Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Can't imagine that colour ink from the comics page - (if it was Sunday) would be particularly good for you if inhaled.

And see, this is what makes you a great person. Just imagine if you HADN'T been there to roll joints for your friends -- sorta like It's A Wonderful Life. Without you, your friends would have been trying to make a pipe out of a plastic bottle, a Bic pen, some tinfoil and Elmer's Wood Glue. They might have succeeded, too, much to everyone's horror when the foil rips and they inhaled burning coals of pot directly into their lungs, leading to them dying terribly! But they never built that hellish contraption because YOU were there to roll joints for them instead! And teacher says every time a bell rings, some stoner just tried to make a pipe out of an apple. See? It really IS a Blunt-er-ful life!

I'd just like to say a word about dabs and the partaking thereof: Jesus Christ these things are like getting kicked right in the third eye by one of those horses from My Little Pony. Like maybe the blue one or something. I dunno, I'm pretty high right now, but I'm sure there's a blue one. Anyway, yeah, dabs . . . fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Larry Wilmore once said that Stephen Colbert inhales oxygen and exhales funny.

That pretty much fits this.

The examples you provide aren't particularly accurate.

The formaldehyde results in the study you're talking about have been misrepresented often. The study actually only showed higher formaldehyde when the vaporizer was run dry, meaning the coil wasn't vaporizing liquid but burning the liquid, wick and coil. Nobody would ever inhale that because it would taste horrible. The actual conclusion of the study showed fewer harmful chemicals in ecigarette vapor than cigarette smoke.

As far as teens using ecigarettes at a higher rate, the only available studies show teenage smoking rates dropping by about the same amount as the adoption of ecigarettes. There's no evidence of a net increase in nicotine use among teenagers. Instead, some teens that would have smoked are using ecigarettes.

Rock music is corrupting kids, comic books are teaching children bad morals, pinball leads to juvenile delinquency, video games make kids violent and ecigarettes are turning teens into addicts. Great headlines, zero facts.

For me, the primary thing was that I use vaping as a means to alleviate withdrawal and to break the routine of smoking cigarettes. Smoking was just an automatic thing I did at certain times (after a meal, after a cup of coffee, work breaks, etc.). I used to always carry a pack of cigarettes around with me, but now I leave my vaping equipment at home (unless I'm going to be gone more than eight hours or so). Really, I think getting over just the routine of pulling out a cigarette and smoking it is the biggest hurdle. It's always good to keep in mind that between emotional dependence and physical dependence on a drug, it's the emotional dependence that is by *far* the more powerful.

Granted, I could have painlessly weened myself off cigarettes in a couple weeks with vaping (or gum or whatever), but I think it's probably better to stretch it out a little longer, and the instant hit you don't get with inhalation is important. Six months was my goal, and I'm at about four now.

It's pretty great really. I can smell things again and food tastes better and generally breath easier. I quit smoking once before cold turkey, but that only lasted a year. When I finally put this down, if I do relapse (which seems much less likely), it will be back to vaping rather than smoking.

Because nicotine itself is not terribly addictive. The main components of addiction to tobacco are now believed to be other substances.

Now consider the mechanical act of smoking; inhale, exhale cloud, reward.
Using a vaporizer reproduces the physical act that smoker's brains associate with the reward.

There does seem to be a period at the beginning of using a vaporizer, where there's a craving for cigarettes, perhaps because of the other addictive chemicals that are absent. But this craving isn't particularly difficult to overcome when you're satisfying the other elements of your habit. Not to mention, lungs clearing, sense of taste returning...

Then there's the final stage of using a vaporizer, which I've seen happen with others and I've experienced...you lower the nicotine levels further and further and then one day you start forgetting to use it at all. Your frequency of use may drop to nothing. Not always though. Some people go truely insane. We call them "scuba vapers". One of my buddies has earned the nickname "Darth Vaper".

Is the next video going to show the effects of inhaling a block of vaporized floral foam?
*quality weirdness

Wrong, a 100% bioavailability is when a substance is introduced *intravenously* not intramuscularly or subcutaneously.

>> ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.
This is the most common rout - the skin is a major part of the immune system to keep pathogens out. we are exposed to thousands of compounds which trigger immune response and antibody creation each day via he respiratory system.

>>These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain
There is something called the blood brain barrier but nevertheless the pathogen is injected locally as mentioned not systemically.

>>Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?
this is a nonsense statement. the truth is we known very little about autism but while there are association, cause is not clear and the association with vaccines were initiated by a dishonest and discredited 'researcher'

I understand your basic premise but this is cargo cult science at its worse. very sad.
If you would like to learn more about bioavailability and how it's measured there are some good basic books on pharmcodynamics which are quite easy to read.

Our bodies are best at responding to pathogens that enter our system normally - over mucus membranes, through skin contact, and via ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.

Directly injecting pathogens (and a whole host of other known toxins) straight into the bloodstream puts their bioavailability at 100%, instantly. These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain, and all other internal organs, giving the body's almost no chance whatsoever to deal with the invading harmful elements. You can expect to see symptoms manifest in minutes, hours, or days - and this is exactly what you do see in vaccine related injuries.

Aluminum, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other elements we do eat, and are harmless when found embeded in their naturally occurring places. Injecting those refined elements (mixed together with all kinds of other poisons) directly into the bloodstream is no where close to eating un-refind foods that have the same elements bonded to other molecules which render them intert or beneficial.

What is the bioavailability of aluminum found in a banana when eaten?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when the banana is pulverized and injected into the bloodstream?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when it's refined, and no part of the banana except the aluminum is injected directly into the bloodstream?

Their description of the actual affect of the aluminum in particular is incomplete. Aluminum is a known neural disruptor. If it reaches the brain directly (remember, bioavailability is at 100%) the aluminum will disrupt neurons. This may result in some cases in a neural disruption. Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?

This kind of attitude is depressing. It's none of your business what someone does in their spare time when no one else is affected by it. There are functioning alcoholics turning up for work pissed, flying planes, driving buses, teaching children. But no, let's go after the guy who sits in his bedroom playing music with a joint. Let's prevent him from having a life, even if he is self medicating a mental illness. It serves him right - if he's got an illness, he shouldn't be using naturally occurring medicine like our ancestors have for thousands upon thousands of years, no! He should be paying hundreds of pounds to a big pharma company for a pill that they invented a few years ago.

The premise behind drugs testing people is based on many things i disagree with:
1) the spectacular failure of the war of drugs - not only has drug use increased in the timeframe, but it has ruined probably millions of lives, needlessly turning ordinary, hard working people into criminals for no good reason other than "we like this plant, but we don't like this plant, and now neither may you"
2) the origin of the war on drugs - which iirc from a well sourced and produced video on here recently was instigated by a vindictive racist who wanted to go criminalise things that were seen as "black people" pastimes
3) the bias of the war on drugs - where drugs associated with the poor and underprivileged are relentlessly pursued to the detriment of functioning happy families across the world, but drugs associated with rich white folk such as those boardroom jockeys who snort coke in the office bathroom, nah, give them an easy time
4) the american prison business - which demands a steady supply of low cost, low maintenance, low rights workers who have no choice in the matter
5) the spreading of disinformation through formal education/popular media, and lack of actual knowledge or experience of drugs - which has led to a generation of people who now firmly believe that the moment you inhale a particle of THC (or "inject 1 marijuana" to the uninitiated), your brain turns into a fried egg, and you immediately begin stealing, cheating, and peddling dangerous items to children

Some of the brightest and best humans were influenced and inspired by drugs. If i wrote a list of people that i had the greatest respect for and who i considered to have made a positive influence on the world, half of them would almost certainly be drugs users; and i mean scientists, writers and artists. Your philosophy is a detriment to society, but thankfully as the decades pass, there are less and less with that philosophy. I loathe being blunt, but there is nothing worse than someone who feels the need to dictate to others what they should and shouldn't do on the basis of what they personally do or don't approve of.

We might get about 90 years on this planet with a bit of luck - why the hell do the minority spend so much time trying to dictate to the majority what they do with that time? And why do the majority let them? What sort of control fetish is it that inclines people to want to do that?

This guy's life has been fucking ruined by your adopted philosophy towards drugs, and you offer to help him as long as he bends to your will? How magnanimous of you to stoop to gutter level to help a mere drug-addled cretin... I think he'd tell you to stick your job, he's overqualified to work under you.

Damnit man, stop inhaling the bees!

OK, granted. I did word that poorly, and you did address what I wrote.
What I meant was I have not seen a full explanation of the mechanism that is triggered by various (and seemingly sometimes by no) triggers...I have read that it's related to the air gulping that newts and salamanders do when in water, perhaps when transitioning from using gills to lungs, and I think they even said the signal comes from an odd part of the brain for breathing signals, but not why we might still hold on to that trait, or why various things might trigger that trait in mammals who aren't amphibious.
If I had to guess, I would guess it's some sort of anti-drowning trait that stops babies from inhaling too much water, but that's just a guess. I wonder if anyone has done a study/experiment.

That's odd. I keep thinking about having hiccups, and I can't recall a single time I hiccupped while breathing out. Maybe I'm weird. (OK, no maybe about it).

Most likely little doggie is positioning himself to pounce on other little doggies foods once he has inhaled his own.

Only reason Obama appears effective and rational is because the press backs him at every turn. If they treated him like they treated Bush it would be a whole 'nother story.

Regarding that video of Bush from 'ten years ago', I think Bush was attacked so effectively by the press that every time he opened his mouth, all he had in mind was 'how will the press twist what I am about to say'.

Perhaps you could compare how to spoke to how Obama tried to explain how it cost less to treat a person with an 'inhalator or a breathalyzer'. Obama made absolutely no sense because he didn't understand what the fuck he was talking about, and neither did anyone else. Obama also said doctors makes $30,000-50,000 for a leg amputation when in fat they make less than $1500 for a leg amputation. Obama went to Yale, didn't he? He's really not that bright.

Uranium 238 should be pretty safe to touch and carry, in small amounts (I don't know at what size it becomes truly dangerous to the site exposed, especially if left there for any long length of time; I'd guess anything below one pound should be perfectly fine, but for all I know it could be 30 pounds).

You just cannot do this: do not swallow or inhale any of it. Also, if it has very sharp and jagged edges and it cuts you--then a tiny piece gets into your body (then the bloodstream), same problem.

But, at least this version of Uranium isn't too hazardous, but you certainly could poison someone with it. The heavier Isotopes created from Uranium are much more dangerous (I'm sure many are aware of this); like Plutonium (made in the natural environment if nuclear reactions are going on nearby, like a Star).

We created quite a bit of Plutonium back in the day using Uranium (more specifically we used Uranium and Deuterons; Deuterons are gathered from Deuterium, which is "Heavy Hydrogen"; the Deuteron is the nucleus of a Deuterium atom).