drugs for smokers

[nabraxas]

there's a very interesting article & editorial in this weeks new scientist. apparently a couple ov drug producers have brought out drugs, which have been tested, & seem to drastically reduce the amount ov damage smoking does to the lungs.

apparently anti-smoking lobbies & some governments are against them. the editorial criticises such narrow mindedness.

couldn't find the article on-line, but here's a selection ov their latest news stories for you all.

The planned burning of vast swathes of northern Australia every year is meant to safeguard animals - not so, say researchers

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99994236

Oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise, according to a controversial new analysis

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99994216

A viruses transmitted via instant messaging could infect half a million computers in just 30 seconds, suggest new simulations

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99994233

The Ig Nobel awards also rewarded a study of sheep dragging, a report of unspeakable duck behaviour and a dead man who is alive

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99994231

Thousands are dying because of the 'side-effects' of climate change, such as malaria and malnutrition, suggests a WHO study

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99994223

[Auxin]

nabraxas:

drugs, which have been tested, & seem to drastically reduce the amount ov damage smoking does to the lungs.

apparently anti-smoking lobbies & some governments are against them.

Of course the anti-smoking cult is against them, they would greatly reduce the damage done to smokers and thus take much of the ammunition away from the anti-smoking activists. The majority of anti-smoking people arent trying to save lives- they are just looking to fight people that do something they find distastefull.

Did it mention the names of any of the drugs? Maby I could find out some info.

[gomaos]

The majority of anti-smoking people arent trying to save lives- they are just looking to fight people that do something they find distastefull.

Yep.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Just another case of:

"You can't do that because WE don't want you to.

It's for your own good to oppress you."

Too many people believe into that sort of thing...

[nabraxas]

as the editorial points out, what about the bar staff, waiters, musicians etc, who don't smoke but would benefit from the drugs?

are governments going to allow passive smokers to suffer because of the aggression ov the anti-smoking lobby?

the article goes into abit ov depth on the actions ov the drugs--but i can't remember the names ov the chemicals involved--sorry auxin.

i was talking to a friend & he reminded me ov a friend who was in hospital after a serious car crash & he took part in a trial ov a drug that made him "vomit" the black shit out ov his lungs.

months later, the first friend had seen an advert for a Blackmores product in the Herald Sun which claimed to do the same, so he went to a Blackmores supplier, only to be told that the product had been removed from sale virtually immediately. does anyone know anything 'bout that?

[coin]

some sort of lobelia preparation?

[t st tantra]

l-cysteine is a precurser for glutathione[peroxidase] an enzyme containing selenium.

also methionine and taurine.

these are the sulphur containing amino acids.

taurine may have side effects though of depressant effect on cns, and adverse effects on short-term memory.

thats my guess!

t s t .

[Thelema]

i have been taking 2000mg of taurine a day for the last week. It definitely does not have a depressive effect, in that it makes one feel agitated and grumpy. It feels quite different from depress.

I believe it binds a little to the GABA system?

[theobromos]

Why should a waiter (and all the other customers/workers) have to take a drug that may have side-effects and is unlikely to provide 100% protection against the harmful effects of smoke? Probably 30 to 70% at best for a pharmaceutical (or nutrient supplement if it is cysteine). Isn't it simpler to hang, draw and quarter... errr I mean persuade the smoker to cut down their intake in public areas? Are these people so sad and compulsive they have to chainsmoke everywhere? Can't they enjoy the delicate fragrances of food, drink and gardens?

I am not against smoking, it has its place and feeds the manitou (each exhalation takes a little of your life and gives it to the manitou, who are very grateful). But it is a choice that should be taken by each person and not enforced on anyone who happens to be in the same airspace.

[nabraxas]

i agree w/what you're saying theo, but what about venues where smoking is a part ov the scene- pubs & clubs etc?

should workers there be denied the right to protect themselves?

[FragmentedSanity]

It would be nice to see us have a CHOICE about taking such a drug/supplement at least. As for bar workers and such - as said smoking is part of the scene, and in my view they already accepted that they are going to breath smoky air by taking and keeping the job. No one these days is ignorant of the dangers of smoking/passive smoke - so if you knowingly put yourself in a situation where youll be around it, you simply have to accept the choice you made.

IN the same line of thinking I think it should be up to individual businesses as to whether they allow smoking in their establishment - rather than systematically reducing the places where one can do so if they wish. Of course that shifts the responsibility back to the individual.... but governments seem afraid to let individuals choose much at all. Imagine a world where we could think for ourselves!