E-cig Nicotine, New Study at UVM

[Painter_]

Until now, I have only ever considered that nicotine is "bad" and my "addiction" to it was the reason I smoked (analog free for 8mo.)

Nicotine is not the "bad" part of smoking. And the "Addiction" should only be considered to be a dependence because once you stop smoking you stop damaging your body, which is the difference between addiction and dependence, knowingly harming yourself or others to satisfy your your need is addiction. Since e-ciggs are 95+% harmless there cannot be addiction.

 

[DC2]

Wait a minute - now were doing math..?

I will respect this forum and back down on further debate. As a relative noob, I did not understand this argument existed, nor do I wish to participate in it. If I've fanned the flames, I apologize.

Never apologize for your questions or opinions.

We aren't that sensitive around here.
Or at least I hope we aren't.

Interesting. So do you now vape 0 nic?

That's a loaded question that assumes things you should not assume.
Like if you don't NEED nicotine there is therefore no reason to responsibly USE nicotine.

And I will gladly argue that responsible use of nicotine is a health benefit to the user.
And that is even though I no longer currently use nicotine.

And I no longer use nicotine (at this time) not by choice, but by force.

There's no one size fits all when it comes to addictions. And everybody who tells you otherwise is not worth talking to.

Anyone who thinks tobacco addiction is one-size-fits-all definitely NEEDS talking to.
Granted, most may not have enough facts, or the patience, but it certainly needs doing.

The idea that tobacco addition is one-size-fits-all is the root lie that leads to all the lies.

 

[LaraC]

Until now, I have only ever considered that nicotine is "bad" and my "addiction" to it was the reason I smoked (analog free for 8mo.)

I understand where you're coming from, dimco. Until just a few years ago, I had believed nicotine was "bad", that I was "addicted" to nicotine, and that nicotine was the reason I smoked. I've been analog free just over 4 years now.

Thanks to this great forum and many other resources on the web, I've come to the conclusion that what I was experiencing during my fifty year 2-pack-a-day chain smoking habit was (for me, at least) ... exactly *that* ... a "habit." A pleasurable habit. I was no more "addicted" to nicotine than are people who joke about being "addicted" to caffeine in their morning cups of coffee. I may (or may not) have been considered dependent on my smoking habit as something that gave me pleasure to do.

Vaping emulates well enough the motions (hand to mouth, inhale, exhale) and visual cues of smoking (the exhaled aerosol) to satisfy me as well as smoking did. Plus, vaping is even more enjoyable to me since I like e-liquid flavors much more than I ever did the "flavor" of burned tobacco leaves.

Here are links to several articles that changed my attitude toward nicotine, and especially toward the socalled "addictiveness" of nicotine:

rolygate's excellent summary:
Nicotine Propaganda

Dr. Newhouse's study had non-smokers wear nicotine patches (transdermal nicotine) continuously for six months. Published in Neurology.
"Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment
A 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial"
Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment: A 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial

Excerpt from the Newhouse study:
"There was no withdrawal syndrome and no
subjects continued to use nicotine products. Thus, in
this nonsmoking population, there was no evidence
for abuse liability of transdermal nicotine. Only nonsmokers
were utilized for this study to simplify dose-ranging."

If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General
"If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data:
Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General"

 

[Painter_]

I understand where you're coming from, dimco. Until just a few years ago, I had believed nicotine was "bad", that I was "addicted" to nicotine, and that nicotine was the reason I smoked. I've been analog free just over 4 years now.

LaraC, I think that the majority of us X-smokers thought the same thing. Heck, I gave into the fact that I was addicted for years after many failed quit attempts. Once I switched to vaping and started reading and becoming more informed I became enlightened and thus no longer considered myself as addicted. Today, I enjoy vaping from time to time, with or without nicotine because I enjoy blowing the vapor making rings, etc. Once you become enlightened on a subject you can master it. Tobacco Controll does not want us to become enlightened, they want to tell us their version of the truth and us to blindly agree with them.

 

[Katya]

Anyone who thinks tobacco addiction is one-size-fits-all definitely NEEDS talking to.

Figure of speech, DC2.

The idea that tobacco addition is one-size-fits-all is the root lie that leads to all the lies.

Agreed.

 

[Katya]

Until now, I have only ever considered that nicotine is "bad" and my "addiction" to it was the reason I smoked (analog free for 8mo.)

Not sure about the addiction part, but nicotine is certainly not bad--it actually can have all kinds of health benefits. Alas, the subject of nicotine addition has been so politicized and demonized by the ANTZ (anti tobacco zealots) that a normal conversation is almost impossible nowadays.

Here's but one example--this is a very old article that appeared in NYT, of all places.

Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits

 

[Katya]

A pleasurable habit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/health/pleasure-factor-may-override-new-tobacco-rules.html?_r=0

"WASHINGTON — Rarely has the concept of happiness caused so much consternation in public health circles.

Buried deep in the federal government’s voluminous new tobacco regulations is a little-known cost-benefit calculation that public health experts see as potentially poisonous: the happiness quotient. It assumes that the benefits from reducing smoking — fewer early deaths and diseases of the lungs and heart — have to be discounted by 70 percent to offset the loss in pleasure that smokers suffer when they give up their habit.

Experts say that calculation wipes out most of the economic benefits from the regulations and could make them far more vulnerable to legal challenges from the tobacco industry. And it could have a perverse effect, experts said. The more successful regulators are at reducing smoking, the more it hurts them in the final economic accounting."

 

[LaraC]

Seeing that link gives me much pleasure, Katya.

 

[Katya]

Seeing that link gives me much pleasure, Katya.

I dug it up just for you (from one of the many earlier conversations we had on the subject).

BTW, this is, IMHO, the reason why e-cigarettes are so successful--they let (many, but not all) smokers quit and not be miserable.

Again, doesn't work for every smoker--not even for the majority of smokers. Many still miss that deadly combo of major and minor alkaloids from tobacco smoke. I've seen different statistics--anything from 12 to 38% of smokers who successfully switched from smoking to vaping? The reasons are unclear, but I suspect that the sustained anti-vaping propaganda, fear mongering and vicious attacks on vapers may have something to do with it.

 

[Katya]

Latest study and data. I forgot all about it. Very encouraging.

Long-term e-cigarette use and smoking cessation: a longitudinal study with US population | Tobacco Control


Finally, a research team got it right...

In a nutshell:

• Dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes was not associated with a lower smoking cessation rate.
• Long-term e-cigarette use was associated with a higher smoking cessation rate.

 

[sofarsogood]

Oh yeah, it exists. Not really worth going there. It's complicated. Nicotine (alone) affects different people differently. We all know that. Nicotine in tobacco leaves + combustion is another can of worms. Whole tobacco alkaloids, MAOIs... you name it. The debate has been going on forever. Some people quit smoking the minute they get their first e-cig, then go to 0 nic, and many even quit vaping (and smoking) altogether. Others supplement vaping with snus or WTAs. Others can't quit smoking and become dual users.

Nicotine is addictive--so are caffeine, sugar, physical exercise, silly cat YouTube videos, alcohol, and smart phones. What's an addiction, anyway? I've been a social drinker my whole adult life; I have a glass of wine or a beer with my dinner almost every day--never became an alcoholic and I don't HAVE to have that drink. I just like it. But there are people who can't even be around alcohol without the risk of going down that rabbit hole after one drink.

There's no one size fits all when it comes to addictions. And everybody who tells you otherwise is not worth talking to.

Children are dependent on their parents. We don't say they are addicted. The best definition I've come up with is addiction is an unheallty dependance, emphasis on unhealthy.

 

[Katya]

unheallty

Define unhealthy.

Schizophrenia and Smoking

"While the prevalence of smoking in the total U.S. population is about 25 to 30 percent, the prevalence among people with schizophrenia is approximately three times as high - or almost 90%, and approximately 60% to 70% for people who have bipolar disorder."

Obviously those people are self-medicating, so smoking (nicotine) must provide some health benefits for them.

My mother was addicted to walking. She walked every day--rain, shine, snow. Was it unhealthy? And who's to decide what is healthy or unhealthy for whom? The people who were telling us for years that margarine is healthier than butter? That low-fat diets are healthy?

 

[Jumpin' In...]

. . .

That's a loaded question that assumes things you should not assume.
Like if you don't NEED nicotine there is therefore no reason to responsibly USE nicotine.

And I will gladly argue that responsible use of nicotine is a health benefit to the user.
And that is even though I no longer currently use nicotine.

And I no longer use nicotine (at this time) not by choice, but by force.

Assume what you will, but I did not "load" my question. I am aware of at least some of the potential benefits of nicotine.

With that, I end my participation in this thread, as I obviously don't know enough to form an opinion.

 

[Katya]

With that, I end my participation in this thread

Me too.

as I obviously don't know enough to form an opinion.

Nobody really understands addictions--how they form, when, who's susceptible, and most importantly, how to deal with them. Human brain is indeed the last frontier...

 

[sofarsogood]

Define unhealthy.

No thanks, sophmoric. You know what i mean. Of course we have different opinions about what is healthy or not. Hey, I think the biggest threat to the health of Americans is not cigarettes but watching too much NFL football. The FdA should regulate that.

 

[Katya]

No thanks, sophmoric. You know what i mean.

Not at all. I don't know what you mean.

And with that, I'm bowing out.

Carry on!

 

[dimco1]

"And it could have a perverse effect, experts said. The more successful regulators are at reducing smoking, the more it hurts them in the final economic accounting."

I'm not try to 'poke the bear' but I am beginning to get that this is a big topic and there are a lot of passionate responses. I have a bunch of reading now, thanks to some of you. At the same time as I am processing this info I am thinking - what if, Big Tobacco becomes main stream in the Vape industry (as if they aren't already) would this be bad... would this scenario become entirely negative. Sure, it would be more expensive and likely even more regulated due to financial politics. But hasn't the independent vaping world grow enough to sustain itself faced with Big Tobacco gone "Big Vape". I'm looking at this in the perspective of micro-breweries. They survive and thrive here in VT. and moreover throughout the country - and make really good beer. It cost more than Miller or Budweiser but I don't drink that beer...

Would it be automatic that Big Tobacco turned Big Vape, equates to negative anti-vape policy and or maybe even negative health consequences? If Big Vape happened, would nicotine then become addictive via chemical hocus-pocus in manufacturing?

 

[classwife]

If Big Vape happened, would nicotine then become addictive via chemical hocus-pocus in manufacturing?

...kinda brings to mind the saying "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[numsquat]

Define unhealthy.

Schizophrenia and Smoking

"While the prevalence of smoking in the total U.S. population is about 25 to 30 percent, the prevalence among people with schizophrenia is approximately three times as high - or almost 90%, and approximately 60% to 70% for people who have bipolar disorder."

Obviously those people are self-medicating, so smoking (nicotine) must provide some health benefits for them.

As someone who currently and have worked with the mentally ill for 30+ years, there are benefits to nicotine for the MI. Whether it is dealing with MI symptoms or the side effects of traditional medication (or both), nicotine affects the brains receptors in some positive way, based on personal experience and research. In my work we have had a good to great results in helping the MI move from cigs to vaping in limited examples. They are maintaining the positive effects of the nicotine while reducing the negative health effects of tobacco. Too bad Medicaid and MCOs are bought off by big tobacco/big pharm and won't pay for more positive outcomes (ie vaping vs pharm tools).

 

[Painter_]

... But hasn't the independent vaping world grow enough to sustain itself faced with Big Tobacco gone "Big Vape". ...

The problem is most of the independent manufactures will not survive the FDA deeming regulations. My numbers may be off and I am sure that someone will correct me if they are but imagine a juice manufacture makes 1 flavor of juice. They make it in four levels of nicotine. The FDA would require a premarket application and supporting documents for each nicotine level and each study the estimated cost is about $250,000 so this manufacture would have to pay one million dollars for that one flavor and 4 nicotine levels. Now consider a manufacture that makes 10 flavors with four nicotine levels. As you can see the only ones that will be able to stay in business is bigT. This is why changing the grandfather date is important. Because they way the regulations are written any product on the market pre 2007 can stay on the market without the premarket app. Guess what was not on the market before 2007..... 99% of the products used today.