Dr. Peter Lin did a feature this morning on the Ontario Morning show on CBC Radio. The podcast is was very interesting.
It starts at the 45 minute mark.
It starts at the 45 minute mark.
Dr. Peter Lin on CBC Radio
- Thread starter SloHand
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well ... I don't completely buy into that reference.
The implication is a non-smoker starts vaping (nic flavors) and becomes addicted to vaping just like he/she would if picked up the smoking habit.
As I understand it ... E-cigarettes do not deliver the same levels as when tobacco is burned in combustibles. So its not the same thing and the implications is in this interview is that is in fact the same thing.
I know you all know what I'm referring to and I'm not saying it right.
Looking forward to what others have to say.
Let's not forget that eCigarettes generally don't contain WTAs(Whole Tobacco Alkaloids) and as a result are not as addictive.
That's true ...
However, the discussion was focused on Nicotine Addiction.
Cigarettes are addictive because they contain nicotine
and what he said was e-cigarettes are basically as addictive
as cigarettes ... and I don't think so.
Last edited:
The reason that electronic cigarettes are not as addictive (if true) is supposedly because of the missing MAOIs...
Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree. I find ecigs just as addictive and as usual, ask: so what??? I am so tired of this. They don't kill you but they are addictive. Like coffee. BFD. I smoked for 20 years, and others will smoke long after I am dead. It won't go away. If we, with our advanced technology, have come up with a safer alternative, then awesome. Others will join our little club, guys. They will like it. Others who haven't even smoked will join our club. So. What.
I have said those very words myself, Kweb, with the same pacing.
I have also asked, "Can you explain to me why you believe that your concern about my addiction is more important than my concern about not dying of lung cancer?"
Those who mistakenly believe that nicotine causes cancer are, of course, dumfounded by the question.
I have also asked, "Can you explain to me why you believe that your concern about my addiction is more important than my concern about not dying of lung cancer?"
Those who mistakenly believe that nicotine causes cancer are, of course, dumfounded by the question.
I miss Starbucks. I sent them my card cut in half, and an unused coupon for a free cup of coffee cut off of one of their grocery-store coffee packages.
I vape WTA and am NOT ashamed of it and do NOT want people switching the addiction argument there. For those of us who NEED them, the maoi's are critical. But for the other 90%, I've seen articles on addiction that say that speed of delivery TO THE BRAIN is a critical part of starting to get addicted. That comports with my experience that I STARTED smoking because the rush cheered me up. No rush for me with e-cigs. Speed of absorbtion for e-cigs is supposedly halfway between patches and combustibles. Which might explain how, over time, some vapers accidentally cut down on nic just like most of us accidentally cut down on stinkys when we first started vaping.
I don't think I'll be one of the people that cuts down on nic, but I'm not cutting down on caffeine or antidepressants either.
I vape WTA and am NOT ashamed of it and do NOT want people switching the addiction argument there. For those of us who NEED them, the maoi's are critical. But for the other 90%, I've seen articles on addiction that say that speed of delivery TO THE BRAIN is a critical part of starting to get addicted. That comports with my experience that I STARTED smoking because the rush cheered me up. No rush for me with e-cigs. Speed of absorbtion for e-cigs is supposedly halfway between patches and combustibles. Which might explain how, over time, some vapers accidentally cut down on nic just like most of us accidentally cut down on stinkys when we first started vaping.
I don't think I'll be one of the people that cuts down on nic, but I'm not cutting down on caffeine or antidepressants either.
The world, including we here on the ECF, constantly compares
e-cigs with cigarettes ... for obvious reasons.
1. The name e-Cigarettes
2. Mainstream e-cig-a-likes ... look like a cigarette
3. Both produce a smoke-like vapor
4. E-cigs contain nicotine
The focus is Addiction of e-cigs compared with cigarettes.
I suggest there's more in e-cigs than just simply nicotine
which originally created our addition to cigarettes. The
"free-basting" of nicotine when smoking is much more
addictive than inhaling a small amount of "vaporized" e-liquid
with some nicotine.
Sooo ... and I'm probably not going to say this the way
I would like ... However, everyone will know where I'm going
with this.
2 teenagers decide to experiment with smoking.
#1 Starts smoking cigarettes
#2 Starts vaping a blu e-cig.
I suggest in 6 months ...
#1 is addicted to smoking and nicotine.
#2 MIGHT be addicted to nicotine
However ... #2 is NOT addicted to nicotine
to the level #1 is and quitting e-cigs is
NO WHERE NEAR a problem compared with
#1 wishing to quit smoking !!
I suggest there are degrees of addiction and we often fall into
THEIR trap of just saying addiction is addiction.
We can not say since we first became addicted to smoking
and then switched to vaping ... we find e-cigs just as addictive
as cigarettes ... What we are really saying is we found an alternative
and continued with the addiction and smoking habit.
Am I making any sense ??
Last edited:
In words of one syllable yes. I started at 24mg and 10-12 ml a day and am now down to 8 mg and 5-7 ml a day. Just don't seem to need the quantity or volume of nicotine that I did when I started using e-cigarettes.
I am on the same boat - started with 36 mg and now just 12mg without even trying to reduce the nic strength.
A good part of the problem is in using the word addiction. When people think of addiction they generally think of the opiates, alcohol, {MODERATED}, etc. Addiction is considered a type of self-destructive behavior. The reason people don't think of caffeine in the same way is that it is perceived to have very low to no risk and in fact can enhance someones well-being.
Tobacco and nicotine are perceived to be self-destructive but that is one of the big lies. Without combustion it has essentially the same low risk that caffeine has. It is also perceived by many to have no benefits but that is also a lie. For many individuals it is actually more beneficial then caffeine. There has been decades of bad information on tobacco and nicotine that dominates the public discussion. It bygone years smokers were thought of as having a smoking habit, which is likely a more accurate description. That morphed into a smoking addiction, then a tobacco addiction when word started leaking out that smokeless tobacco was dramatically less harmful then smoking, and now it's a nicotine addiction as e-cigs are becoming popular.
It is common to hear things like nicotine is just as addictive as opiates (can't say the word but you know what I mean), but that's a complete perversion of what is really happening. People have a hard time giving up tobacco/nicotine because they are getting something out of it that is very important to them, as in functioning at a higher level, which can be very addictive. It is a completely different situation then opiates and alcohol which degrade mental activity.
Of course the ANTZ are pushing hard on the misconceptions, and are the source of nearly all of them to push their agenda. They have no interest in telling the truth that people are actually getting something positive out of tobacco/nicotine and that is why it is hard to give up for many people. God-forbid they should actually advise people that there are ways of using tobacco/nicotine that are 100 times less harmful then inhaling smoke.
Tobacco and nicotine are perceived to be self-destructive but that is one of the big lies. Without combustion it has essentially the same low risk that caffeine has. It is also perceived by many to have no benefits but that is also a lie. For many individuals it is actually more beneficial then caffeine. There has been decades of bad information on tobacco and nicotine that dominates the public discussion. It bygone years smokers were thought of as having a smoking habit, which is likely a more accurate description. That morphed into a smoking addiction, then a tobacco addiction when word started leaking out that smokeless tobacco was dramatically less harmful then smoking, and now it's a nicotine addiction as e-cigs are becoming popular.
It is common to hear things like nicotine is just as addictive as opiates (can't say the word but you know what I mean), but that's a complete perversion of what is really happening. People have a hard time giving up tobacco/nicotine because they are getting something out of it that is very important to them, as in functioning at a higher level, which can be very addictive. It is a completely different situation then opiates and alcohol which degrade mental activity.
Of course the ANTZ are pushing hard on the misconceptions, and are the source of nearly all of them to push their agenda. They have no interest in telling the truth that people are actually getting something positive out of tobacco/nicotine and that is why it is hard to give up for many people. God-forbid they should actually advise people that there are ways of using tobacco/nicotine that are 100 times less harmful then inhaling smoke.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me that if you want to test how addictive nicotine is, absent the chemicals added by BT to increase addiction, you'd need to do long-term studies of vapers who have never smoked cigarettes. As far as I know, no such tests have been done, or could have been done, since (IMO) the number of vapers who never smoked cigs isn't large enough to be statistically significant and vaping hasn't been around long enough to qualify for "long term" studies of any kind.
Any smoker-turned-vaper wouldn't qualify for such a test, I don't think, since his/her brain pattern has already been altered by the chemicals in cigarettes.
I guess what I'm saying is, does anyone really know how addictive nicotine is, all by itself? I don't think so. (I cringe whenever I hear "Nicotine is highly addictive." Where's the proof, dammit!?)
Any smoker-turned-vaper wouldn't qualify for such a test, I don't think, since his/her brain pattern has already been altered by the chemicals in cigarettes.
I guess what I'm saying is, does anyone really know how addictive nicotine is, all by itself? I don't think so. (I cringe whenever I hear "Nicotine is highly addictive." Where's the proof, dammit!?)
Last edited:
Dr. Jed Rose asked me whether I thought e-cigarettes are less addictive than smoking tobacco.
I responded:
He wrote back that he was hypothesizing that e-cigarettes may be less “addictive” than conventional cigarettes, and wants to conduct research on the effects of the minor alkaloids in tobacco as well as MAO inhibitors in smoke that might have anti-depressant effects.
I responded:
He wrote back that he was hypothesizing that e-cigarettes may be less “addictive” than conventional cigarettes, and wants to conduct research on the effects of the minor alkaloids in tobacco as well as MAO inhibitors in smoke that might have anti-depressant effects.
In the radio message ... it was said and agreed that
"e-cigarettes are just as addictive as cigarettes".
I disagree ... based on an even playing field scenario
where 2 individuals decide to experiment with smoking
and 1 chooses cigarettes and the other chooses to vape a blue e-cig.
Referring back to my previous post ...
To me ... It is OBVIOUS teenager #2, who chose to vape a blu e-cig
instead of start smoking cigarettes ... would be far less addicted to
e-cigs than teenager #1 is addicted to cigarettes.
To me ... It's just common sense to say ...
E-cigarettes are NOT just as as addictive as cigarettes.
However, just like everything else ... It has to
be proven by a study ... and then the argument starts
about the study.
"e-cigarettes are just as addictive as cigarettes".
I disagree ... based on an even playing field scenario
where 2 individuals decide to experiment with smoking
and 1 chooses cigarettes and the other chooses to vape a blue e-cig.
Referring back to my previous post ...
To me ... It is OBVIOUS teenager #2, who chose to vape a blu e-cig
instead of start smoking cigarettes ... would be far less addicted to
e-cigs than teenager #1 is addicted to cigarettes.
To me ... It's just common sense to say ...
E-cigarettes are NOT just as as addictive as cigarettes.
However, just like everything else ... It has to
be proven by a study ... and then the argument starts
about the study.
Just stumbled across this, while looking for something else:
Frontiers | Animal Models of Nicotine Exposure: Relevance to Second-Hand Smoking, Electronic Cigarette Use, and Compulsive Smoking | Frontiers in Addictive Disorders and Behavioral Dyscontrol
Frontiers | Animal Models of Nicotine Exposure: Relevance to Second-Hand Smoking, Electronic Cigarette Use, and Compulsive Smoking | Frontiers in Addictive Disorders and Behavioral Dyscontrol
Someone want to glean through this technical stuff
and give us an every day language summary
that would apply to the comparison between
teenager #1 compared to #2 ... argument that
e-cigs are not as addictive as smoking cigarettes.
It's important to remember that the minor alkaloids, even though they may create more dependency, can also have a more positive effect for many then nicotine alone. There is no reason to believe they add any risk despite what AEMSA may think.
- Status
Similar threads
