Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, and The Doctrine of Rights.

For the past week or so I’ve been getting more and more steamed up about NYC councillor Peter Koo’s proposal to ban smoking while walking on New York’s streets.

It’s seems to me to check every box in the list of the characteristics of bad laws.

It’s got me thinking seriously of throwing the whole weight of my blog behind an attempt to stop this dreadful proposal ever becoming law.

But during the same week other worrisome developments have been reported, that might well have had the same effect on me, but didn’t. For example, the FDA’s plans to slash the nicotine content of cigarettes – about which I’ve said nothing.

Why my burning interest in one, but not the other?

And I suppose my lack of interest in the FDA’s nicotine plan simply reflects my lack of interest in chemistry. I’m not a ‘chemical’ thinker. In my school days, I was pretty good at maths and physics, but never really any good at all at chemistry. And I think that was because all chemical compounds had really complicated names like potassium permanganate or sodium hydroxide, and chemical equations between these compounds would produce a new set of compounds with equally exotic names. And you just had to remember that potassium permanganate and sodium hydroxide produced lead oxide and ferrous chloride, or whatever. It made no sense in the way that mathematical or physical equations made sense. Twenty years later I came across something called Physical Chemistry which explained chemical bonds and reactions in physical terms, and I remember thinking that if I’d been taught chemistry that way, I might have actually understood it. But I wasn’t, and I didn’t.

Someone I knew once said, “We’re all just chemical processes anyway.” And lots of people seem to think that way, and are always adding supplementary chemical compounds to their diets. But I never bother. Because I don’t think I’m a chemical process: I think I’m a physical process. I thinking I’m a physical object with a height and weight and temperature and walking speed, powered by the energy stored in the food I eat.

And in respect of nicotine in tobacco, I never think about it. I never think that smoking cigarettes is giving me a “nicotine fix.” I don’t see that nicotine is the only active ingredient of tobacco smoke. I’m with the late Lauren Colby who wrote: “The active ingredient of tobacco smoke… is smoke.”

I’m not even very sure about the idea of an “active ingredient” in anything. If you’re listening to a symphony, with violins and flutes and clarinets and all the rest of them, is it possible to pick one instrument, and say that’s the “active ingredient” in the music that makes it good to hear? I don’t think it is.

Anyway, I’m not a ‘chemical’ thinker. Just like listening to Jordan Peterson a few weeks or months back reminded me that I’m not a ‘psychological’ thinker. I don’t employ psychological language. I simply don’t understand, for example, what words like “neurotic” or “psychotic” or “psychopathic” mean.

All my ideas are physical ideas. Or rather mathematical-physical ideas. My latest Dress Theory of Ice Ages is a very simple physical idea that derives from my time, 40 years ago, as a university research assistant constructing electronic analogue models of heat flow in buildings. Idle Theory is also a mathematical-physical idea which dates from the same era. The Orbital Siphon that is the subject of the only ‘scientific’ paper I’ve ever written is another mathematical-physical idea.  Because those are the kind of ideas that make sense to me, and seem to have an internal logic to them that other ideas don’t.

And I’m not a ‘rights’ thinker either. I was listening to Doug Hagmann yesterday talking about his “God-given right to bear arms,” and while I knew what he was talking about, I would not myself have invoked either a) God, or b) Rights, in defence of bearing arms. Because if the US Bill of Rights asserts (as I believe it does) a “Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then I for one do not think that I have a right to any of those things. I’m going to die fairly soon, so how can I claim any right to life? And I’m inclined to think that the world is too full of people who think they have a right to any number of things that I don’t think they have any right to at all. And so I’m inclined to turn the argument from rights on its head and say: You have No Rights. You have No Right to confiscate my gun. You have No Right to ban smoking. You have No Right to remove nicotine from tobacco. You have No Right to reduce the salt and sugar and alcohol and fat content in my food and drink.

The supreme arrogance of Peter Koo is that he thinks he has a perfect right to take away the freedom of New Yorkers to smoke cigarettes while they’re strolling or walking along its streets. Maybe he thinks he has that right because he was elected as a councillor in NYC council, and that’s made him into a little god among all the other 50 little gods in NYC’s council. And I don’t think he has any such right.

And with that I come full circle back to the issue that I’ve become rather fixated on over that past week.



About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, and The Doctrine of Rights.

  1. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Venerable anti smoking bullies veteran the renowned Audrey Silk could perhaps receive all the vituperation against the authoritarian Peter Koo from your blog and contributors, and consolidate it into a large ball of dung to suffocate him with the weight of his own intolerance… Embarrassment on the wide world of web with a side order of lawsuit might stop the meddling Poo er Koo bugger.💩

  2. Rose says:

    I am relaxed about the reduction of nicotine in cigarettes too, if we all go on smoking it will prove once and for all, that nicotine is not addictive and that smoking is a habit.
    The science is with me on this if not the ideology and subsequent propaganda.

    • RdM says:

      Should we not consider smoking as a pleasure, rather than a mere (easily deprecated!) “habit”, and acknowledge and celebrate that, as in fine coffees wines, whiskies et al?

      • RdM says:

        A chosen pleasure, after initial tastings… thus giving the lie to “addiction” theories.
        Sure it’s something one might not want to “give up” later, choice of realised benefits.
        Some do, some don’t.

        I Heard an Angel

        I heard an Angel singing
        When the day was springing
        Mercy Pity Peace
        Is the worlds release

        Thus he sung all day
        Over the new mown hay
        Till the sun went down
        And haycocks looked brown

        I heard a Devil curse
        Over the heath & the furze
        Mercy could be no more
        If there was nobody poor

        And pity no more could be
        If all were as happy as we
        At his curse the sun went down
        And the heavens gave a frown

        Down pourd the heavy rain
        Over the new reapd grain
        And Miseries increase
        Is Mercy Pity Peace

      • Rose says:

        Oh yes indeed.

        If you have a strong stomach, see how they tried to reduce the pleasures of tobacco to just one natural substance.

        “There is little doubt that some substance in tobacco smoke or the act of smoking leads to habituation in many people. The experiments to be described were conducted in an effort to determine whether a similar type of habituation could be demonstrated in animals, and whether nicotine might be the substance involved.”

    • RdM says:

      But you won’t be getting the benefits of the nicotine any more, and the natural balance of the “whole tobacco alkaloids” (look that up!) will be out of kilter…

      No, I think the whole artificial concept of reducing nicotine in tobacco by GM for supposed “health” purposes, but really driven by money patents and potential profits
      (driven by )
      (see also*/ )

      should be vigorously rejected!!! And submitted against! …

      On the one hand, you have some slightly sensible people in Tobacco Control acknowledging that nicotine is not the danger, or dangerous in itself, after all they provide NRT products, but it’s the ‘toxic’ byproducts of smoking the rest that ‘does the damage’ – and then without batting an eyelid, this other group are proposing to mandate tobacco without nicotine… so… you smoke all the ‘dangerous’ stuff without any ‘satisfaction’?

      It’s misconceived and dangerous madness, money driven, and should be resisted, IMO.

      Sure, mere nicotine alone is unsatisfying, although it may take ‘the edge’ off abstinence a bit as may vapers acknowledge now, and WTA products are coming to market.

      If this company gets hold of the FDA with their idea, it’ll really spoil natural tobacco.

      Ruination. Oh, they’re already calculating for the idea that some will want to add extracted nicotine to their GM engineered VLNC products… read the proposals …

      Walt Cody posted up a first link, then a second… I actually think the first relevant too.
      Even perhaps more so.

      But with only two links per post, that;s it for now…

      If they are enabled to get away with this, and not shot down in flames for the nonsense that it is, it will likely be taken up worldwide… like AntiTobacco SkyNet …

      There’ll be the Enforcement and the Resistance…

      Yet elsewhere we have celebrations of craft beers, wines, all sorts of boutique agricultural productions that have been lovingly cultivated and nurtured and (like tobacco) have been so for hundreds of years, to the benefit of humanity, and those enjoying in particular.

      There must be as many tobacco cultivars as grapes, so many, all unique…

      You want to allow this to all be destroyed to be replaced with a GM crop?

      With variable nicotine dialed in?
      One crop for the peasants, another for the nomenklatura?
      Peasants grow their own in resistance, punitive State actions ensue?

      Or maybe, just challenge this at the intellectual level, while submissions are called for!

      To be taken up later, one might hope…
      There are still some weeks left for submissions.
      So you need background research. (!)

      xxiicentury have changed their tune on their homepage if you look back, but as I’ve written before, they were also promoting high nicotine Red Sun high nicotine genetically engineered tobacco brand to the fun crowd (very astutely, IMO) at the same time they were promoting the VLNC ones to the “scientists’ or er ah “researchers” and etc.

      It’s a rort. It should be deconstructed exposed and resisted strongly, emphatically.
      And if it’s allowed to spread across the whole world, it’ll be like a dystopian sci-fi (or as called now more often, speculative) fiction novel …

      All those involved have skin, money, in the game.
      Can truth win out when it goes to Government?

      Will the People’s submissions be heard, read, counted?

      Will people even make submissions, when they’re invited to be heard???

      Links later…

  3. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Nicotine means nothing to me either. My pleasure is derived from the aroma of burning tobacco. In any case now you can’t see the nicotine levels on packaged tobacco.

    • RdM says:

      Or is it from the other ingredients in tobacco as well?

      • Rose says:

        Whole Tobacco Alkaloids – A Bit of History
        “Imagine a tobacco extraction that instead of purifying to just nicotine, purifies to the tobacco alkaloids. All the thousands of extra chemicals are gone, but all the alkaloids (including presumably the MAOI’s) remain.”

        But what set me looking in other directions was Dr Siegel’s outrage at this, which I found very informative, probably not the way he saw it –

        New Study Shows that De-Nicotinized Cigarettes Deliver Substantial Nicotine to the Brain; Claims that FDA Bill Will End Addiction are Unfounded

        Importantly, the deal struck by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Philip Morris has a provision that precludes the FDA from eliminating the nicotine. It can lower the levels, but it cannot eliminate the nicotine entirely. New evidence published in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology sheds light on why Philip Morris may have insisted on this loophole in the legislation.

        The new study found that even de-nicotinized cigarettes, which contain only a trace amount of nicotine, deliver a substantial dose of nicotine to the brain and that this level of nicotine is sufficient to occupy a substantial proportion of nicotine receptors in the brain (see: Brody AL, et al. Brain nicotinic acetylcholine receptor occupancy: effect of smoking a denicotinized cigarette.
        International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.

        According to the article, the smoking of a de-nicotinized cigarette resulted in 26% of the nicotine receptors in the brain being occupied, compared to 79% with a low-nicotine cigarette and 88% with a regular cigarette.”

        Notice especially how the Doctor changes nicotinic receptor to nicotine receptor for his blog post.

        I think the MAOI the vaper was looking for was found during the search for a preventative treatment for Parkinson’s. I’ll put the links further down the page.

        • Rose says:

          Brain nicotinic acetylcholine receptor occupancy: effect of smoking a denicotinized cigarette.
          Brody AL

          “Our group recently reported that smoking a regular cigarette (1.2-1.4 mg nicotine) resulted in 88% occupancy of brain alpha4beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs).

          However, this study did not determine whether nicotine inhalation or the many other pharmacological and behavioural factors that occur during smoking resulted in this receptor occupancy.

          If nicotine is solely responsible for alpha4beta2 nAChR occupancy from smoking, then (as estimated from our previous data) smoking a denicotinized (0.05 mg nicotine) or a low-nicotine (0.6 mg nicotine) cigarette (commonly used for research and clinical purposes) would result in substantial 23% and 78% alpha4beta2 nAChR occupancies, respectively, and a plasma nicotine concentration of 0.87 ng/ml would result in 50% alpha4beta2* nAChR occupancy (EC50).

          Twenty-four positron emission tomography sessions were performed on tobacco-dependent smokers, using 2-[F-18]fluoro-A-85380 (2-FA), a radiotracer that binds to alpha4beta2 nAChRs. 2-FA displacement was determined from before to 3.1 hours after either: no smoking, smoking a denicotinized cigarette, or smoking a low-nicotine cigarette.

          Analysis of this PET data revealed that smoking a denicotinized and a low-nicotine cigarette resulted in 26% and 79% alpha4beta* nAChR occupancies, respectively, across three regions of interest. The EC50 determined from this dataset was 0.75 ng/ml. Given the consistency of findings between our previous study with regular cigarettes and the present study, nicotine inhalation during smoking appears to be solely responsible for alpha4beta2 nAChR occupancy, with other factors (if present at all) having either short-lived or very minor effects. Furthermore, smoking a denicotinized cigarette resulted in substantial nAChR occupancy.”

  4. Tony says:

    Frank you say: “… the US Bill of Rights asserts (as I believe it does) a “Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then I for one do not think that I have a right to any of those things.”

    I have to say that I’m inclined to disagree with you and even suggest that such rights are in some way self-evident truths:) Here’s the original text which is from “The Declaration of Independence” rather than the bill of rights (ie ammendments 1-10 of the US constitution).

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

  5. Rose says:


    The MAOI in brief.

    Tobacco Smoke May Act as Antidepressant Drug
    Specifically, long-term smoking appears to inhibit monoamine oxidase (or acts as an MAO inhibitor). ”

    “Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were the first type of antidepressant developed.”
    http: //

    “Kay and Neal Castagnoli, a husband and wife team of chemists at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, set out to find the MAO-blocking compounds among thousands of other components in tobacco and tobacco smoke. They ground up tobacco leaves and tested representative samples in a test tube to see if they inhibited MAO. From the fraction containing the most potent MAO inhibitor, they isolated a chemical known as 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-naphthoquinone.

    The bit that reassures me somewhat about low nicotine tobacco.

    “The Company’s proprietary Very Low Nicotine tobacco is grown on independently-owned farms in the United States – without any artificial extraction or chemical processes
    https: //

    • RdM says:

      Rose, I don’t find that reassuring at all.

      “The Company’s proprietary Very Low Nicotine tobacco is grown on independently-owned farms in the United States – without any artificial extraction or chemical processes”

      “without any artificial extraction or chemical processes”

      only means that the crops are genetically engineered to produce / contain very low nicotine, so that it (the nicotine) doesn’t have to be removed from those crops (as it would with ‘ordinary’ tobacco) by an ” artificial extraction or chemical process” (at considerable expense) to meet the proposed “standard”.

      Said company (xxiicentury) expects to get rich because they own the patents for the GE tobacco, and are driving this because it means (if it goes through) that all major tobacco companies in the USA will have to pay royalties or otherwise license it from them.

      And as i wrote earlier, at the same time as producing VLN tobacco, they were cynically producing very high nicotine tobacco (Red Sun) – a much better proposition in my view.

      It’s not about health – it’s about money.

    • RdM says:

      Slightly OT, but in terms of “natural” tobacco, here’s the relevant part of the Manitou rolling tobacco pouch label (that you can’t see until you open the pack) I scanned earlier:

      • Rose says:

        My rolling tobacco pouch used to say something very similar until the government made them take it off. Customers are not allowed to be informed about the product in anyway now, the packaging is just a mass of anti-tobacco slogans and large pictures of young people in various states of distress, with the name of the tobacco product in very small writing at the bottom of the pack so the shop assistant can identify the pack you asked for.

  6. waltc says:

    I am not spending this Easter afternoon (or third day of Passover) in religious contemplation but rather in the throes of rendering unto Caesar –doing my taxes and figuring what I owe the feds, state and city for the privilege of enduring their various modes of “help.” (This is leading me to smoke a little more than my custom and the smell of tobacco mingles nicely with the aroma of the ham that is currently baking in the oven through no fault of my own.)

    Both incursions (the fed’s and the city’s) are important. Both of them are nasty forms of social engineering. I submitted a public comment to the feds on March 26th but it has yet to show up among the 19 listed. Maybe it takes them time, or maybe I was censored because, though I later larded them with facts, my opening graph was :

    “Gentlemen: You’re living in a theoretical Oz in which you think you’re the Wizard. (That, or you’re administering some kind of Milgram experiment with actual subjects and don’t know when to stop.)”

    I did notice when I previewed it that they’d mashed the paragraphs together in a nonstop blob, but if it doesn’t show up, I’ll keep persistently resubmitting it as a paragraphed pdf.

    Saying you won’t act because nicotine isn’t personally important to you is like the woman I know who said the street ban wasn’t important because she rarely smokes on the street. Or the one about how you weren’t a Jew or a gypsy…

    • waltc says:

      These are the comments so far and a one-click way to add your own.

      Note you can publish as anonymous but I believe (not sure) that you’ll nonetheless be asked for your name, country, state, zip, email, Obviously US comments would be given more credence. If you’ve got a country-proof gmail or yahoo account, you could live in New York City in zip 10021 or 10025, or 10280. Santa Monica, CA: 90403. Carlsbad, CA , 92010. Louisville, KY, 40220. Philadelphia PA, 19104. West Newton, MA, 02165.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Saying you won’t act because nicotine isn’t personally important to you is like the woman I know who said the street ban wasn’t important because she rarely smokes on the street.

      Was she telling a lie? She said it didn’t matter to her. Why should she do something about something that doesn’t matter to her?

      What does and doesn’t matter to me defines my priorities. I’ll do some things before I do others. When I’ve done something about what matters to me, maybe I’ll have time to do something about a few things that don’t matter so much to me.

      In respect of nicotine in tobacco, I’ve never ever smoked nicotine-free tobacco, so I have no idea what it’s like. Maybe if I knew, and didn’t like it at all, I’d feel different, and it would become something that mattered to me.

      In many ways, smoking bans in NYC don’t affect me at all. I don’t live there. But what happens there is quite likely to happen here too, where I would be affected. So I should be interested.

      • waltc says:

        For the record, I wasn’t aiming that at you. You simply said it wasn’t a priority. I was more or less loosely and impersonally aiming at those who were saying it wasn’t worth opposing because, well, they themselves don’t (believe they) smoke for nicotine –though, as you point out, how can they be sure if they’ve never smoked without it? To me though it’s like saying, I don’t go to college so a campus ban’s okay or I don’t go to bars so that’s okay too. The point is, it’s not okay to other smokers (who do go to college and do go to bars and do smoke to one extent or another for the nicotine) and if we don’t hang together… as the old cliche goes… Then, too, it’s a question of how many usurped rights one is willing to cede until there’s nothing left to cede.

        On the same principal (and I do believe there’s a principal involved) I’ve opposed bans on vaping though I don’t vape and bans in public housing though I’ll never have to live there, and would oppose any law that irrationally discriminated against fat people (not fat) or black people (not black) or people named Matilda (because that’s not my name).

        The woman who doesn’t smoke on the street likely wasn’t lying, she was saying “I’m all right, Jack” and defending her own apathy and also making a virtue of her ability to adapt as she quickly did to the bar/restaurant bans, though she claims to smoke well over a pack a day and when she’s here will smoke three cigarettes over one vodka.

        • Joe L. says:

          Well said, Walt. We must all speak up against any and all proposed antismoking regulations, regardless of whether we think they will directly affect us. At the end of the day, it is Tobacco Control yet again scheming to strip away more freedom of choice from law-abiding citizens. This prospect should not only be pissing off all smokers, but it should be scaring the hell out of everyone.

          If this legislation passes, we smokers in the States will no longer have a choice of nicotine levels in our tobacco, and you can bet that soon enough, neither will smokers in the U.K., or Australia, etc. Time and time again Tobacco Control claim to ask for an inch and wind up taking ten miles. The pattern is extremely clear. And if our governments are given the authority to pettily regulate the amount of nicotine in tobacco products, what won’t they be allowed to control?

          As Tobacco Control is trying to close in on their “end game,” we cannot afford to think selfishly. Just look where attitudes like “I’ll save money by not going to bars if I’m not allowed to smoke there” and “A ban might cause me to cut down” have gotten smokers thus far.

          We need to stand up for and with each other against this tyranny. If not (to finish your cliché), we will most assuredly all hang separately.

        • Rose says:

          It’s a difficult problem, if you staunchly defend the importance of nicotine you confirm everything that tobacco prohibitionists have ever said about us right back to James 1st.

          As a gardener I agree completely, don’t mess with the plant, but as someone who smokes, I’m quite prepared to try nicotineless tobacco just to spite them and prove them wrong, after all, I will still have all the rest of the leaf, nicotine is only there to stop animals eating it because it tastes nasty.

          Though that doesn’t always work.

          Desperate baboons feed on tobacco
          5th February 2017

          “Hurungwe- Intelligent and thus highly adaptable, baboons have added another cuisine to their growing menu of delicacies, this time the country’s most prized crop – tobacco.”

          The farmers are now hurriedly replanting the fruit trees and forests they had previously cut down.

  7. Philip Neal says:

    In fairness to the American constitution, the rights are phrased negatively so as to curtail power – “Congress shall pass no law…” and so on. But the real problem is that rights conflict with one another (or, some would say, “compete”). Free speech and school prayer, the right to bear arms and the right to life. Courts will decide the conflicting claims, and increasingly the judiciary has become the real legislature. The EU has taken this a step further. The Lisbon Treaty included a Charter of Fundamental Rights, including extensive regulation of the workplace, from which Tony Blair secured what he claimed was a cast iron opt-out. Then the European Court of Justice overruled the heads of government who granted the opt-out for the remarkable reason that they had no right to do so. For this and other reasons, I think a strategy of Smokers’ Rights is doomed to failure.

  8. smokingscot says:


    Amusing article about football players using snus for various beneficial reasons. Growing trend it seems.

  9. Rhys says:

    Derek Yach is retweeting a NYT story about the horrible mean current government that wants the EPA to be accountable. The nerve, wanting policy not to be based on secret studies, to release their study data, terrible affronts to Proper Science. Uh, there’s me, and half a dozen crazy people who agree with him.

    Did anyone at all expect that this PMI smoke-free foundation would be any different to all the rest of tobacco control? I mean, except they want to sell IQOS.

    And cigarette taxes went up again in British Columbia today.

    • Vlad says:

      What makes PMI even worse than Tobacco Control in my view is that they willingly spend that money to attack its customer base. As smokers we can defeat them much more easily than Tobacco Control – just switch brands. And if you really want to try the HnB gizmos, use Glo from BAT or whatever JTI is coming out with.

      • Rose says:

        I thought I’d wait for Glo for that reason and not for health reasons, but so I could use it on holiday and not have to go outside first thing in the morning when I’m still half asleep.

        • RdM says:

          Well, you can read a review here:

          NB that

          One thing I did notice was that there’s a distinct tobacco smell. By the end of the day my office smelled as if someone had smoked a couple of cigarettes in it. That was completely gone by next morning, though, with no stale aroma hanging around. Would it become more persistent if you used Glo every day? I don’t know the answer to that one.

        • Rose says:

          Thanks RdM, you just saved me a lot of money. : )

        • RdM says:

          Read that in context, Rose, though, from the review:

          “One stick isn’t much of a test though; what I wanted to know was, could I use the Glo all day? Would it be satisfying enough to keep a smoker off the cigarettes? So, after my first stick, there were nineteen more to go. And I got through them all.

          It worked, too. At no point did I feel that the sticks weren’t satisfying enough, and I usually sub-ohm 24mg e-liquid. I found myself reaching for the pack of sticks about every 40 minutes through the day. Using it was easy, too, and I didn’t find the short wait for it to heat up all that annoying. Once a stick is finished you can just drop it in the bin – there’s no need for ashtrays, and you won’t get flakes of ash all over the place either.

          One thing I did notice was that there’s a distinct tobacco smell. By the end of the day my office smelled as if someone had smoked a couple of cigarettes in it. That was completely gone by next morning, though, with no stale aroma hanging around. Would it become more persistent if you used Glo every day? I don’t know the answer to that one.

          Compared to iQOS the Glo isn’t quite as satisfying, probably because of its lower running temperature. To compensate, it’s a lot easier to use because you don’t need to worry about battery life so much.”

          So he smoked 19 (or 20?) sticks in a day, and thought that the smell was like “a couple of cigarettes” afterwards. And it was completely gone by next morning.

          Shouldn’t be much worse than vaping, should it?

          What about snus?

          Did you investigate the WTA whole tobacco alkaloids e-liquids, along with perhaps the NET naturally extracted tobacco flavourings, leads? Available in the UK.

          Because in a sense that’s all these HNB products are doing, mixing real tobacco powder with PG &or VG and binders, not so different from vaping except not just pure nicotine.

          It seems to me…

  10. Pingback: Good Samaritans | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.