Effects When First Vaping?

[VNeil]

Read the first sentence of your quote from your linked study conclusion again.

"We also note that although any nicotine-containing product has the potential to be addicting,"

Which part is the credible, factual part? That part, or the rest of the very same sentence, which reads

"...based on the available evidence, currently marketed OTC NRT products do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence."

One of the above? Both? Neither?

I have stated my position. Which is in plain writing: On the fence. Yet you keep attributing me a different position; and keep furiously arguing against what you project onto me. My interest in participating is as nonexistent as the need for my participation.

This is me humoring you with a pinch of politeness - instead of merely ignoring you. Don't mistake it for an interest in arguing for or against you/"me".

Actually, I tool issue with this statement of yours: "Nitpickery of the addictive nature (or not) of nicotine is all well and good - on a my-link-is-better-than-your-link pseudointellectual level."

And you have yet to come up with a link to a credible study arguing that nicotine, without tobacco, is addictive. Parsing out a scrap of FDA bureaucrateze is not a "study conclusion". That was not a study, that was a statement of policy change.

 

[WattWick]

 

[VNeil]

Yes, without a single link to back up your claim of a mere link war, that is a good decision.

 

[DC2]

There are a lot of people, even here on this forum...

That refuse to believe that nicotine by itself is not really that addictive.
And most of them were VERY hardcore smokers.

That's all I'm going to say about that.
The rest follows.

I have, and will always continue to say, that SOME of us may very well be quite addicted to nicotine.
But people need to open their minds to the idea we are all different.

It's a theorem that's been proven over and over again on this forum through the years.
And nicotine addiction is only one of those ways in which we may be different.

Some can't seem to grasp that for some reason.

 

[WattWick]

Shall we open this again to get it over with, once and for all, then? I am always open to change/adjust/replace my opinion. I have eaten a lot of hats, and I am no stranger to admitting to being wrong if sufficiently proven so. I must point out (again) I am on the fence. I am not Certainty - the Champion of Opposition. I am Doubt - the Bringer of... What?

I am not opposed to the possibility of nicotine being fairly non-addictive. I am - and have been since I started vaping - quite convinced using nicotine, by itself, is very different from smoking cigarettes. That in mind, I must point out how bizarre I find this entire situation; akin to shunning for not unquestioningly accepting religious dogma. If I am ignorant - enlighten me, accept my penance and mercifully scrub the mark of "Some People" off my forehead.

I am all ears and ready to be converted. Convince me long-term recreational use of nicotine definitely, without any reasonable doubt, will never cause neither physical nor psychological dependence. Not via medicinal use. Not for NRT purposes. For recreational use. Neither NRT nor medicinal use contains the perhaps most important ingredient in "addiction"; a sensation of pleasure/stimulation/relaxation or, in general, a 'reward'. As such, I don't feel research on those two niches paint more than a partial picture, at best.

I will not be convinced by "no evidence" or particularly responsive to "POST LINK GDAMMIT!!". Yet!! As mentioned - given convincing evidence - I will not only change/adjust/replace my opinion, I will even admit to being wrong.

 

[englishmick]

Shall we open this again to get it over with, once and for all, then? I am always open to change/adjust/replace my opinion. I have eaten a lot of hats, and I am no stranger to admitting to being wrong if sufficiently proven so. I must point out (again) I am on the fence. I am not Certainty - the Champion of Opposition. I am Doubt - the Bringer of... What?

I am not opposed to the possibility of nicotine being fairly non-addictive. I am - and have been since I started vaping - quite convinced using nicotine, by itself, is very different from smoking cigarettes. That in mind, I must point out how bizarre I find this entire situation; akin to shunning for not unquestioningly accepting religious dogma. If I am ignorant - enlighten me, accept my penance and mercifully scrub the mark of "Some People" off my forehead.

I am all ears and ready to be converted. Convince me long-term recreational use of nicotine definitely, without any reasonable doubt, will never cause neither physical nor psychological dependence. Not via medicinal use. Not for NRT purposes. For recreational use. Neither NRT nor medicinal use contains the perhaps most important ingredient in "addiction"; a sensation of pleasure/stimulation/relaxation or, in general, a 'reward'. As such, I don't feel research on those two niches paint more than a partial picture, at best.

I will not be convinced by "no evidence" or particularly responsive to "POST LINK GDAMMIT!!". Yet!! As mentioned - given convincing evidence - I will not only change/adjust/replace my opinion, I will even admit to being wrong.

The position you have laid out in this thread is very much where I currently stand on the issue, and said most eloquently. I appreciate you taking the time. Your contribution was a welcome relief from the onslaught of the Crusaders for Truth.

 

[Douggro]

There's a part of this back-and-forth arguing that occurs as seeking to prove some form of an absolute answer. I honestly don't believe there is one at this point. There's strong evidence supporting the position that nicotine in and of itself is not addictive, and my personal inclination is to go along with that. Like @WattWick, I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind if evidence were to come to the fore that confirms or rebuts my position.

HOWEVER, the majority of vapers are still using nicotine in their juice - for whatever reason they feel they want/need to have it included, up to and including the belief that they are addicted to nicotine. Beliefs like that are very personal and very real to those that hold them. It's no wonder then that there has been some contentious disagreement between the participants of this, erm, discussion.

So perhaps it is best for all involved in this debate to agree to disagree, put the cudgels and sarcasm away, to give up getting that 'last word' in and return to being the nice, normal people I know you really are.

 

[VNeil]

There's a part of this back-and-forth arguing that occurs as seeking to prove some form of an absolute answer. I honestly don't believe there is one at this point. There's strong evidence supporting the position that nicotine in and of itself is not addictive, and my personal inclination is to go along with that. Like @WattWick, I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind if evidence were to come to the fore that confirms or rebuts my position.

HOWEVER, the majority of vapers are still using nicotine in their juice - for whatever reason they feel they want/need to have it included, up to and including the belief that they are addicted to nicotine. Beliefs like that are very personal and very real to those that hold them. It's no wonder then that there has been some contentious disagreement between the participants of this, erm, discussion.

So perhaps it is best for all involved in this debate to agree to disagree, put the cudgels and sarcasm away, to give up getting that 'last word' in and return to being the nice, normal people I know you really are.

In fact, no one here argued that they had some Ultimate Truth. Most of us were dragged into this because multiple people came in here (as usual) insisting nicotine was evil and highly addictive as some sort of fact. And I for one am sick and tired of my position being misrepresented.

 

[Douggro]

In fact, no one here argued that they had some Ultimate Truth. Most of us were dragged into this because multiple people came in here (as usual) insisting nicotine was evil and highly addictive as some sort of fact. And I for one am sick and tired of my position being misrepresented.

Trying to find eloquence of thought before the second cup of coffee for the morning..
It was not my intention to misrepresent anyone. If it seems to you that I did misrepresent yours, my apologies.
I was merely trying to point out that this debate could go on ad infinitum without ever reaching a consensus of opinion between the parties involved, and perhaps it was time to accept that there will never be agreement between the sides and move on. The failure to communicate that clearly is mine.

 

[DC2]

scrub the mark of "Some People" off my forehead.

Because your post followed mine, and because I sort of used the words "some people" in my post, I am sort of under the impression that your post was in response to mine. But I am sure it must not be, because I was certainly in no way talking about you, or anyone that holds your opinion.

But just in case your post WAS in response to mine...
Give mine another read.

 

[WattWick]

Because your post followed mine, and because I sort of used the words "some people" in my post, I am sort of under the impression that your post was in response to mine. But I am sure it must not be, because I was certainly in no way talking about you, or anyone that holds your opinion.

But just in case your post WAS in response to mine...
Give mine another read.

My re-entry into this debate (debacle? ) was not really sparked by your post. It was the sum of two factors. One being repeat (somewhat hostile) demands from @VNeil of me backing up my stance (which is one of lack of evidence), by providing links to that (lack of) evidence. Which, to me, is beyond both reason and possibility. I evidently cannot evidence evidence of no evidence. Nor can I rationally agree "no evidence", in quantifiable subjects, is evidence of anything being evident. Hence my evidential confusion and amusement at - and hesitance to comply with - repeat demands of evidence.

The other (main) factor is seeing fallout from this thread spilling over into other threads; with passive aggressive remarks of "some people" and their "lack of rationality". Not to victimize myself, but, I will admit this whole debacle has made me overly sensitive to the phrase "some people" and variations thereof. I'm sure it will pass.

To me, such is the language and tools of sectarianism. Which, by definition, only serves to split communities into hostile factions. Disagreeing is perfectly fine by me. So, I opted for a (hopefully peaceful) way of settling the matter once and for all. More specifically - finding a way to agree to disagree rather than leaving it as a not-very-cold trench war.

I must point out (not to you or anyone specifically ): My willingness to change stance and admit to being wrong was not a play or a joke.

 

[VNeil]

My re-entry into this debate (debacle? ) was not really sparked by your post. It was the sum of two factors. One being repeat (somewhat hostile) demands from @VNeil of me backing up my stance (which is one of lack of evidence), by providing links to that (lack of) evidence. Which, to me, is beyond both reason and possibility. I evidently cannot evidence evidence of no evidence. Nor can I rationally agree "no evidence", in quantifiable subjects, is evidence of anything being evident. Hence my evidential confusion and amusement at - and hesitance to comply with - repeat demands of evidence.

The other (main) factor is seeing fallout from this thread spilling over into other threads; with passive aggressive remarks of "some people" and their "lack of rationality". Not to victimize myself, but, I will admit this whole debacle has made me overly sensitive to the phrase "some people" and variations thereof. I'm sure it will pass.

To me, such is the language and tools of sectarianism. Which, by definition, only serves to split communities into hostile factions. Disagreeing is perfectly fine by me. So, I opted for a (hopefully peaceful) way of settling the matter once and for all. More specifically - finding a way to agree to disagree rather than leaving it as a not-very-cold trench war.

I must point out (not to you or anyone specifically ): My willingness to change stance and admit to being wrong was not a play or a joke.

I want to remind you that I took issue with the following statement you made, asking you for the other links that would back up your claim that this is merely a battle of links. You declined to actually provide any links since your assertion of a link battle here was factually incorrect. Any links, and any evidence, all pointed in only one direction, to a null result in terms of nic addiction among never smokers. Me thinks you are severely misrepresenting the discussion here....

"Nitpickery of the addictive nature (or not) of nicotine is all well and good - on a my-link-is-better-than-your-link pseudointellectual level."

If you want to make factual assertions, you should be prepared to back them up. Even if those assertions are limited to a claimed "link battle".

 

[sparkky1]

My re-entry into this debate (debacle? ) was not really sparked by your post. It was the sum of two factors. One being repeat (somewhat hostile) demands from @VNeil of me backing up my stance (which is one of lack of evidence), by providing links to that (lack of) evidence. Which, to me, is beyond both reason and possibility. I evidently cannot evidence evidence of no evidence. Nor can I rationally agree "no evidence", in quantifiable subjects, is evidence of anything being evident. Hence my evidential confusion and amusement at - and hesitance to comply with - repeat demands of evidence.

The other (main) factor is seeing fallout from this thread spilling over into other threads; with passive aggressive remarks of "some people" and their "lack of rationality". Not to victimize myself, but, I will admit this whole debacle has made me overly sensitive to the phrase "some people" and variations thereof. I'm sure it will pass.

To me, such is the language and tools of sectarianism. Which, by definition, only serves to split communities into hostile factions. Disagreeing is perfectly fine by me. So, I opted for a (hopefully peaceful) way of settling the matter once and for all. More specifically - finding a way to agree to disagree rather than leaving it as a not-very-cold trench war.

I must point out (not to you or anyone specifically ): My willingness to change stance and admit to being wrong was not a play or a joke.

The MAOI is a chemical in the tobacco which, when combusted, is converted into a form which your body can metabolize.

This MAOI in tobacco is an antidepressant, anti-anxiety, and anti-psychotic chemical operating on the same chemical pathways as prescription drugs. It's important to note that nicotine alone causes anxiety, yet most cigarette smokers report calmness and relief when smoking. This is a result of the MAOI's anti-anxiety properties.

The MAOI's properties ameliorate the negative effects of nicotine in habituated users while simultaneously causing the euphoric effects to be significantly more pronounced. Studies on tobacco use and addiction contrasted against nicotine-only (no tobacco) control groups have shown that nicotine in combination with an MAOI is significantly more addictive than nicotine without.

In comparative terms, nicotine by itself is roughly as addictive as caffeine, whereas nicotine combined with an MAOI is shown to be more addictive than morphine.

An MAOI combined with a potent euphoria-inducing stimulant is a strong antidepressant. People who smoke cigarettes will become dependent on this hourly-dosed antidepressant drug combination and are likely to lapse into a withdrawal induced depression upon cessation. When withdrawing from cigarettes the entire world is bleak, and the former smoker must deal with great depression and anxiety symptoms as a result of their MAOI dependence in addition to the standard stimulant withdrawal symptoms like headache, lack of focus, chronic fatigue, etc.

So, the answer is that it's the combination of nicotine and the MAOI which makes smoked tobacco so addictive. In contrast, while chewing tobacco and other nicotine delivery methods are still addictive, they're nowhere near as addictive as combusted tobacco products. MAOI + nicotine in cigarettes operates on both the MAO family of enzymes and the acetylcholine receptor pathway in the brain simultaneously with a net effect of much more intense and addictive drug experience.

 

[sparkky1]

I myself, am glad to hear about the young men and women choosing risk reduction over the 100 year old mentality, and yes I'm speaking of you
dylan andrews good for you !

 

[Rossum]

In comparative terms, nicotine by itself is roughly as addictive as caffeine

OK, but getting between me and my coffee is pretty risky, so don't minimize the addictiveness of caffeine.

An MAOI combined with a potent euphoria-inducing stimulant is a strong antidepressant. People who smoke cigarettes will become dependent on this hourly-dosed antidepressant drug combination and are likely to lapse into a withdrawal induced depression upon cessation. When withdrawing from cigarettes the entire world is bleak, and the former smoker must deal with great depression and anxiety symptoms as a result of their MAOI dependence in addition to the standard stimulant withdrawal symptoms like headache, lack of focus, chronic fatigue, etc.

I was rather euphoric the week I put the cigarettes down a bit over two years ago, and that was vaping straight nic, no WTA at first.

 

[sparkky1]

OK, but getting between me and my coffee is pretty risky, so don't minimize the addictiveness of caffeine.


I was rather euphoric the week I put the cigarettes down a bit over two years ago, and that was vaping straight nic, no WTA at first.

Well look at it this way, at least your off methylamine which both a precurser to meht (breaking bad) as well as a high explosive, various radioactive isotopes and the ever famous embalming fluid .................

 

[WattWick]

The MAOI is a chemical in the tobacco which, when combusted, is converted into a form which your body can metabolize.

This MAOI in tobacco is an antidepressant, anti-anxiety, and anti-psychotic chemical operating on the same chemical pathways as prescription drugs. It's important to note that nicotine alone causes anxiety, yet most cigarette smokers report calmness and relief when smoking. This is a result of the MAOI's anti-anxiety properties.

The MAOI's properties ameliorate the negative effects of nicotine in habituated users while simultaneously causing the euphoric effects to be significantly more pronounced. Studies on tobacco use and addiction contrasted against nicotine-only (no tobacco) control groups have shown that nicotine in combination with an MAOI is significantly more addictive than nicotine without.

In comparative terms, nicotine by itself is roughly as addictive as caffeine, whereas nicotine combined with an MAOI is shown to be more addictive than morphine.

An MAOI combined with a potent euphoria-inducing stimulant is a strong antidepressant. People who smoke cigarettes will become dependent on this hourly-dosed antidepressant drug combination and are likely to lapse into a withdrawal induced depression upon cessation. When withdrawing from cigarettes the entire world is bleak, and the former smoker must deal with great depression and anxiety symptoms as a result of their MAOI dependence in addition to the standard stimulant withdrawal symptoms like headache, lack of focus, chronic fatigue, etc.

So, the answer is that it's the combination of nicotine and the MAOI which makes smoked tobacco so addictive. In contrast, while chewing tobacco and other nicotine delivery methods are still addictive, they're nowhere near as addictive as combusted tobacco products. MAOI + nicotine in cigarettes operates on both the MAO family of enzymes and the acetylcholine receptor pathway in the brain simultaneously with a net effect of much more intense and addictive drug experience.

I am aware of interaction between MAOIs and nicotine. Please don't take any of the following as dissing your post. I think it's most excellent. This is not me arguing or nitpicking for sake of arguing and nitpicking. This is me looking for answers to questions I find interesting.

For specifics, your post may raise more questions than it answers. Particularly in regards to just how addictive (or not) nicotine is; used as a recreational drug outside of a MAOI cocktail. "...roughly as addictive as caffeine" is not a quantity, it's a comparison to another non-defined quantity.

Your comparison to caffeine sparked another train of thought. Silly or not. Take it for what it's worth: just the initial spark of a train of thought.

If I'm not entirely mistaken, based on my lack of any background in any related sciences, the same MAOIs found in tobacco (harman and norharman?), are also present in coffee. If that is the case, it begs the same question about the addictive (or not) nature of caffeine outside of a MAOI cocktail. Also makes me wonder how coffee interacts with (possible) nicotine "addiction".

I am also curious as to how someone found "nicotine + MAOI" to be more addictive than morphine. Not for sake of arguing, but for sake of knowing what such statements are based on.

As for Snus, which distinguishes itself from other forms of noncombusted tobaccos by means of processing, I could not find any specifics relating to MAO-A, the anti-depressant kind of MAOIs (?). Mind you, the only source I could find at short notice was Wikipedia. It seems the jury is out on the 'bio-availability' (just learnt that! ) of MAO-A in Snus. I would gracefully accept anything to the contrary - as I hate basing my beliefs on a Wikipedia article with poor source references.

@VNeil, If I take grave offense at you cutting that sentence from its context, for purpose of missing the point; are we even?

 

[VNeil]

@VNeil, If I take grave offense at you cutting that sentence from its context, for purpose of missing the point; are we even?

Is this the sentence you claim I cut from it's context?

"Nitpickery of the addictive nature (or not) of nicotine is all well and good - on a my-link-is-better-than-your-link pseudointellectual level."

For the record, this is YOUR ENTIRE UNEDITED POST, from which I took it:

I like the angle.

---

Nitpickery of the addictive nature (or not) of nicotine is all well and good - on a my-link-is-better-than-your-link pseudointellectual level. But! I find it bad form to base direct, personal advice on ones ability to Google up support for ones beliefs.

Not much for me to have cut out, is there????? Do you truly take "grave offence" that I snipped out "I like the angle"?
You asserted that this argument is based on contradictory and opposing evidence. I have repeatedly asked you for just ONE contradictory link or evidence. You have declined to do that, refusing to support your argument.

I ask you for evidence to support your assertion. You respond by trying to shoot the messenger, and as I illustrate here, it is quite a weak shot, to say the least. So no, we are not "even".