!"

gnome · 22nd August 2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.

I do see the above post. You're arguing that the purpose of their "modifications" was to make the cigarette more efficient and thus require less smoking for the same fix. I suppose it's possible.

However, you are playing the worst kind of word games with the evidence... kindly explain the difference between "enhancing the addictive nature of" and "making it more addictive".

Boy, if I ever commit a crime, I think I'd like you on the jury. I didn't confess to robbing him, I just said that I "enhanced his ability to forego his property." I never said "rob".

20th August 2005, 06:09 PM	#41
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Whoracle Earlier you said they were putting more nicotine in only you claim to make them safer. I also pointed out how putting in more nicotine won't even do what you claim it will. Quote: As for more business, they'll always want more business. Many companies will go ahead and do something knowing full well they will get sued because the extra money will be worth it even factoring in litigation over it. Well, I can see you know jack squat about running a business...
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 11:33 AM	#43
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 11:44 AM	#44
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Quote: Originally posted by Freakshow What did I "expect"? I expected the same thing I always expect from anything involving government: incompetence, corruption, idiocy, fraud, waste, scheming, and lots of other similar words that I don't feel like bothing to list right now. Why would I expect anything else of government? Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

21st August 2005, 02:56 PM	#47
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by Whoracle I would ask are you crazy but I already know the answer. Sometimes companies will do things knowing they will get sued in advance and still do them anyway because they will make more than enough money to cover the litigation. I realize that you are a hardcore libertarian and will go to any length to defend any business even if it makes no sense so I will just have to end this here as I well never be able to penetrate your psychosis. Certainly the case with various car defects. It was cheaper to pay settlements than to fix the problem.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

21st August 2005, 05:51 PM	#48
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by gnome Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise? No, but at least non-government organizations have an incentive to be efficient and can be held accountable for their actions. Governments, if anything, thrive on inefficiency, and most of them enjoy sovereign immunity for their actions.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

20th August 2005, 06:43 PM	#42
Whoracle Suspended Join Date: May 2003 Location: South of Heaven Posts: 343	Yeah because shanek is an addiction specialist. As for running a business you are the one who has no idea how to run one. You have to be pretty dense to not understand that a company can do something that it knows will get them sued but that the profits in doing so far outweigh the cost of litigation. The tabloid industry is famous for this. They get sued all the time but what they get sued over sells so many magazines they still make money. Saying that Tom Cruise is gay sold so many magazines they still made a profit after he sued them. Or if you have seen Fightclub. I know it's a movie but the recall example in the movie is a very real one. Car companies only do recalls if they are cheaper than the litigation. If they are more expensive they just let themselves get sued.

21st August 2005, 11:48 AM	#45
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Quote: Originally posted by gnome Would you expect anything else of any large organization, government or otherwise? Nope, I expect the same of any large organization. Although I do expect government to be the worst of any type of large organization, due to the power they have. The more power there is, the worse the organization becomes. Another difference is that with government, I have no choice. I have lots of choices when it comes to dealing with large organizations outside of government. That makes me watch and be more critical of the government than other large organizations.

21st August 2005, 02:44 PM	#46
Whoracle Suspended Join Date: May 2003 Location: South of Heaven Posts: 343	Quote: Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with. I would ask are you crazy but I already know the answer. Sometimes companies will do things knowing they will get sued in advance and still do them anyway because they will make more than enough money to cover the litigation. I realize that you are a hardcore libertarian and will go to any length to defend any business even if it makes no sense so I will just have to end this here as I well never be able to penetrate your psychosis.

21st August 2005, 05:52 PM	#49
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Freakshow Nope, I expect the same of any large organization. Although I do expect government to be the worst of any type of large organization, due to the power they have. The more power there is, the worse the organization becomes. And most organizations that become corrupt do so because the government gives them power in some way. Look at Enron, for example. Quote: Another difference is that with government, I have no choice. That's true. If a big organization is inefficient or corrupt, you can always take your money elsewhere (unless, of course, government has granted them a monopoly). With government, it's YOUR money, no matter what.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 05:54 PM	#50
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Ed Certainly the case with various car defects. It was cheaper to pay settlements than to fix the problem. Sometimes, yes, but as a counterexample, look at how many safety features car companies have developed all on their own, and how many recalls they've done voluntarily. The exception is not the rule.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 06:00 PM	#51
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to cause addict Quote: Originally posted by WildCat They know everything, Jay. Stuff that would make you crap your pants and hide under your bed. They know where you are RIGHT NOW, in fact they're watching you. Be careful, very careful. They're on to you, I tell you this as a friend. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot The carp is in the pond. Understand? I really don't get this. The companies make a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. That is, even if you want to give it up, you find it hard because of the addictive qualities. Now, they worked very hard at making them even more addictive. FWIW, if cigarettes had only just been invented, they would never have been allowed to be marketed, because they are so harmful. The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

21st August 2005, 06:35 PM	#52
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,078	Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to cause ad Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'. Must...resist....Monica Lewinsky reference....
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

21st August 2005, 07:41 PM	#53
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to cause ad Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person The companies make a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. And people willingly buy and use a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. What's your solution? Ban it? That's worked sooo well in the past... Quote: Now, they worked very hard at making them even more addictive. Again, this assumes facts very much not in evidence. It's just an assertion, and a conspiracy theory at that. Quote: FWIW, if cigarettes had only just been invented, they would never have been allowed to be marketed, because they are so harmful. The only reason they have not been regulated is because of the powerful tobacco lobby, and the fact that they fit nicely in the 'too hard basket'. Or maybe because people remember what happened durung Prohibition and still have enough sense in their brain to counter the pathetic bigotries that cloud your thinking.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 08:00 PM	#54
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to caus Quote: Originally posted by shanek *And people willingly buy and use a product that is known to be very harmful, and is very addictive. What's your solution? Ban it? That's worked sooo* well in the past... Strawman....... Quote: Again, this assumes facts very much not in evidence. It's just an assertion, and a conspiracy theory at that. No, it is backed up by evidence. That is what they did, they worked at making cigarettes more addictive. The more addictive the product, the more money they make. Plenty of smokers decide to try to give up, then find it very difficult to do so. Actions by cigarette companies to make their product more addictive are, simply, murder. People can smoke, I'm not going to try to stop them. But if they want to give up, then they should not be hindered from doing so. It's pretty simple. Quote: Or maybe because people remember what happened durung Prohibition and still have enough sense in their brain to counter the pathetic bigotries that cloud your thinking.**
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

21st August 2005, 10:28 PM	#55
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked to Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person Strawman....... It's not a strawman; it's a QUESTION. Which you, apparently, are unwilling or unable to answer. Quote: No, it is backed up by evidence. That is what they did, they worked at making cigarettes more addictive. No, they worked at adding nicotine or making it more potent. That is the ONLY thing the evidence says. You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion. Quote: I guess using little animated .gifs is a lot easier than responding to the point...
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

21st August 2005, 10:41 PM	#56
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Thank you, Whoracle, for resorting to the above rant and therefore proving that you have nothing to back up your assertions with. Pot. Kettle. Black.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

21st August 2005, 10:44 PM	#57
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked Quote: Originally posted by shanek No, they worked at adding nicotine or making it more potent. That is the ONLY thing the evidence says. You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion. "Potent"? What's that supposed to mean?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

22nd August 2005, 01:09 AM	#58
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being sp Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen "Potent"? What's that supposed to mean? Addictive.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

22nd August 2005, 05:10 AM	#59
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	A lot of internal memos were introduced into evidence. Do they speak to the reasons behind adjusting the nicotine content?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

22nd August 2005, 05:32 AM	#60
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

22nd August 2005, 07:56 AM	#61
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive. Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part. And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 08:07 AM	#62
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: Originally posted by shanek And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction. Aha. Perhaps you could show us just how much nicotine they have put in cigarettes over time, and how potent it was?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

22nd August 2005, 09:55 AM	#63
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part. And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction. Some investigation brought up this from Phillips Morris research: Quote: Senior Philip Morris scientist Victor J. DeNoble began research in the early eighties, into the behavioural effects of nicotine and acetaldehyde in rats. He discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine. DeNoble's research papers for Philip Morris reveal the potential for acetaldehyde to act in this way: "The results can be summarized as follows: 1 acetaldehyde does function as a positive reinforcer for rats. 2 acetaldehyde at equal doses (mg) to(-) nicotine is more effective at maintaining self-administration behaviour, 3 the endogenous opioid system is not involved in the maintenance of acetaldehyde self administration, and 4) combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered." Quote: DeNoble detected a synergistic or "additive" effect with acetaldehyde-nicotine combinations. Quote: Following this discovery DeNoble and his team were ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds. According to DeNoble's testimony, once the company had discovered the optimal ratio for addiction they increased the levels of sugar in Marlboro cigarettes to achieve the required increase in levels of acetaldehyde. "How did they do it? Simple, they added sugar, because if you burn sugar you form acetaldehyde. Now I ask you this. If tobacco companies are reducing acetaldehyde as Philip Morris says why has Marlboro increased acetaldehyde by 40% in ten years and has maintained that increase today?"47 (DeNoble, Verbal Testimony 1997) ETA: From "Philip Morris, 1983 Victor J DeNoble 'Behavioral Pharmacology annual report'. Tobacco Resolution, Bates Number 206056611"
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

22nd August 2005, 10:11 AM	#64
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn Some investigation brought up this from Phillips Morris research: But YET AGAIN, that only confirms the initial claim, not the assertion that people are drawing from it. Come on, people! You're supposed to be skeptics!
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 10:21 AM	#65
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by shanek But YET AGAIN, that only confirms the initial claim, not the assertion that people are drawing from it. Come on, people! You're supposed to be skeptics! ??? AUP said: Quote: They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive. You said: Quote: Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part. I posted evidence that DeNoble, on behalf of Phillip Morris, discovered that combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered, and were ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds. According to DeNoble's testimony, once the company had discovered the optimal ratio for addiction they increased the levels of sugar in Marlboro cigarettes to achieve the required increase in levels of acetaldehyde. You asked for evidence, you got it.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

22nd August 2005, 11:04 AM	#66
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being spiked Quote: Originally posted by shanek You insist on your ASSERTION that they were doing this to increase the addictiveness, with NO EVIDENCE, and no response to my rebuttal of your assertion. You have been given very specific evidence that they sought to increase the addictiveness of their product. I'm not sure what you're arguing now... can you elaborate?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

22nd August 2005, 12:15 PM	#67
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn You asked for evidence, you got it. No, I didn't. I got evidence that the nicotine was made more potent, something that I don't even contest. I'm looking for evidence that this does anything other than cause addicts to smoke fewer cigarettes to get their fix. Don't provide evidence for A, since that's not being contested; provide evidence for B.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 12:25 PM	#68
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Okay, people, at least those of you who still at least pretend to want to learn something...I just went outside with my digital camera and snapped a picture of our cigarette bin. One of my partners smokes, and all but one of the employees in the unit next to us smoke. They're out there several times a day. Take a look at the cigarettes in the bin. There are a lot of cigarettes there that are only partially smoked. Smokers DO NOT finish a cigarette just to finish it or just because it's there. They smoke however much it takes to get their fix or to give them whatever buzz they're looking for, and then they STOP. Photographic evidence. Here you go. Don't look if you want to say safe and secure in your little world-view of preconceived notions:
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 12:30 PM	#69
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by shanek No, I didn't. I got evidence that the nicotine was made more potent, something that I don't even contest. I'm looking for evidence that this does anything other than cause addicts to smoke fewer cigarettes to get their fix. Don't provide evidence for A, since that's not being contested; provide evidence for B. Hehe. You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for. Might I remind you once again that AUP said that they researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive, and your reply was Again, EVIDENCE ??? From my evidence, in case you want to re-read it: research ........ discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine produce supra-additive effects ordered to find the optimal ratio of the two compounds
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

22nd August 2005, 12:40 PM	#70
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Shanek asked for evidence. He got it. He ignored it. He even claimed that it was not the evidence he asked for.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

22nd August 2005, 12:48 PM	#71
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't the FDA say anything about cigarettes being sp Quote: Originally posted by gnome You have been given very specific evidence that they sought to increase the addictiveness of their product. I'm not sure what you're arguing now... can you elaborate? I don't see any way how I could possibly make it any more clear. The claim is that the cigarette companies are trying to make their product more addictive, to get more people smoking more cigarettes. Their offer of proof for this is that cigarette companies are adding nicotine, or making it more potent, or "enhancing its addictive properties" (to use REALLY loaded language). But what ARE the addictive properties? With nicotine, it's really two things: 1) the chemical dependence, meaning the amount of nicotine the body craves every so often, and 2) the "buzz" you get from the nicotine. Nicotine is put into the body by smoking. You puff on a cigarette, the nicotine goes into your lungs, to your bloodstream, and in less than half a minute is affecting your brain. So you're delivering a very small amount of nicotine to your brain very quickly. Your brain is still craving nicotine, so you take another puff...and another, and another, and another, until you reach your level of chemical dependence to nicotine. If you're going for the "buzz," then you take it further, and take the number of extra puffs beyond your tolerance level to gain the desired effect. This is how people get more addicted; over time, this new amount becomes your tolerance level and you now have to smoke even more to gain the buzz. A purely habitual smoker doesn't do this; only the ones looking for the buzz. Those are the addictive properties of nicotine. If they're enhanced, or increased, or made more potent, the above effect is still going to take place. The only difference—THE ONLY DIFFERENCE—is in the amount of puffs you have to take off of your cigarettes to achieve whatever effect it is you're going for. And the end result is you smoke FEWER CIGARETTES, and therefore inhale less of the tar and other nasty stuff that messes up your lungs. The claim goes way beyond this. The claim is that people wouldn't smoke fewer cigarettes, or even smoke the same number of cigarettes, but would smoke A GREATER NUMBER OF CIGARETTES and thus make more profits for the evil, greedy tobacco companies who laugh all the way to the bank as their customers drop like flies. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THIS, and NONE of the purported evidence supports this assertion AT ALL. How can I possibly make it any more clear than that?
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 12:50 PM	#72
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for. Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

22nd August 2005, 01:06 PM	#73
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post. I notice that you feel "made more addictive" is not the same thing as "enhance the addictive nature of". You forgot to do the definition trick on "produce supra-additive effects", but I guess that is not "make more addictive" either. Your definition skills are as impressive as ever.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

22nd August 2005, 02:01 PM	#74
claimee Scholar Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 77	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person They didn't just use more nicotine. They researched the use of numerous chemicals to ensure that cigarettes were more addictive. Again, EVIDENCE??? You always seem to leave out that part. And "potent" doesn't mean more addictive; just that it takes a smaller amount to meet the person's level of addiction. Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn Quote: Senior Philip Morris scientist Victor J. DeNoble began research in the early eighties, into the behavioural effects of nicotine and acetaldehyde in rats. He discovered that the two drugs worked synergistically to enhance the addictive nature of nicotine. DeNoble's research papers for Philip Morris reveal the potential for acetaldehyde to act in this way: "The results can be summarized as follows: 1 acetaldehyde does function as a positive reinforcer for rats. 2 acetaldehyde at equal doses (mg) to(-) nicotine is more effective at maintaining self-administration behaviour, 3 the endogenous opioid system is not involved in the maintenance of acetaldehyde self administration, and 4) combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered." Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn You got evidence that cigarettes were made more addictive, which was exactly what you asked for. Quote: Originally posted by shanek Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!!! You ONLY gave me evidence that they "enhance[d] the addictive nature of nicotine." THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!! See the above post.
claimee Scholar Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 77

22nd August 2005, 02:22 PM	#75
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn I notice that you feel "made more addictive" is not the same thing as "enhance the addictive nature of". You forgot to do the definition trick on "produce supra-additive effects", but I guess that is not "make more addictive" either. Your definition skills are as impressive as ever. Stop talking around the issue and respond to the above post. Do you have evidence for what I am ACTUALLY asking for evidence for, what is ACTUALLY being claimed here, as opposed to evidence for something I'm not even disputing? I'm guessing not, or you would have presented it with the same self-righteous egotism that you displayed when you presented your earlier evidence for the part I'm not in any way disputing.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.