Interesting point. If someone was dead set on either smoking or vaping, and was 100% going to do one or the other.....
Encourage or Discourage eCigs?
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
When a person goes off a pharmaceutical grade Maoi, they withdraw slowly going down in strengh. Its never withdrawn from all at once.
What my question is at some point does the chem brain patterns go back to normal or does it after long term use of smoking stay completely "messed up", for a lack of better words? I have not found any research on this. Hence the people that crave 20-30 years later after quiting.
Drael I totally get what you are saying. I understand the difference between the two addictions now. BTW very little or not at all is talked about even by the top leading hospitals about the Maoi in tobacco. They all blame the whole thing on nicotine. Why is that I wonder?
What my question is at some point does the chem brain patterns go back to normal or does it after long term use of smoking stay completely "messed up", for a lack of better words? I have not found any research on this. Hence the people that crave 20-30 years later after quiting.
Drael I totally get what you are saying. I understand the difference between the two addictions now. BTW very little or not at all is talked about even by the top leading hospitals about the Maoi in tobacco. They all blame the whole thing on nicotine. Why is that I wonder?
I am glad in your prior post, you can see what I am getting atAt no point did I suggest, or do I want to suggest, that one should encouraged into nicotine, sugar, caffiene or anything else that may or may not form a habit for people either, just for the record
I just want if possible, the vaping community to be clear that nicotine alone is less addictive than smoking, that nicotine is not the only or even primary reason why smoking is addictive, and few pages back, there was a bit of talk suggesting otherwise. So having just been over that already in the thread, I had to bring it up
Agree, no one should be encouraged to vape if not a smoker.
Agree, nicotine alone is likely less addictive than smoking.
Seems like conjecture/anecdotal/and hedge words, ie. "seem", "typically" etc. I don't doubt that MOAI play a roll, but that roll is not well defined and does not appear to be the only factor in nicotine addiction.
Agreed, MAOI exacerbated the addiction. "Nicotine alone was pleasurable (or not unpleasurable) enough for them to want it in the first place" and according to my reading, to continue to self administer - although at lower levels than the MAOI rats.
Appears to be a baseless supposition to me. You are yourself admitting this is a guess.
Maybe. Sounds like more conjecture though. What evidence do you have with regard to relative addictive properties of caffeine and nicotine?
Again, some hedging here. "...do not seem quite as strong..." Bottom line is it looks like you are saying the MAOI in tobacco is not strong enough to move these substances to the level of addiction that is seen in tobacco, despite earlier assertion that these substances could be made addictive through MAOI use. Again, I don't disagree with you, but the earlier passage seemed to be stating that MAOI as found in tobacco could change a relatively non-addictive substance - nioctine or chocolate - into the type of addiction associated with tobacco. Your current comment appears to be backing away from this assertion.
Well, I would like to see support for these percentages if it is available. Otherwise, again, seems like a guess.
Not sure I am following you in this section, but this seems to be the opposite of the effect one would expect, right? You are saying that these things bring a desire to smoke, whereas if the MAOI were affecting the addiction level of these substances and activities, they should be independently craved?
Why would it be expected to be subtle? I would expect strong addiction to coffee if I were drinking coffee while smoking, if in fact caffeine and nicotine had similar inherent addictive properties..
Overall, I appreciate you comments, but it feels like you are attempting to fit your hypothesis to your conclusion with minimal scientific support. I agree that you have provided references that MAOI contributes to the intensity of nicotine addiction, but I don't believe this comment provides much support for the degree of that contribution or an explanation of the failure of the MAOI in tobacco to affect addiction to other substances used in conjunction with smoking.
The lack of strong addiction of other substances used in conjunction with tobacco use leads me to believe that while MAOI plays a role in increasing addiction, nicotine is plenty addictive on its own and apparently more addictive than other substances and activities normally associated with smoking - i.e. caffeine from drinking coffee.
Last edited:
Ive seen no research into this. I know the "mao-rebound" and such things have been linked to addiction, but thats all I know has been researched on this. Suprisingly theres not a great deal of good research on nicotines brain effects generally.
Theres two aspects to how your brain goes out of balance, one is sensitivity, which recovers in time, the other is refinforcement/learning, which takes much longer.
Because mao-i's essentially affect ALL major brain functions, the later here could take a very very long time to resolve (and perhaps never resolve completely). Certainly smoking is very prone to relapse. If this hasn't been studied, it should be, the long term recovery of the brain, from mao-i's with smoking.
The short answer is, once somebody has spread an assumption, based on little or poor evidence, the opinion is hard to reverse.
And usually this actually happens because the first look rarely leads to a comprehensive veiw.
Sadly this generally happens all the time in science and medicine, its called "cultural legacy bias", and no amount of replication, or peer reveiw can address it.
Poorly controlled or designed studies, soft evidence like statistics and high interpretation like in theoretical physics, leads to an abundance of these scenarios.
Whats most remarkable about the assumed "facts" of science, medicine or just everyday people, is that in cases like this they don't even hold up to a breif logical scrutiny, which demonstrates very few people question or think about such things.
Its painfully logically obvious that nicotine and smoking are not equivilant or one could be effortlessly exchanged for the other with no real notable difference, like any truely equivilant drug, instead of having as high as a 98% relapse rate with nrt in 20 months, or (guessing here, as many have - we will know the real numbers by the end of this year) 70% optimistically with e-cigs.
Sooner or later, opnion shifts, but slowly like some time frozen old granite statue. Such is the nature of belief and assumption, even amongst those who pride themselves as critical thinkers.
Most belief just an emotional and intellectual house of cards, scientist, preist, or joe bloggs, that one defends, not for critical reasons, but to avoid structural collapse of a tower that is essentially fragile in nature.
Last edited:
This is the way I think about knowledge, for me, it always contains some uncertainty. Anything less is presumption.
I am however happy to intergrate logic, subjective experiences and scientific measurements, which are all merely forms of logic, to come to a conclusion.
I am always prepared to adjust that conclusion, in the face of new logic, subjective experience, or evidence of other kinds. You can view that as conjecture if you wish, or undue uncertainty if you wish, but I see this as being more objective. Take from that what you will.
The two best forms of evidence, regarding the relative addictive qualities of nicotine alone, are these two animal studies, and the subjective anecdotal experience of tobacco niave nicotine users. Admitedly not a wealth of evidence, but both of these support my general conclusion, rather than any other. I am happy to admit its an approximation but specificity is not really required here, only general indications, and a analogous well known substance serves the purpose of general communication of the ideas very well, despite some key differences and some approximation.
Chocolate with tobacco, no, its it does not produce the level of addiction, that it would with selegine - two reasons, one the strength of the mao, two the pleasure pathway tolerance induced by the smoking itself - partly from combining nicotine with mao-i, and partly from basically constant mao-inhibition.
Chocolate with seligene could and does, induce psychoactive effects significantly stronger than any legal substance. Theres plenty of reports around the net of people doing this exact sort of thing. But refer back to the two reasons why this doesn't happen with tobacco, on that kind of overt level.
No, if you look back, youll find I said mao-i in general can do this to relatively non-addictive substances, using the example of chocolate (not sure one can argue chocolate is completely non addictive btw either).
As mao-i currently exists in tobacco, and is used by users in tobacco, what occurs instead is that addictive substances or activities become more addictive and reinforcing (sex, drinking, eating, opiates, stimulants and so on), and concorrent smoking also becomes more reinforcing and addictive with those activities.
I said it was from the top of my head. But theres a few studies, so here are some secondary references to them:
"As reported in the February 22 issue of Nature, smokers had an average of 40 percent less of the enzyme MAO B than nonsmokers and those who had kicked the habit. This finding, drawn from brain scans of 20 subjects, may also help explain smokers' paradoxically lower risk of developing Parkinson's disease, and the higher incidence of smoking among drug addicts and those with psychiatric disorders. For those who smoke but want to quit, MAO B could one day be the target of specialized treatments."
Why Do People Smoke? Research at Brookhaven Looks Beyond Nicotine
"Recently, positron emission tomography imaging has shown that smokers have a much lower activity of peripheral and brain MAO-A (30%) and -B (40%) isozymes compared to non-smokers. "
Tobacco smoke, beta-carboline alkaloids, and reversible MAO inhibition
"The inhibition of cerebral monoamine oxidases (MAOs) by cigarette smoke components could participate to the tobacco addiction. However, the actual extent of this inhibition in vivo in smokers is still poorly known. We investigated cerebral MAO-A availability in 7 tobacco-dependent subjects and 6 healthy nonsmokers, using positron emission tomography (PET) and the MAO-A selective radioligand [C]befloxatone. In comparison to nonsmokers, smokers showed a significant overall reduction of [C]befloxatone binding potential (BP) in cortical areas (average reduction, -60%) and a similar trend in caudate and thalamus (-40%)"
Cerebral monoamine oxidase A inhibiti... [J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Turns out I did pretty well for off the top of my head.
And this for comparison:
"A regimen of 2 x 5 mg daily of selegiline irreversibly inhibits over 90% of MAO-B in the basal ganglia, the location of over 80% of dopamine in the human brain. This level of MAO-B inhibition leads to a 40%-70% increase in synaptic dopamine."
Selegiline ( l-deprenyl )
So selegine is stronger for sure.
Well, no I'd expect them to interrelate to each re-inforcement wise, especially more so that seligine because the route of admistration for smoking is virtually instantaneous. One may also use less of both, depending on tolerance, because of a stronger effect, _initially_.
Lets take chocolate and selegine as an example. One would not independantly crave those, if one had access to both. One would co-consume, because thats the way they are, by far, more effective. Individually they do very little. More extreme example, and not an instant route of admin, but close enough as an example.
Its worth noting, and undestanding that there are several groups of mao inhibitor in tobacco smoke. One group is the more well known WTA, which are primarily mao-b inhibitors with very long half-lifes (12-16 hours), the other are combustion products, the harmaline alkaloids, like harman are mostly mao-a, and they have a very short half life, about thirty minutes or so.
All these effects will be constantly working against tolerance, in the same way that, say, when drinking, you dont reach a point at, where u say, I am happy, you keep sipping (perhaps not the best analogy, but what I am trying to get at, is the brain reaches an equilibrium with whatever state its in, if its that state nearly all the time especially, the main difference comes from variation from baseline).
This may feel like nothing during the action sometimes of mao-inhibitors from smoking (alone), due to equilibrium and tolerance, but logically would contribute very strongly to withdrawl and cravings when giving up.
And again, if one has a smoke after drinking, or after illicit drugs of certain types, it intensifies both the tobacco, and the other drug leading to more consumption of both.
Does that all make sense yet?
I did say nicotine was more addictive but similar to caffiene, mainly because thats an easily grasped comparison. Its not 100% accurate as a comparison. And the mao-i's in smoking are weaker than in selegine, which I pointed out in my post (and you said it was conjecture and ignored it, hopefully now ive posted some studies, we can treat this as accepted).
And well, caffiene has no beta-endorphin or dopamine properties that I am aware of. Theres not really much there to enhance so far as I know. I am not even sure really why caffiene is addictive, other than promoting wakefulness and an associated down-regulation. Its never interested me to deeply research its pharmacology. Even if caffiene did have beta-endorphin qualities, there would be some cross-tolerance issues with nicotine, as I mentioned above.
Fits reality and reason for me. Everyone is entitled to a veiwpoint.
I think probably the most studied interaction between smoking and another substance, is smoking and drinking. Thats well studied if you want to google scholar that up, there are very established cross effects, and increased co-consumption. Probably there might be some research on eating or sex too there. I would have thought these things would be subjectively and logically obvious to some degree.
There is definately anecdotal reports from illicit drug users of effect intensification from tobacco smoking, which your also welcome to google. In the end, if you want to explore an idea, and your skeptical, your best looking yourself for the evidence. If you have your mind made up already, and you don't want to explore the evidence, theres no function it listening to some geezer prattle on about a counter veiw.
.
I can only advise you learn more about various actions in the brain before you draw such a conclusion. Things can have beta-endorphin, opiate or dopamine effects and be relatively non-addictive until a mao-i is applied, or even reinforcement is well established.
The reward pathways, heck even the neurotransmitter pathways, the functioning of neurons in the brain - its not casual science. You really need a grounded understanding to appreciate all that is occuring. The short version is however this - most of these chemical addiction pathways seem to come back to the opiate receptors. The stronger its triggered, the more addictive. Nicotine only on its own only has mild beta-endorphin effects according to science.
I am sure, if I researched it enough, I could come up with a specific activity or substance of comparison which shares the exact dose activation relationship as nicotine, but to be honest, that seems like a total waste of my time to acheive that degree of technical specificity for everyday discussion.
People don't tent to think objectively about addiction anyway. They dont listen to science generally, or reason. To them, its taboo and bad, or accepted and then habituation doesn't really matter at all.
The main point I want to drive, and thats undisputable I think on the science, nicotine and smoking are not drug equivilants, they are significantly different in addictive properties.
Back to caffiene - Caffiene, while a good example for being primarily a wakefulness stimulant, with a similar health profile to nicotine, may and likely lacks the same pleasure giving mild opiate type properties, and so misses the analogy completely in regard to mao-i.
There may be opiate type actions, even sucrose has such effects, but they not even strong enough to be noticable on selegine, it we would not expect them not to here either.
Chocolate, in its natural form, isnt really strong enough as a comparison, giving the mao-i of smoking is weaker than selegine. Selegine doesnt come with nicotine either, its mao only.
There simply is no commonly experienced comparative substance, with mild pleasure activating properties that I can think of, even obscure things, I can think of nothing "perfect" as a comparison. Caffiene mostly suffices, when we consider nicotine alone. The best example I can come up on the spot, with of a comparison re-smoking itself is chocolate and seligene. But thats not perfect either.
When I take a counter veiw, perhaps you beleive I am overstating things - and maybe thats the impression my language gives - but one cannot be wish-washing about with opposing an opposite position, can one?
(especially one that is totally ingrained, and widely regarded as gospel, without one shred of logic or proof or _anything_ to support that veiw.
I mean I could post a thousand studies, reason one hundred arguments, cite directly anecdotal experiences, and there would be people still, without _any_ of their own well controlled studies, reason, arguments or anectodatal reports, be defending their position based purely on a belief. As whoever that smart person is said -
you cant reason your way out of something you didnt reason your way into! )
....
Nicotine is addictive. Thats given. More than caffiene can we say, without need for proof? (there is proof, btw, cant be arsed)
Significantly, less than hard illicit drugs, or their legal but equally addictive counterpart, combustion tobacco?
or in the studies terminology, nicotine is not significantly reinforcing, nicotine and mao-i is, to a degree similar to hard illicit drugs) - of which we have proof.
If your unhappy with my "slightly more than caffiene" analogy, which admitedly is rough -
then perhaps we can just accept this -
Nicotine is -
1) addictive
2) more than caffiene
3) proven "significantly" less than hard illicit drugs, or smoked tobacco
(or in the words of the title one of the studies - "Dramatically")
?
Cool?
Last edited:
I wish these were around in 1989. If someone would have put a PV in front of me when I was getting ready to light my Mom's Carlton 100, and said "Try this, it tastes way better and looks cool" I would have been WAY better off and happier with that decision. I was 15.
If the addiction, which stems from personal choice to use, is reasonably and indisputably bad (self destructive) for the non-user, then the addiction by users is arguably bad (self destructive) for all who exercise personal choice to use nicotine / vape with nicotine.
Therefore, it might be argued, that addicts (users) are the worst people to set policy that would impact all potential users (read as everyone), unless those users were fully behind some program that leads to less use and/or abstention.
A reasonable person, I would think, who has been there as an addict, but is now no longer, would realize outright banning / cold turkey would ultimately be counter productive. So, this person would likely support less use, less nicotine intake, and a program aimed ultimately at abstention. To the addicts, er, um, I mean users, this person might be quickly viewed as some anti-using zealot of sorts. One that doesn't possibly understand 'my' own situation with the use of this product, and one that most certainly doesn't speak for me.
The more 'we' make the case that this product is bad for the potential user, the more it solidifies 'evidence' that users are engaged in a self destructive, relatively harmful activity.
As I am user who thinks of the product as relatively harmless, enjoyable and an addiction that isn't inherently self destructive (any more than food is self destructive), I guess I stand opposed to those who tend to argue otherwise. Who are firmly in the camp of 'always discourage the non-user.' Given the stakes and the anecdotal evidence all around us, I find that position to be the insane one.
Therefore, it might be argued, that addicts (users) are the worst people to set policy that would impact all potential users (read as everyone), unless those users were fully behind some program that leads to less use and/or abstention.
A reasonable person, I would think, who has been there as an addict, but is now no longer, would realize outright banning / cold turkey would ultimately be counter productive. So, this person would likely support less use, less nicotine intake, and a program aimed ultimately at abstention. To the addicts, er, um, I mean users, this person might be quickly viewed as some anti-using zealot of sorts. One that doesn't possibly understand 'my' own situation with the use of this product, and one that most certainly doesn't speak for me.
The more 'we' make the case that this product is bad for the potential user, the more it solidifies 'evidence' that users are engaged in a self destructive, relatively harmful activity.
As I am user who thinks of the product as relatively harmless, enjoyable and an addiction that isn't inherently self destructive (any more than food is self destructive), I guess I stand opposed to those who tend to argue otherwise. Who are firmly in the camp of 'always discourage the non-user.' Given the stakes and the anecdotal evidence all around us, I find that position to be the insane one.
I'm not sure many people are arguing that "addiction" to nicotine is necessarily bad, just that it could be.
In other words, it may not be bad for me, but it might be bad for you.
At least that's what I've been arguing.
You seem to live in a world of absolutes.
But life is a gray area.
My point is that vaping is relatively harmless and much anecdotal evidence points to this.
Another point in this thread is 'always discourage the non-nic user.'
And so my gray position that might advocate for times to encourage is met with absolute position of never encourage.
I wonder which one of us is closer to ANTZ?
Honest encouragement might look like - I recommend you using this or at least trying it. I must caution you that an addiction to nicotine isn't necessarily bad, but it could be.
Oh, and you might not want to ask me what I mean by 'bad' because I would reply with relatively harmless.
Another point in this thread is 'always discourage the non-nic user.'
And so my gray position that might advocate for times to encourage is met with absolute position of never encourage.
I wonder which one of us is closer to ANTZ?
Honest encouragement might look like - I recommend you using this or at least trying it. I must caution you that an addiction to nicotine isn't necessarily bad, but it could be.
Oh, and you might not want to ask me what I mean by 'bad' because I would reply with relatively harmless.
Like most minor issues in life, my approach to this is "what's the big deal?"
The solution to many problems depends on how you frame the problem. For example, some people get freaked put by marriage, because they're like "I'll be spending the rest of my life with that person." But when you really think about it, it's just a few hours a day.
When you throw emotionally charged words into the mix, then "principled" stances on very minor issues suddenly cease to sound extremist. You can plausibly say, "I want as few people as possible addicted to nicotine." But you sound ridiculous saying, "I stand vehemently opposed to having people feel uncomfortable when some period of time passes and they haven't consumed nicotine" (and that's all it really amounts to with vaping). Addiction, as such doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's not like people are committing crimes to get nicotine.
The solution to many problems depends on how you frame the problem. For example, some people get freaked put by marriage, because they're like "I'll be spending the rest of my life with that person." But when you really think about it, it's just a few hours a day.
When you throw emotionally charged words into the mix, then "principled" stances on very minor issues suddenly cease to sound extremist. You can plausibly say, "I want as few people as possible addicted to nicotine." But you sound ridiculous saying, "I stand vehemently opposed to having people feel uncomfortable when some period of time passes and they haven't consumed nicotine" (and that's all it really amounts to with vaping). Addiction, as such doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's not like people are committing crimes to get nicotine.
I can live with that.
I do appreciate your input to this thread. I believe it has been quite valuable, at least to me and I learned a lot.
Particularly regarding the impact of MOAI on nicotine addiction . Although I don't claim to follow everything you say, I follow enough that I am less (less not completely) concerned about people without prior smoking habits becoming addicted to nicotine through vaping and I feel much better equipped to defend vaping to ANTZ after having gone through this exercise.
I still would not encourage the use to non-smokers, and given the difficulty I have had in convincing smokers to try, I don't think I have to worry much anyway.
Again, thanks for all the information.
LOL, marriage only a few hours a day. I guess I am looking at that wrong too.
What about vaping nicotine for weight loss?
That could be a HUGE market, and a very valid product.
I don't think any of us has anything to be concerned about really when it comes to non nic users in our own lives who may suddenly want to try an eCig. Might happen once a year at very most, at least in my case.
With smokers I know, the convincing to try has been fairly easy. The ability to 'make them stick to it' I find challenging in some cases, which given the whole irony around addiction in this thread, is interesting.
During SB festivities yesterday, I did everything I think possible to let a smoker I know that he could have his own eCig (one of mine) with one of 5 flavors I brought with me. This is person that has tried eCigs and told me at one point, "I think I prefer eCigs to smoking." But during this SB event, which is a good 3 months since he said that quote to me, this person was like, "nah, not up for that sort of thing today."
And IMO, that does have to do with flavor, at least a little bit. I chose to smoke (his brand) during this event. And almost started a thread here today about that experience. And that thread wasn't all about flavor, but here in this paragraph, it is about that. The flavor is vastly different and I think we vapers can all remember wanting the eCig flavor that would be exactly like our brand of smokes, then realizing you might not find that, and then fully realizing, you can't find that. Followed up by realization that the umpteen thousand flavors of eLiquid trump whatever the tobacco industry has so far managed to put out in terms of 'flavors.' But that flavor that comes from smoking, when in the midst of that habit, is hard to get when eCigs are the alternative.
A smoker really does have to want to quit or slow down on smoking for vaping to be effective.
No smoking for me today so far, and fairly certain I won't have one. But on a day to day basis, I give myself full permission and pretty much know I can quit smoking, or use it very moderately, at any moment. Easily with vaping in the picture.
- Status
Similar threads
