Don't let anyone tell you that nicotine is a poison...

[generic mutant]

I'd call pure caffeine a poison. The important difference is that people don't normally encounter highly purified caffeine.

People here are routinely dealing with 100 mg / ml concentrations of nicotine, in which concentration it's undoubtedly a poison.

 

[Nirk]

Is that directed at me? I couldn't tell, since you posted on an open board without addressing your intended recipient.

Either you are intentionally messing about, or not very bright.

 

[Fizzpop]

I'd have to say that given that nicotine is more poisonous, milligram for milligram than arsenic, yes it is a poison. Your point about dosage, however, is correct; in the small amounts we consume, we actually see beneficial effects.

I do worry that this post is misleading in the sense that we should exercise caution when handling our juices and should make sure this fact is widely understood by the community at large. Nicotine is readily absorbed through the skin and is especially dangerous for children and pets. Treat your juice with respect, especially if handling higher strength solutions.

 

[pcrdude]

I'd call pure caffeine a poison. The important difference is that people don't normally encounter highly purified caffeine.

People here are routinely dealing with 100 mg / ml concentrations of nicotine, in which concentration it's undoubtedly a poison.

That means it's easier to achieve a toxic level through transdermal administration. It doesn't change the inherent level of toxicity (mass per recipient body mass), it just makes it easier to receive a toxic dose.

Know what I mean?

 

[pcrdude]

Either you are intentionally messing about, or not very bright.

Ad hominem aside, my position is to describe how toxicology is described by science.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[bones1274]

Screw it, lets just dump the nicotine down the drain and start snorting nutmeg. It will make us feel really good in low doses and could make us sick or kill us at high doses, but who cares, the FDA calls it safe........

The point is, toxic or poisonous or whatever, if I choose to vape nicotine, then I accept the consequences.

 

[generic mutant]

That means it's easier to achieve a toxic level through transdermal administration. It doesn't change the inherent level of toxicity (mass per recipient body mass), it just makes it easier to receive a toxic dose.

Know what I mean?

You now seem to be arguing for a definition based on inherent toxicity, don't you? Isn't that one you rejected a few posts ago?

Is your definition based on intentionality?

So arsenic shouldn't be regarded as a poison, being an element? It only becomes a poison when put in a bottle with 'Poison' written on it?

What about bleach? Designed to kill microorganisms... but then so are the antibiotics...

 

[Nirk]

Screw it, lets just dump the nicotine down the drain and start snorting nutmeg. It will make us feel really good in low doses and could make us sick or kill us at high doses, but who cares, the FDA calls it safe........

The point is, toxic or poisonous or whatever, if I choose to vape nicotine, then I accept the consequences.

Yes me too I do not actually care if it is toxic or not, but it IS technically a poison in every possible way a) it is more toxic than strychnine or cyanide (which are both classed as poisons) b) the plant makes it as a pesticide to deter / kill insects trying to eat it. Therefore there is absolutely no way it can be classed as anything other than a poison which has psychoactive effects at low doses, "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests" that is all, goodbye.

 

[pcrdude]

You now seem to be arguing for a definition based on inherent toxicity, don't you? Isn't that one you rejected a few posts ago?

Is your definition based on intentionality?

So arsenic shouldn't be regarded as a poison, being an element? It only becomes a poison when put in a bottle with 'Poison' written on it?

What about bleach? Designed to kill microorganisms... but then so are the antibiotics...

I'm not arguing for a definition based on level of toxicity at all. In fact, you are getting closer to understanding.

I'm saying the term "poison" is an imprecise term. In common usage, it describes the intended use of a substance. In scientific terms, it doesn't really mean much. In scientific terms, there is a certain "level of toxicity" for pretty much any substance.

 

[generic mutant]

I'm not arguing for a definition based on level of toxicity at all. In fact, you are getting closer to understanding.

I'm saying the term "poison" is an imprecise term. In common usage, it describes the intended use of a substance. In scientific terms, it doesn't really mean much. In scientific terms, there is a certain "level of toxicity" for pretty much any substance.

Ha! I'm getting closer to understanding? Well thank you for your patience, wise one.

Are green tobacco leaves poisonous, or are they not?

Is bleach a poison, or is it not?

Is arsenic a poison, or is it not?

 

[Nirk]

I'm not arguing for a definition based on level of toxicity at all. In fact, you are getting closer to understanding.

I'm saying the term "poison" is an imprecise term. In common usage, it describes the intended use of a substance. In scientific terms, it doesn't really mean much. In scientific terms, there is a certain "level of toxicity" for pretty much any substance.

Basically you have now realised you are wrong and are trying to squirm out of it, good work.

 

[pcrdude]

Yes me too I do not actually care if it is toxic or not, but it IS technically a poison in every possible way a) it is more toxic than strychnine or cyanide (which are both classed as poisons) b) the plant makes it as a pesticide to deter / kill insects trying to eat it. Therefore there is absolutely no way it can be classed as anything other than a poison which has psychoactive effects at low doses, "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests" that is all, goodbye.

And therefore so is caffeine, but with a lower LD50. So, go into your local coffee (or tea) lounge, and tell everyone they are drinking poison.

See ya!

 

[pcrdude]

Basically you have now realised you are wrong and are trying to squirm out of it, good work.

I am trying to show the readers that using the term "poison" is imprecise and misleading when used to describe nicotine (or caffeine for that matter).

BTW, didn't you say goodbye to this thread three times now????

 

[Nirk]

I am trying to show the readers that using the term "poison" is imprecise and misleading when used to describe nicotine (or caffeine for that matter).

BTW, didn't you say goodbye to this thread three times now????

Twice, and yes caffeine is technically a poison as well. Goodbye.

 

[pcrdude]

Ha! I'm getting closer to understanding? Well thank you for your patience, wise one.

Are green tobacco leaves poisonous, or are they not?

Is bleach a poison, or is it not?

Is arsenic a poison, or is it not?

Thanks. This does require quite a bit of patience.

All of those things can be toxic if administered at high enough doses. Is 1 femtogram, administered orally, of any of those poisonous?

Nope.

Are we getting closer to you two understanding the concept of toxicity yet?

Is one kilogram of sodium chloride toxic if taken orally?

Pretty much.

Closer yet?

 

[pcrdude]

Twice, and yes caffeine is technically a poison as well. Goodbye.

I was predicting this third time.



Not really, but it was fun to type that.



BTW, did you go back and count them up????

 

[Nirk]

Damn man could you be any more dense, seriously.

 

[generic mutant]

Yes, which is why the common usage of 'poison' has to be taken as implying something about routinely encountered concentrations versus toxic concentrations.


Bleach is regarded by *pretty near everybody* as a poison, maybe distributed at 5% purity. LD-50 (of sodium hypochlorite) 192 mg/kg.

Nicotine, frequently found in bottles of 10% purity. LD-50 presently unknown, but maybe something like ten times as toxic. Evolved *specifically to ward off herbivores and insects*.


Pick. They're either both poisons, or they ain't.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Yes me too I do not actually care if it is toxic or not, but it IS technically a poison in every possible way a) it is more toxic than strychnine or cyanide (which are both classed as poisons) b) the plant makes it as a pesticide to deter / kill insects trying to eat it. Therefore there is absolutely no way it can be classed as anything other than a poison which has psychoactive effects at low doses, "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests" that is all, goodbye.

Strychnine and cyanide do not have any beneficial drug applications I am aware of. Nicotine does have beneficial drug applications, so it can correctly be classed (and is by my sourced link) as a drug.

Why is your classification of it so narrow?



Roaring via Tapatalk

 

[pcrdude]

Yes, which is why the common usage of 'poison' has to be taken as implying something about routinely encountered concentrations versus toxic concentrations.


Bleach is regarded by *pretty near everybody* as a poison. LD-50 192 mg/kg.

Nicotine, frequently found in bottles of 10% purity. LD-50 presently unknown, but maybe something like ten times as toxic. Evolved *specifically to ward off herbivores and insects*.


Pick. They're either both poisons, or they ain't.

Before I repeat, I just wanted to say hi to Nirk...

Hi Nirk, welcome back.

For both of you, look back up, and see my example of NaCl vs. arsenic. That is a pretty solid example of why the term poison is imprecise scientifically.

Maybe another example of an imprecise term will help you both understand.

Imagine we are all three together, having a nice meal, and Nirk want's some salt. He says, "hey pcrdude, pass the salt". I hand him a shaker of "salt", and moments before he ingests it, I stop him.

Why?

Glad you asked.

I handed him a shaker of "salt", but it was potassium cyanide. By chemical definition, it is the salt form of a cyanide, so I in fact, handed him "salt".

I am using the proper terminology, and you two are arguing a layperson term that isn't really meaningful.

Are you starting to understand yet?