Disagree with what? Disagree that I gave you a truthful description of what I experience when I go nicotine free? That isn't up for agreement or disagreement. What I say happened, did happen. If you experienced something quite different, that doesn't make what I experienced any less real. I gave my congitive dysfunctions a full 6 months to resolve. I was on the verge of losing my job. My productivity was down to 10% of pre-abstinence levels, and my mistakes were myriad. I asked my doctor to prescribe something to treat these problems and she told me that there was nothing she could do. I then told her that I had no choice but to resume smoking. I did so, and those problems all disappeared.
You can feel free to state that your experience was different from mine, and I will absolutely believe you. Research tells us that 10 to 20% of smokers experience a level of distress that equals that of psychiactric patients.
If you throw in those with dopamine levels that are too low and those with other neurochemical imbalances, I believe that up to 40% of smokers are actually medically dependent on nicotione to keep their symptoms of underlying conditions under control. That leaves from 60 to 90% of smokers who can take or leave nicotine without any permanent ill effects.
My mother was convinced that she had bugs in her apartment that kept biting her. She actually went through can after can of insecticide until we finally got her diagnosis: Neuropathy. She was on Neurontin for a while until she developed a blood abnormality. When she went off the Neurontin, the "biting bugs" came back with a vengeance. Finally, the doctors put her on Lyrica. Like magic, the bugs disappeared. Would you say that my mother was "addicted" to Lyrica?
(My mother was a never smoker. I present the above example to make the point that some conditions require permanent treatment.)
If you have a biologically caused dysfunction, and a certain chemical relieves the symptoms, IMHO the need to pursue relief from those symptoms does not equal "addiction" to the chemical that relieves the symptoms.
If you were able to go for 6 months without nicotine and didn't experience any debilitating problems, then I would venture to say that you have no true need for nicotine (i.e., you are among the lucky 60 to 90%).
I was disagreeing with what you said here
"I'm curious that about half of e-cigarette users feel that they must give up nicotine. Why? What ill effects have been caused by the nicotine itself, as a separate thing from the ill effects of inhaling smoke?
Here's a discussion of nicotine effects Casaa.org - Harm Reduction
The only negative effects of nicotine per se that I have been able to find were possible premature delivery. And even that effect might not be due to nicotine alone, but rather to cigarette smoke. The latest guidelines tell doctors that if they have a pregnant patient who cannot give up smoking, that switching her to NRT will reduce the health risks."
i don't disagree that you had a negative personal experience when you quit, but rather your argument that nicotine has more health benefits and no negatives other than pregnancy.
Last edited: