6 ms·

Cannabis part of the future says tobacco giant

23 points by pmoriarty 5y ago

eurasiantiger 5y ago
It’s ridiculous how we are still keeping up the nicotine equals tobacco equals nicotine myth. It is perpetuated everywhere, just like the coffee equals caffeine equals coffee myth. Nicotine is nearly harmless, it is the other psychoactives in tobacco that cause dependence; damage is done by particulates and tar in the hot smoke. However, nicotine is also well known, so it is a good patsy. A distraction, if you will.
mobilemidget 5y ago
Lots need to happen and change in regulations and law around the world before it can be seen as a future I reckon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mandmandam 5y ago
While some may see this as a positive, I think it's of utmost importance to remember what this industry did to the world. They didn't just lie their way into massive profits at the cost of millions, and millions, and millions of lives. They developed systematic FUD that has since been adopted by such lovely people as the oil and pharma industries. I want them kept well the fuck away from cannabis. There's no need for them and their horror. Basically anyone can grow a cannabis plant, it's not like tobacco. Why trust these people to get involved in any way whatsoever. Get them and their blood money the fuck off the planet. Let's remember that they are still advertising to children in parts of the world, among other atrocities.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "anyone can grow a cannabis plant" But most people probably don't want to any more than they want to grow anything else they consume. Most people just want convenience, and a professionally made (and marketed) product. They go for the brands and packaging of commercially made cannabis. A minority of users will grow their own, but it's very unlikely the majority ever will. That said, I agree we don't need the tobacco industry (or any other large corporation) getting in to selling cannabis. But they probably will no matter what we think. Ideally users would form cooperatives and the cooperative would grow enough to share among their members for free. But that's probably not going to happen on a large scale. Second best is a commercial market made up of local businesses, while keeping big corporations (including big tobacco) out. But that's probably not going to happen either. For good or ill, big corps (including big tobacco) are going to be part of the cannabis market for the foreseeable future.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    You raise some valid points. All the more reason to remind people exactly how evil those companies are, regularly and loudly. I'll say this though: I don't think tobacco companies would win in a fair fight, and I don't think they have any intention of fighting on level ground. They will bribe lawmakers, try to bring in regulation that cuts out private / small growers, and quite possibly do worse. They might add chemicals to enhance addictive qualities, they might shortcut steps and mask the results with chemicals, etc etc.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Hmm. If some very basic conditions are met, they more or less grow by themselves. Like crazy. The complicated thing is the right harvest/drying. Besides that I like how they look and smell, and would have no trouble to integrate them into my other plants. Even without smoking them! :-)
- throwawayyyyyqw 5y ago
  Yes, they are literal cancer.
- dagw 5y ago
  Agreed. One of my big fears with legalized weed (or drugs in general) is seeing global tobacco and drug companies putting billion dollar marketing campaigns behind trying to get more people addicted to said drugs. We've seen the damage these companies can do with just nicotine, now just imagine the damage they can do with a much bigger pallet of drugs to play with.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    On the contrary, they do more damage by claiming it’s nicotine that does the damage! They claim it is the nicotine that drives addiction and physical harm, but it is not nicotine doing it — rather, it is heterocyclic aromatic amines and other psychoactives acting as monoamine oxidase inhibitors.
Valmar 5y ago
Of course, because they want to monopolize growing and selling of it, just like they did with tobacco.
jhoechtl 5y ago
While I do think that the stigmatisation of cannabis has to come to an end, I am very uncertain what a widespread adoption would mean to our society. I would rather see students rage against an uncertain future as was the case in the 1968 instead of quiet acceptance due to the influence of cannabis. I am anxious it is a measure to keep the masses silent.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  There was a ton of cannabis use throughout the 60's, and it was widely associated with mass protest back then. In fact, that was probably one of the main reasons it was made illegal. On the other hand, cannabis (like every other drug) does not necessarily lead people to think or act a certain way. A huge part of its effect depends on set and setting. The culture around cannabis use probably influences how people act on it much more than the drug itself.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Why do you think taking drugs makes people complacent?
  - vkou 5y ago
    Cannabis isn't exactly a stimulant. Have enough, and all you'll want to do is eat junk food and sit on the couch all day.
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      You are perpetuating a stereotype, loudly exclaiming ”this poster has no clue what they’re writing about”.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "Cannabis isn't exactly a stimulant." I've read of psychological studies where people were told they were given THC while being told it was a stimulant, and the users reported stimulant effects and acted as if they were given a stimulant. The mind is a powerful thing.
tudorw 5y ago
Often they don't sell raw tobacco, they add quite a lot, https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_051.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/d... First group (CMR properties in the unburnt form, sorted by content/frequency plus menthol, characterised by different pharmacological effects): • Titanium dioxide • Maltol • Diacetyl • Geraniol • Guaiacol • 2-furfural • Menthol Second group (giving rise to chemicals with CMR properties after combustion sorted by their content/frequency): • Cellulose • Sugars • Caramel colours • Natural extracts in decreasing ranking according to the NL list: guar gum, rum, fig extract, fenugreek, plum extract, carob bean extracts) Third group (the remaining additives in the priority list sorted by their content/frequency; additives falling in more than one category (in bold) were placed on top of the group) • Cocoa • Piperonal • Benzaldehyde/benzoic acid/sodium benzoate (Benzoic acid as representative) • Benzyl alcohol • Liquorice • Phenylacetic acid • Linalool • Humectants (Propylene glycol, Sorbitol, Glycerol; Propylene glycol can be taken as the representative one) • Vanillin • Aliphatic gamma-lactones (short chain length: octa-lactone; long chain length: undeca-lactone) • Weak organic acids (citrate can be used as representative compound) • Acetanisole • β-Damascone • Ammonium compounds https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lk37egfoiBoC&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=%22British+American+Tobacco%22+castoreum&source=bl&ots=Gj-gdcPRhX&sig=ACfU3U2KaG-o1iwr7vApbTj4GzqbHpSSyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihuPb8wIXyAhUknVwKHf0hCgcQ6AEwD3oECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=%22British%20American%20Tobacco%22%20castoreum&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lk37egfoiBoC&pg=PA495&lp...
- peanut_worm 5y ago
  The odd part is that if you smoke a cigarette with no additives, the difference is barely noticeable. I wonder why they feel the need to add so many additives for such a minuscule effect
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    I noticed a number of differences myself: First, my smokers cough went from extremely bad to quite mild when I switched to raw tobacco. The smell also dissipated much quicker with raw; it didn't leave that mephitic ass-miasma like the chemical tobacco did. After smoking raw for a while, I could taste the difference. No joke. It's like quitting sugar; you taste it more after, and it's not exactly pleasant. In fact my sense of smell and taste improved overall. Finally, it was easier to quit from raw compared to chemical. Very subjective, but I stand by it. Tobacco companies are prohibited from advertising raw as in any way healthier, and I get that. But like, surely it's obvious that cancer stuff + more cancer stuff is worse than just cancer stuff. The fact that we don't have any numbers on this (at least that I could ever find) is highly suspicious to me; surely that would be something worth working on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

23 points by pmoriarty 5y ago

It’s ridiculous how we are still keeping up the nicotine equals tobacco equals nicotine myth. It is perpetuated everywhere, just like the coffee equals caffeine equals coffee myth. Nicotine is nearly harmless, it is the other psychoactives in tobacco that cause dependence; damage is done by particulates and tar in the hot smoke. However, nicotine is also well known, so it is a good patsy. A distraction, if you will.

mobilemidget 5y ago

Lots need to happen and change in regulations and law around the world before it can be seen as a future I reckon.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mandmandam 5y ago

While some may see this as a positive, I think it's of utmost importance to remember what this industry did to the world. They didn't just lie their way into massive profits at the cost of millions, and millions, and millions of lives. They developed systematic FUD that has since been adopted by such lovely people as the oil and pharma industries. I want them kept well the fuck away from cannabis. There's no need for them and their horror. Basically anyone can grow a cannabis plant, it's not like tobacco. Why trust these people to get involved in any way whatsoever. Get them and their blood money the fuck off the planet. Let's remember that they are still advertising to children in parts of the world, among other atrocities.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"anyone can grow a cannabis plant" But most people probably don't want to any more than they want to grow anything else they consume. Most people just want convenience, and a professionally made (and marketed) product. They go for the brands and packaging of commercially made cannabis. A minority of users will grow their own, but it's very unlikely the majority ever will. That said, I agree we don't need the tobacco industry (or any other large corporation) getting in to selling cannabis. But they probably will no matter what we think. Ideally users would form cooperatives and the cooperative would grow enough to share among their members for free. But that's probably not going to happen on a large scale. Second best is a commercial market made up of local businesses, while keeping big corporations (including big tobacco) out. But that's probably not going to happen either. For good or ill, big corps (including big tobacco) are going to be part of the cannabis market for the foreseeable future.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  You raise some valid points. All the more reason to remind people exactly how evil those companies are, regularly and loudly. I'll say this though: I don't think tobacco companies would win in a fair fight, and I don't think they have any intention of fighting on level ground. They will bribe lawmakers, try to bring in regulation that cuts out private / small growers, and quite possibly do worse. They might add chemicals to enhance addictive qualities, they might shortcut steps and mask the results with chemicals, etc etc.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Hmm. If some very basic conditions are met, they more or less grow by themselves. Like crazy. The complicated thing is the right harvest/drying. Besides that I like how they look and smell, and would have no trouble to integrate them into my other plants. Even without smoking them! :-)
throwawayyyyyqw 5y ago
Yes, they are literal cancer.
dagw 5y ago
Agreed. One of my big fears with legalized weed (or drugs in general) is seeing global tobacco and drug companies putting billion dollar marketing campaigns behind trying to get more people addicted to said drugs. We've seen the damage these companies can do with just nicotine, now just imagine the damage they can do with a much bigger pallet of drugs to play with.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  On the contrary, they do more damage by claiming it’s nicotine that does the damage! They claim it is the nicotine that drives addiction and physical harm, but it is not nicotine doing it — rather, it is heterocyclic aromatic amines and other psychoactives acting as monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Valmar 5y ago

Of course, because they want to monopolize growing and selling of it, just like they did with tobacco.

jhoechtl 5y ago

While I do think that the stigmatisation of cannabis has to come to an end, I am very uncertain what a widespread adoption would mean to our society. I would rather see students rage against an uncertain future as was the case in the 1968 instead of quiet acceptance due to the influence of cannabis. I am anxious it is a measure to keep the masses silent.

pmoriarty 5y ago
There was a ton of cannabis use throughout the 60's, and it was widely associated with mass protest back then. In fact, that was probably one of the main reasons it was made illegal. On the other hand, cannabis (like every other drug) does not necessarily lead people to think or act a certain way. A huge part of its effect depends on set and setting. The culture around cannabis use probably influences how people act on it much more than the drug itself.
bamboozled 5y ago
Why do you think taking drugs makes people complacent?
- vkou 5y ago
  Cannabis isn't exactly a stimulant. Have enough, and all you'll want to do is eat junk food and sit on the couch all day.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    You are perpetuating a stereotype, loudly exclaiming ”this poster has no clue what they’re writing about”.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "Cannabis isn't exactly a stimulant." I've read of psychological studies where people were told they were given THC while being told it was a stimulant, and the users reported stimulant effects and acted as if they were given a stimulant. The mind is a powerful thing.

tudorw 5y ago

Often they don't sell raw tobacco, they add quite a lot, https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_051.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/d... First group (CMR properties in the unburnt form, sorted by content/frequency plus menthol, characterised by different pharmacological effects): • Titanium dioxide • Maltol • Diacetyl • Geraniol • Guaiacol • 2-furfural • Menthol Second group (giving rise to chemicals with CMR properties after combustion sorted by their content/frequency): • Cellulose • Sugars • Caramel colours • Natural extracts in decreasing ranking according to the NL list: guar gum, rum, fig extract, fenugreek, plum extract, carob bean extracts) Third group (the remaining additives in the priority list sorted by their content/frequency; additives falling in more than one category (in bold) were placed on top of the group) • Cocoa • Piperonal • Benzaldehyde/benzoic acid/sodium benzoate (Benzoic acid as representative) • Benzyl alcohol • Liquorice • Phenylacetic acid • Linalool • Humectants (Propylene glycol, Sorbitol, Glycerol; Propylene glycol can be taken as the representative one) • Vanillin • Aliphatic gamma-lactones (short chain length: octa-lactone; long chain length: undeca-lactone) • Weak organic acids (citrate can be used as representative compound) • Acetanisole • β-Damascone • Ammonium compounds https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lk37egfoiBoC&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=%22British+American+Tobacco%22+castoreum&source=bl&ots=Gj-gdcPRhX&sig=ACfU3U2KaG-o1iwr7vApbTj4GzqbHpSSyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihuPb8wIXyAhUknVwKHf0hCgcQ6AEwD3oECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=%22British%20American%20Tobacco%22%20castoreum&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lk37egfoiBoC&pg=PA495&lp...

peanut_worm 5y ago
The odd part is that if you smoke a cigarette with no additives, the difference is barely noticeable. I wonder why they feel the need to add so many additives for such a minuscule effect
- mandmandam 5y ago
  I noticed a number of differences myself: First, my smokers cough went from extremely bad to quite mild when I switched to raw tobacco. The smell also dissipated much quicker with raw; it didn't leave that mephitic ass-miasma like the chemical tobacco did. After smoking raw for a while, I could taste the difference. No joke. It's like quitting sugar; you taste it more after, and it's not exactly pleasant. In fact my sense of smell and taste improved overall. Finally, it was easier to quit from raw compared to chemical. Very subjective, but I stand by it. Tobacco companies are prohibited from advertising raw as in any way healthier, and I get that. But like, surely it's obvious that cancer stuff + more cancer stuff is worse than just cancer stuff. The fact that we don't have any numbers on this (at least that I could ever find) is highly suspicious to me; surely that would be something worth working on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]