No oils should be in properly made nicotine vape juice…but there is glycerin that comes from vegetable oil and often still contains oils, propylene glycol that’s not safe to breathe, sugars, formaldehyde, acroline (used in herbicides/damages DNA), unregulated “flavorings” and more, all of which are carcinogenic when heated.
Also, there’s plenty of fly by night nicotine vape juice makers that use whatever smokes, including massage oil in some cases.

The only way to be SURE what’s in it is to make your own from ingredients you either produce or vet well. Don’t buy it by the gallon on eBay or Craigslist.

As I mentioned above, I vape live rosen, which has zero additives and is simply heat pressed from fresh flowers. I’m not saying that’s healthy, but it is free of all carcinogenic man made chemical adulterants unlike ANY nicotine or most cannabis juices, and free of nearly all cellulose unlike plain tobacco or marijuana.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

Odd how the the timing coincides with the release of IQOS in the USA. That is a totally bizarre and inexplicable machine without the knowledge that it was engineered by lawyers: "We need to get into that non-combustable category somehow, but it also has to be a tobacco product."

Let me drop a few quotes from teh report here

"1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute"

Or, like i have to keep reminding my dad, yes they didn't find "collusion" because there's no legal definition for it and they were never looking for it. They were looking for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Exaggerating what exactly? All I'm doing is repeating the WHO and WCRF lines of.
"DON'T EAT PROCESSED MEAT, IT CAUSES CANCER" it's a bit hard to exaggerate such a clear message.

Incessant worrying not required, you simply leave it off your shopping list like you do with asbestos, radioactive materials, and tobacco.

People aren't dying by the millions from worrying about risk factors. But they are dying from preventable forms of heart-disease and cancer. This is no joke.

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

Side-note: I would have thought that the smoking is the problem. Regardless of whether you're smoking weed or tobacco, it's going to affect lung function.

I don't know much about those gardening tools and how it relates to sex and video hits or how cool you may or may not be but, I do know that if you don't down vote this video... *squints eyes and spits tobacco on the ground* you ain't nuthin' but a pansy to me. *wipes mouth on shirt sleeve and waits in awkward silence for your decision*

I think it can be linked more to tobacco being a carcinogen. While smoking 'anything' may cause other issues with your respiratory system (bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, etc), smoking a carcinogen means you are exposing cells to a substance that can alter their genome.

An easier comparison would be chewing gum and nicotine gum. Since nicotine is a carcinogen, you run the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat, and gums by chewing the gum. Regular chewing gum does not contain a carcinogen, so it wouldn't affect you in that way.

As far as the smoke itself, I know that cigarette smoke has additional carcinogens other than nicotine. I do not know if these transfer to weed simply because it is smoked as well. One would assume you could bypass this, just in case, by vaping or using edibles.

I wondered if your use of the past tense should be taken to mean that they are no longer in business, so I googled. It appears that they are still going.

Interesting stuff in the Wikipedia article. It notes that the Surgeon General warnings about tobacco still apply, and in fact they have to include a disclaimer that says "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".

So now I guess I'm back to being surprised and a bit suspicious about the lack of evidence for smoked marijuana causing cancer, as opposed to tobacco being very clearly linked to cancer...

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

Daaaaaaaamn! I ain't been "You're the wizard stoned" in AGES!

Every now and then, I get a little misty-eye'd for the days of yore when ultra-high-grade pot wasn't available at every corner store.

I recall the days of lurking narcs in city parks; being out in the middle of a drought; going to a head shop to buy a bong then getting kicked out 'cuz I asked for it wrong (the magic word was "Tobacco", not "pot", you twat!)

The pot was stemmy, the sellers seedy, and I didn't care because I was hella needy.

But once a year, just 'fore November, would come the time I most remember because it was in those shortening days when I'd hear a rumor of Purple Haze, Ghost Train OG -- I'd be stoned for DAYS! Finally, the good stuff came from coastal plots, a plethora of the finest pots; time to dance and restore my stash: shit, I might even score some HASH!

My friends would come by and we'd all get high, never aware of time passing us by. We laughed, we munched, we floated along with hits from the joints and pulls from the bong. We never imagined dabs or wax, we were satisfied with bud: nothing wrong with those facts.

Now I buy an a gram or two -- Dirty Girl; Gorilla Glue -- and satisfied that my wife's in bed, I once again become a Head. I remember all those days gone by when there was no greater goal than just getting high. I recall them fondly -- if somewhat hazy -- and know that life without pot is just a little too crazy.

The problem is that this health care cost is so small, when you compare it their other health care costs.

DoD spent 1.9 billion on tobacco-related health care issues in 2009. I think that is more than the cost of health care for transgender troops.

They currently spend more on Viagra ($41.6m) than on health care for transgender troops ($8.4m).

Can't argue that. I've been in California so long that the idea of smoking inside a business didn't even occur to me. The 'in private homes with children and apartments or townhouses' part I find draconian and unenforceable...and we have them here.
On a side note, I also find it distasteful that cigars get lumped in with cigarettes. As far as I know, there have been few if any studies on second hand cigar smoke, which has none of the toxic additives most cigarettes have so produce a different smoke. I'm not saying it's good for you, just that it hasn't been proven to be the same kind of toxicity....yet they are now taxed the same here, doubling the price overnight. (If you can't tell, I'm bitter, I can't afford them now)

True, cars have far more utility (except to tobacco farmers) but are also far more damaging in many ways. It's not meant to be a logical argument, it's more about getting people to see that they also pollute the air (a normal complaint I hear about smokers) in a directly more deadly and indirectly disastrous way, and I hope they will consider that before angrily deriding someone for a cigarette. It's a disguised 'people in glass houses' argument.

Sadly, yes, smoking is an easy target today....alcohol could be tomorrow, or marijuana again (just became legal here)....I don't like our governments going after the easy targets heavy handedly just because they can. It's too easy to portray something or someone as an easy target and go after it solely because a small persuasive group finds it distasteful.

To play devils advocate, there are a few positive sides to smoking...smoking tastes good (to smokers), it acts as a stimulant/depressant and appetite suppressor, it supports an industry of farmers and for cigars, hand rollers, and it helps thin out the herd. ;-)

What are you talking about? The people who argued that tobacco was safe are the exact same people that now argue climate change isn't real, isn't caused by humans. They are in the small minority of scientists that say it isn't happening, and they can all be ignored as they aren't climate scientists. When it comes to discussions on climate, you only pay attention to what research comes from those who's job it is to study it. If you had 90 brain surgeons saying to remove a tumor from your brain, but a podiatrist said, don't worry, you wouldn't listen to the podiatrist. Science is the same. Now among those climate scientists you have a 97% consensus that the primary cause in the uptick (uptick being a keyword, as it is not from baseline, but up from the expected natural rise, and that uptick is HUGE) in the undeniable warming of the planet, is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. There is no denying that climate change is real, there's no denying it is primarily caused by humans, there's no denying it will have a huge impact on billions of people. It is the idiot who doesn't believe that it is real.

Now I'd agree that some of the comments may seem extreme, and said suggestions may not be the best. That is an argument best left for a show like Utopia, a rather great show that sadly didn't make it to a second season. However, there a billions of lives at risk if we don't act soon on halting climate change. Perhaps not billions of lives conservatives care about, as they are poor, third and second world lives, but lives none the less. Droughts will get worse, deserts will expand, hurricanes will increase, tornadoes will increase, hotter hots, and colder colds, there are a ton of changes coming that will make it harder on the poorest of people, people who can't adapt as quickly as the top few percent in the US.

Should people have concern about wars, and the conservative powers that be that love them? Yes, and those issues have been raised by many scientists, especially the big name ones who appear on TV. However, you can't ignore the wars that will start if we don't fight climate change either. Resources will become scarce, and this will cause conflicts that may eventually embroil the US, a concern that the US military has over climate change... this may be why conservatives ignore it, because nothing makes conservatives more happy than murdering people via war. You want to stop war, then stooping climate change has to be a huge priority.

Despite the wars, we are still at the most peaceful time in all history. Yes, we need to do more. Moving off fossil fuels alone would stop a lot of the wars, as that's why the US has an interest in the region. If we could stop giving a fuck about oil, and the US oil market, then we'd have less reason to pick a side on which form of Islam is best for US interests... which of course is why the US was targeted in the first place (that, and our unwavering support of Israel's illegal actions).

Also, it's not like anyone has said climate change should be our only concern. As I already said, all the wars has been brought up many times, as has the conservatives love of giving weapons to those most responsible for the 9/11 attacks, while blaming others for stuff they never did. And, as I've said, those concerns have been repeated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others who appear on TV, and are well known with the public. Other issues that many scientists in the public eye have been brought up beyond wars: the potential for global pandemics; the idiots not getting vaccinations for their children, for unfounded fears that were proven false; the need for clean drinking water in poor regions; the lack of concern for real science education, and many many other subjects are brought to the public's attention via their social channels, books, talks, or other means. When they are on TV, that is the subject the media pretends there's a debate about though, so if the media at large is all that one pays attention to, then yes, that would seem to be the only subject of concern. The TLDR of this is that they have brought up many concerns beyond just climate change, blame the media for not spreading their other concerns.