That is what stimulants are for.You dont need to reinvent the wheel.
Psst. Nicotine IS a stimulant.
Wrong on many counts.One should actually rely on scientific studies and not some blogs and personal observations.
What scientific studies are you referring to? This one, perhaps?
Safety of Nicotine Polacrilex Gum Used by 3,094 Participants in the Lung Health Study "Results:
The rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular conditions and cardiovascular deaths during the 5 years of the study were not related to use of NP, to dose of NP, or to concomitant use of NP and cigarettes. About 25% of NP users reported at least one side effect, but
most were very minor and transient. Side effects associated with discontinuance of NP in 5% or more of users included headache, indigestion, mouth irritation, mouth ulcers, and nausea. There was
no evidence that concomitant use of NP and cigarettes was associated with elevated rates of reported side effects. Participants in the smoking cessation intervention who received intensive levels of instruction tand monitoring of NP use (initially at 12 meetings during 3 months)
appeared to report significantly lower rates of side effects (dizziness, headache, and throat irritation) than control participants, presumed to have less instruction and monitoring."
That Newyork article also says
quote
But some researchers said morning sickness could lead to confusing results in caffeine studies. These researchers argued that because they feel ill, some women may consume less caffeine. That tendency may
make it appear that they are less likely to miscarry because they avoid caffeine,
when the reason is actually that they began with healthier pregnancies.
BUT, there was a definitive study on nicotine administration(BY NRT) causing birth defects.
Mothers told of nicotine patch link to birth defects | Mail Online
.
Seriously, have you actually read that article in full?.It seems you have a tendency to cherry pick few lines and arriving at some astonishing conclusions.
Here's a cherry for you:
Maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy and risk of fetal growth restriction: a large prospective observational study -- 337 -- bmj.com "Conclusions: Caffeine consumption during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of fetal growth restriction and this association continued throughout pregnancy. Sensible advice would be to reduce caffeine intake before conception and throughout pregnancy"
"Medical Dictionary
in·tox·i·cate definition
Pronunciation: /-sə-ˌkāt/ Function: vt-cat·ed; , -cat·ing; 1 : POISON 2 : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished"
In what way does nicotine use "excite or stupefy..to the point where physical and mental control is diminished"??
On the contrary, Nicotine is currently being evaluated as a possible performance ENHANCING drug as seen here:
Beneficial effects of nicotine - JARVIK - 2006 - British Journal of Addiction - Wiley Online Library "When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) reduction of body weight, (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against: (5) Parkinson's disease (6) Tourette's disease (7) Alzheimers disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea."
There is nothing interesting or relevant about the study where Coc-aine addicts administer Intravenously caffeine and nicotine to AUGMENT coc-aine effects.
Nothing to see here, moving on.
You are totally wrong in comparing harm by caffeine drinking with nicotine administration.Period.There are loads of scientific studies that disprove that.
I don't believe somebody is arguing to make a comparison.
"loads of scientific studies"? Then it should be easy to find one....Ah, here's one:
Intravenous Nicotine and Caffeine: Subjective and Physiological Effects in ....... Abusers
"Comparison of Caffeine and Nicotine.
Inspection of Figs. 1 and2 and post hoc comparisons show that nicotine generally produced greater subjective effects than caffeine. To the extent that these differences reflect real differences in maximal efficacy, this study suggests that nicotine produces much more prominent mood-altering effects than caffeine. However, it is also possible that relatively higher doses of nicotine than caffeine were studied.
Post hoc comparisons between the intermediate dose of nicotine and the high dose of caffeine showed no significant differences on most subjective measures. Thus, for purposes of evaluating possible qualitative similarities and differences between caffeine and nicotine, it is most appropriate to compare the intermediate dose of nicotine (1.5 mg/70 kg) with the high dose of caffeine (400 mg/70 kg). Inspection of Figs. 1and 2 shows that both of these doses increased ratings of drug effect, good effect, like drug, high, stimulated, and bad effect. The only scale to show differing effects was rating of rush, which was significantly increased by nicotine, but not caffeine. Figures 1 and 2also show that nicotine had a somewhat faster onset time and time to peak effect than caffeine. Nicotine but not caffeine produced dose-related increases in stimulant identifications, with subjects usually identifying it as being ........ As discussed above, this difference in stimulant identification between caffeine and nicotine might be due to the daily administration of oral caffeine in the present study. Finally, caffeine produced dose-related increases in reports of an unusual smell and/or taste, whereas nicotine produced dose-related increases in reports of blurry vision.
With regard to physiological effects, caffeine and nicotine were similar in that both tended to decrease skin temperature and elevate blood pressure. They differed in that heart rate was decreased by caffeine, but increased by nicotine."
