Encourage or Discourage eCigs?
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well put. I mean you can define it as technically different (tolerance, withdrawl etc), but in practice its just compulsive behavior - many such behaviors are seen as perfectly normal and acceptable.
Its arguable some highly regarded activities (like eating candy) meet the technical definition as well (tolerance and withdrawl). In the end, that makes it all, at least in part, just a cultural bias.
As an aside, I've been following the primal diet for over a year. I have no problem living without bread, it doesn't even seem like food to me anymore.
Sugar is another issue, I have to actively work on keeping my intake low - that stuff is addictive as hell (And by that I mean, just for clarity it's psychoactive and gives you withdrawl when you stop, stopping altogether is highly reminiscent of stopping smoking)
Vegetarian, pescatarian, or vegan? Either way, weird.
Nice retort. Kudos.
Last edited:
LOL I remember when studies came out with PeanutButter , polyester, and saccherin caused cancer . We still have Peanutbutter, polyester, and saccherin. Then they came out with an other set of things that were bad for you.
In this quest to live longer and better everyone and their brother puts up studies, some are good studies, some are really bad.
Now its sugar, fried foods, salt, and whatever else they can think of. If you were to listen to all the conserned Associations nobody would be eating anything.
Like the saccherin, they gave the mice enough saccherine to give them cancer but what that translated into in humans would have to eat barrels and barrels full to get the same results.
An other example of studys are drugs that FDA demands to insure they are safe for humans to take. And then years later "oops" they were not safe. There is no 100% when it comes to tests and studies.
The best thing is use your common sense and everything in moderation.
My Grandma used saccherine for years, ate fried eggs and bacon,real butter every day for years and years, meat and potatoes was main stay for her. She didnt pass from any of these things that they claimed they could cause, but from old age at the age of 96. The worse thing she had was arthritus and pain.
So eat and be merry!
In this quest to live longer and better everyone and their brother puts up studies, some are good studies, some are really bad.
Now its sugar, fried foods, salt, and whatever else they can think of. If you were to listen to all the conserned Associations nobody would be eating anything.
Like the saccherin, they gave the mice enough saccherine to give them cancer but what that translated into in humans would have to eat barrels and barrels full to get the same results.
An other example of studys are drugs that FDA demands to insure they are safe for humans to take. And then years later "oops" they were not safe. There is no 100% when it comes to tests and studies.
The best thing is use your common sense and everything in moderation.
My Grandma used saccherine for years, ate fried eggs and bacon,real butter every day for years and years, meat and potatoes was main stay for her. She didnt pass from any of these things that they claimed they could cause, but from old age at the age of 96. The worse thing she had was arthritus and pain.
So eat and be merry!
The truth is you are talking about wildly different phenomenon not addictions. Nicotine is addictive because it makes changes to the way your brain actually works. The younger you are when you take up smoking the more damaging the changes.
Everything that is pleasurable is reinforcing, sex, drugs, drinking, facebook, gambling, online gaming, surfing the net, food, hugs, exercise, whatever - its just that some of those things are good for you, and some are bad, and some are more reinforcing, and some are less, some have prominent psychoactive actions, and some are more select or subtle.
As a broad group, what these pleasurable activities have in common is classical conditioning, the most basic form of learned behavior. All of them have some measurable effects on various parts of the brain however. The brain is not a static thing, it dynamically reacts to any number of activities, particularly reinforcing ones.
It might interest you to know, as an example, that refined sugar has been found to have opiate and dopamine effecting properties in studies - it shares chemical similarity to morphine and amphetamines, obviously at a more subtle level that those, but nonetheless, this is most certainly affecting the way your brain works, and is thus, by all classical definitions, an addiction.
BTW, only in the full matrix of chemicals in combustible tobacco smoke is nicotine significantly reinforcing. On its own nicotine is probably just slightly more addictive than coffee. Or at least its not nearly as addictive as tobacco.
People who use the patches, for example, as a nootropic to aid memory recall(which is not an unheard of practice, theres reports of this around the net), have no real trouble stopping their use, whereas tobacco as a whole matrix, is comparable to in addictive properties to "coke".
Thus, it is worth not confusing the use of nicotine by former smokers and the addiction and reinforcement they gained from their period of smoking combustible tobacco, with the properties of nicotine use in and of itself.
Last edited:
Great. Give me some references. The ones I have read indicate that nicotine has properties that make it somewhat unique in it's addictive properties. Based on you statements you must have some support for what you are saying.
This is trivial. All changes in behavior change in the brain. When changes in behavior are not due to maturation, they are called "learning." Again: nothing special about nicotine. You're grasping at straws, junkman.
Discourage. If they have never smoked cigarettes, they don't need to be introduced to nic.
Regarding nicotine not being significantly addictive versus tobacco smoking?
Okay...from wiki:
"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[55] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine."
Referenced studies:
Monoamine oxidase inhibition dramatically increas... [J Neurosci. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Transient behavioral sensitization t... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
Although this should be anecdotally obvious - if nicotine alone were psychoactively equivilant to smoking, everyone giving up would succeed via NRT, or at minimum e-cigs 100% of the time. Rather than a much much more dismal number. And people like those that use nic patches for nootropic reasons (memory recall enhancement), would not find them easy to stop using.
I don't get all my info from wikipedia, and I can read and critique scientific research (I have a degree in psychology, and have done alot of neuropharmacology web research in my own time, so I am very familiar with chemical dependency and various receptor actions in the brain - that nicotine is not significantly addictive is also somewhat obvious from this POV as well, based on its action - a nicotinic agonist in itself isnt very rewarding, unless you boost the minor beta endorphin effects, as tobacco combustion does, via things like harman and the harmala alkaloids etc)
Is that what you wanted a reference for?
If so, that research should be sufficient. (Again, it should be anecdotally obvious, that smoking and nicotine are not equivilant, based on peoples experiences with both, and peoples experiences quitting - why most of the population misses this? IMO they must have there brains turned off, as usual. --->Psychoactive "equals" can substitute 100% for each other. Tobacco smoking and nicotine do this relatively poorly, especially in terms of reinforcement and addiction)
Or did you want proof that sugar is addictive, and alters your brain chemistry?
I can fish that up too if you want, but if you want to find it yourself, thats all under "sugar addiction" on wikipedia I beleive, along with all the research (cited), like "coke" addicted rats choosing sugar water over "coke" water, and the measurement of the dopamine and opiate receptor actions.
I found this fascinating myself, as it mirrored my own trial of going 100% sugar free - I had significant withdrawls and cravings, remarkably similar to giving up smoking. It seemed subjectively as though sugar was relatively equivilant to smoking tobacco, it its addictiveness. Of course I abandoned my trial, lol, and now attempt to moderate my sugar intake. Even that is a battle though.
I think we need more science on this sugar thing, because when people come into an opinion, without reason, or evidence, or a poor set of evidence, much more compelling evidence is required to get them out of their assumption (cultural legacy bias).
Its common in science unfortunately, but also in folk beliefs. People always demand a better quality of evidence than they based their opinion on in the first place. Sad really, that people lack a truely questioning mind, but it is what it is - belief structures are generally more emotional and psychological than they are rational.
I don't beleive there generally anything in my last post there that I could not provide studies, logic, and evidence for. So, if theres anything else you'd like a citation, or reference for, in my statements in that post, id be happy to provide it...
Hope that helps clear things up
PS - I still would not "encourage" use of sugar, alcohol, caffiene, nicotine, gambling, any other unnessasary potential habituation.
An adult can make there own choices as well of course though, and ignore any advice.
But I am always interested in the truth, and objectivity as well - this is probably the most effective way we can advise people too, by not encouraging or discouraging, by simply telling the, 100% objective as we can get it, truth.
Certainly exaggeration, emotive posturing, forbidding etc doesn't tend to have much efficacy in influencing behavior - the historical track record for such methods is quite abysmal.
Last edited:
HFCS seems applicable to this sort of assertion.
HFCS is addictive because it makes changes to the way your brain actually works. The younger you are when you take up HFCS the more damaging the changes.
Regarding nicotine not being significantly addictive versus tobacco smoking?
Okay...from wiki:
"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[55] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine."
Referenced studies:
Monoamine oxidase inhibition dramatically increas... [J Neurosci. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Transient behavioral sensitization t... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
Although this should be anecdotally obvious - if nicotine alone were psychoactively equivilant to smoking, everyone giving up would succeed via NRT, or at minimum e-cigs 100% of the time. Rather than a much much more dismal number. And people like those that use nic patches for nootropic reasons (memory recall enhancement), would not find them easy to stop using.
I don't get all my info from wikipedia, and I can read and critique scientific research (I have a degree in psychology, and have done alot of neuropharmacology web research in my own time, so I am very familiar with chemical dependency and various receptor actions in the brain - that nicotine is not significantly addictive is also somewhat obvious from this POV as well, based on its action - a nicotinic agonist in itself isnt very rewarding, unless you boost the minor beta endorphin effects, as tobacco combustion does, via things like harman and the harmala alkaloids etc)
Is that what you wanted a reference for?
If so, that research should be sufficient. (Again, it should be anecdotally obvious, that smoking and nicotine are not equivilant, based on peoples experiences with both, and peoples experiences quitting - why most of the population misses this? IMO they must have there brains turned off, as usual. --->Psychoactive "equals" can substitute 100% for each other. Tobacco smoking and nicotine do this relatively poorly, especially in terms of reinforcement and addiction)
Or did you want proof that sugar is addictive, and alters your brain chemistry?
I can fish that up too if you want, but if you want to find it yourself, thats all under "sugar addiction" on wikipedia I beleive, along with all the research (cited), like "coke" addicted rats choosing sugar water over "coke" water, and the measurement of the dopamine and opiate receptor actions.
I found this fascinating myself, as it mirrored my own trial of going 100% sugar free - I had significant withdrawls and cravings, remarkably similar to giving up smoking. It seemed subjectively as though sugar was relatively equivilant to smoking tobacco, it its addictiveness. Of course I abandoned my trial, lol, and now attempt to moderate my sugar intake. Even that is a battle though.
I think we need more science on this sugar thing, because when people come into an opinion, without reason, or evidence, or a poor set of evidence, much more compelling evidence is required to get them out of their assumption (cultural legacy bias).
Its common in science unfortunately, but also in folk beliefs. People always demand a better quality of evidence than they based their opinion on in the first place. Sad really, that people lack a truely questioning mind, but it is what it is - belief structures are generally more emotional and psychological than they are rational.
I don't beleive there generally anything in my last post there that I could not provide studies, logic, and evidence for. So, if theres anything else you'd like a citation, or reference for, in my statements in that post, id be happy to provide it...
Hope that helps clear things up
PS - I still would not "encourage" use of sugar, alcohol, caffiene, nicotine, gambling, any other unnessasary potential habituation.
An adult can make there own choices as well of course though, and ignore any advice.
But I am always interested in the truth, and objectivity as well - this is probably the most effective way we can advise people too, by not encouraging or discouraging, by simply telling the, 100% objective as we can get it, truth.
Certainly exaggeration, emotive posturing, forbidding etc doesn't tend to have much efficacy in influencing behavior - the historical track record for such methods is quite abysmal.
Yes, that was what i was looking for.
It does seem that they are saying that nicotine is less addictive absent these other compounds. I do appreciate your entire comment. However, I would also say that I don't read this as saying nicotine is not in and of itself addictive, just more powerfully addictive in combination with them. Further support for smokers switching to vaping.
It is clear to me that smoking addiction is more than just the nicotine as I have experienced in using the patch (many years ago) and gum on numerous occasions (although the gum would likely have been more effective to me if chewing nicorette was a satisfying accompaniment to alcohol
)Having said that, I don't think vaping has in any way ended my addiction to smoking at this point. If tomorrow, I suddenly could no longer vape, I am fairly certain that I would be back to smoking, whereas when I vape, I have minimal desire to smoke. I think that speaks to an addiction to nicotine in me personally. Of course having started smoking at age 15 and smoking more or less constantly for 35 years may mean that I am more susceptible to nicotine than those with shorter or later nicotine exposure.
Well, I do like sugar, but generally only in combination with chocolate or coffee, both of which have their own addictive properties.
Yes, that was what i was looking for.
It does seem that they are saying that nicotine is less addictive absent these other compounds. I do appreciate your entire comment. However, I would also say that I don't read this as saying nicotine is not in and of itself addictive, just more powerfully addictive in combination with them. Further support for smokers switching to vaping.
It is clear to me that smoking addiction is more than just the nicotine as I have experienced in using the patch (many years ago) and gum on numerous occasions (although the gum would likely have been more effective to me if chewing nicorette was a satisfying accompaniment to alcohol
Having said that, I don't think vaping has in any way ended my addiction to smoking at this point. If tomorrow, I suddenly could no longer vape, I am fairly certain that I would be back to smoking, whereas when I vape, I have minimal desire to smoke. I think that speaks to an addiction to nicotine in me personally. Of course having started smoking at age 15 and smoking more or less constantly for 35 years may mean that I am more susceptible to nicotine than those with shorter or later nicotine exposure.
Nicotine is still addictive, but not nearly as much.
You gained that reinforcement, which you speak of, the learning of addiction whilst smoking. The strong conditioning in your, comes from that. All former smokers are highly prone to relapse, any number of years after quitting. Thats why we use the lesser addiction of nicotine to semi-satisfy our conditioning.
I really do not believe its appropriate to extrapolate however our experiences as former smokers, to those that haven't smoked, and how they may experience nicotine - especially knowing what I know about reinforcement. Many former chemical dependacies can be staved off using "lesser compounds", even in cases where said compounds do not tend to caused habituation.
Ultimately, the only true non-smokers that have used nicotine to date, have used it functionally, ie for a nootropic, or I believe sometimes for working out, or wakefulness. If anyone's experience of nicotine, outside of the context of a smoking history, can be looked to here, it's those people.
For the purposes of information from their personal experience, these occurances are rare (due to the general public thinking on nicotine), but I believe the general experience is something like "its somewhat addictive, causes mild withdrawls but one can stop and not look back". It would be an interesting area of anecdote, to look into further actually.
This experience I have heard from a few on the net, if indeed its reflective of all of those occurances makes sense when you consider how much pleasure can be derived from smoking, versus the relatively more plain stimulant feeling of nicotine. But again, actually its an area that such anecdote should be looked at more really, to assay the common experience of smoking niave nicotine users.
Just my thoughts on that. Again, I am sure nicotine is addictive just not nearly as much as smoking, just like I am sure gambling is addictive and caffiene and most likely sugar is addictive, and I would not encourage anyone to start any of those things.
Last edited:
a) over 18 years old
If they are current smokers, yes
b) has never smoked in their lives
Better to go your whole life without nicotine then to start, regardless of risk
c) has yet to try vaping
If they are current smokers, yes
d) would prefer to have at least some nicotine in their vape
If they are current smokers, yes
If they are current smokers, yes
b) has never smoked in their lives
Better to go your whole life without nicotine then to start, regardless of risk
c) has yet to try vaping
If they are current smokers, yes
d) would prefer to have at least some nicotine in their vape
If they are current smokers, yes
Smoking is right up there with alcohol, gambling, crack,herion, some RX drugs. Tho they are all different they are are triggered dependancies by the same part of the brain.
once you get rid of the physical dependancy of crack, herion, smoking, alcohol you need behaviour modifcations to get past the mental part of the addiction and even then years and years later you can have cravings. Gambling is the same way as fars as the mental addictions. endorphins are released in the same way with with all these addictions making you feel good, shopping for some also releases endorphens to make you feel happy. endorphins is the natural moraphine of the body.
What you are really getting addicted to is the endorphins. So your in your brain there is reseptors wanting and wating for the release of adorphens. When it doesnt happen they send out signals to the body to cause this to happen, hence the craving for a cig, wanting to gamble or whatever the addiction is.
caffeine, chocolate (which is caffeine/sugar) and sugar dont trigger those same areas of the brain and dont cause endorphins to be created. Its much easyer to break the habit of caffeine and sugar that all the other addictions.
Heavy exercise does and a person can become addicted to exercise and will crave it.
But really its way more complicated than that, other chemicals come into place along the way also.
once you get rid of the physical dependancy of crack, herion, smoking, alcohol you need behaviour modifcations to get past the mental part of the addiction and even then years and years later you can have cravings. Gambling is the same way as fars as the mental addictions. endorphins are released in the same way with with all these addictions making you feel good, shopping for some also releases endorphens to make you feel happy. endorphins is the natural moraphine of the body.
What you are really getting addicted to is the endorphins. So your in your brain there is reseptors wanting and wating for the release of adorphens. When it doesnt happen they send out signals to the body to cause this to happen, hence the craving for a cig, wanting to gamble or whatever the addiction is.
caffeine, chocolate (which is caffeine/sugar) and sugar dont trigger those same areas of the brain and dont cause endorphins to be created. Its much easyer to break the habit of caffeine and sugar that all the other addictions.
Heavy exercise does and a person can become addicted to exercise and will crave it.
But really its way more complicated than that, other chemicals come into place along the way also.
Yeah, I believe, and as you allude to, the pleasures of vaping may more closely mimic the pleasures of smoking than the examples you are giving above, so I would guess the addictive potential would be higher. I don't know about those uses, but I am imagining the they are using a patch or similar mechanism, which would tend to be less likely to have the associative properties that are shared by smoking and vaping. Although I know the nicotine hit in smoking is likely faster/stronger than vaping, both would be faster and more directly linked to the activity than a patch or similar method.
Sugar addiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Researchers say that sugar and the taste of sweet is said to stimulate the brain by activating beta endorphin receptor sites, the same chemicals activated in the brain by the ingestion of ...... and morphine."
"Finally, a 2008 study noted that sugar affects opioids and dopamine in the brain, and thus might be expected to have addictive potential. It referenced bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization, and gave each of them operational definitions in order to demonstrate behaviorally that sugar bingeing is a reinforcer. These behaviors were said to be related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur during addiction to drugs. Neural adaptations included changes in dopamine and opioid receptor binding, enkephalin mRNA expression and dopamine and acetylcholine release in the nucleus accumbens"
"Coke" addicted rats, choose sugar water over "coke" water. I beleive you are quite wrong about the addictiveness of sugar. At minimum, you are wrong about it not elicting typical addictive dopamine, endorphin and opiod activities in the brain.
Fair point, vaping _may_ be more addictive than the patch, due to associative behaviour, and speed of release. And yeah, they would be using gum and patches, inhalers etc (which do actually raise blood nico levels quite high, in some cases higher than a pv, for an inhaler its like double)
I still doubt thats nico is nearly as bad as us ex-smokers make out for the smoking niave. We got the full hit in smoking. Someone who hasnt, wont be conditioned the same.
- Status
Similar threads
