True !!
I went from 1 to 2 packs a day after switching to "Lights".
On weekends ... I would sometimes smoke 3 PAD
FDA issues notice of intent to propose "deeming" regulation by April of 2013 for e-cigarettes and other tobacco products
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I went from 1 to 2 packs a day after switching to "Lights".
On weekends ... I would sometimes smoke 3 PAD
No, I agree with what Elaine posted. There are some addictions where you need more and more of the chemical to "satisfy the itch" so to speak. Nicotine is not one of them. That is why you never hear of regular nicotine users overdosing to death. Even someone who smokes 4 packs a day is only consuming as much as they can tolerate to "scratch the itch" without negative affects. Are they "more addicted" because they smoke more or do they just have a higher tolerance or just more into the hand-to-mouth habit? If a 4-pack smoker is "more addicted" why can they switch just as easily to vaping the same mg as a pack-a-day smoker? Why were my husband and I both pack-a-day smokers but I'm happy with 10 mg but he needs a higher strength mg and snus to not smoke? Clearly, the "more addictive" nicotine in the cigarettes didn't addict us equally.
I believe one chemical can be more addicting than another chemical (ie. caffeine vs. h eroin) but I'm not convinced that a chemical we are already addicted to can be made "more addictive" by making it more efficient to "scratch the itch." Logic says that making it more efficient means you need less to be satisfied, not that you are "more addicted."
Last edited:
Perhaps "Potent" would be a better word than more "efficient".
Its like alcoholic beverages, 1 beer = 1/2 a glass of wine or 1 and 1/2 ounces of liquor. In this example liquor is the more potent of the three so it takes less to get drunk off of. Its where the saying "Liquor is quicker" comes from.
Its like alcoholic beverages, 1 beer = 1/2 a glass of wine or 1 and 1/2 ounces of liquor. In this example liquor is the more potent of the three so it takes less to get drunk off of. Its where the saying "Liquor is quicker" comes from.
Anyone know the petitions signage count? I'm on a mobile and can't see. Not just that I'm lazy 
Thank you Elaine and Kristen! Over the past year of my reading through this forum, the two of you have provided invaluable information that has help me educate myself on many important topics. I think this particular topic that addiction is not a "one size fits all" symptom of the human condition is extremely important to understand, especially in the context of caffeine and nicotine. When I speak directly to a smoker about the benefits of vaping over smoking, and I put the context of nicotine in line with caffeine, it seems to register better with them. I would really like to see more comparative studies between the two that shows correlation in addictive properties and short/medium term effects on the human body.
Do we have any such studies already available or in the works? Maybe as a subset of the data available from recent Alzheimer's research?
Anyone know the petitions signage count? I'm on a mobile and can't see. Not just that I'm lazy
9,268 currently. Still a ways to go, and I'd like to see that minimum requirement blown out of the water, but we're doing pretty good.
I think "potent" has a negative connotation though. You don't see pharmaceutical drugs described as "more potent" but rather "more effective" or "extra strength." Potent brings to mind something other than intended use or illicit, as in something that will get you "more high" or "more drunk."
The ANTZ accuse cigarette manufacturers of increasing the "yield," which is how much of the nicotine in a cigarette can be absorbed (ex. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31thu2.html?_r=0). The insinuation is that more nicotine the user gets per cigarette the more addictive it is. But that same premise isn't true with alcohol. A higher alcohol content in a product doesn't make it "more addictive" or else they'd say whiskey is more addictive than beer. In reality, an alcoholic would just drink more beer to get the desired effect. Whiskey drinkers aren't any more likely to become alcoholic than beer drinkers just because whiskey is more potent or more effective at delivering the alcohol than beer.
Elaine and Kristin I am not talking about tollerance. I am talking about withdrawl. If a light smoker quits with les nicotine in his system he is going to have an easier time than a full flavored smoker with more nicotine in his system if they both smoked the same number of PAD. I am not talking about needing MORE as your body has tollerance. I am saying your body wants the same level it is currently used to and thus if it is used to a higher level of nicotine, up to the max body allowance, it will be harder to withdrawl from than a lighter nicotine user.
You are addicted at whatever level your tolerance is. Addicted is addicted. There is no scientific evidence that a pack-a-day smoker is any less addicted than a 4 pack-a-day smoker or that it'd be easier for a pack-a-day smoker to quit because there is less nicotine in their system. When you quit, either way you are quitting whatever level your body is used to - whether that is 20 mg per day or 80 mg per day. Logically, it would be just as hard for a pack-a-day smoker to give up their addiction as it would be for a 4 pack-a-day smoker to give up their's.
According to research, there is also reason to believe that nicotine receptors get saturated at about the 1-pack/day level, so any smoking beyond that is not about the nicotine and does not affect nicotine response.
Last edited:
If you haven't been around here, fighting the good fight for three years or more, you may not know this.
But what Petrodus just said above is the absolute truth.
In the end their only argument is going to be "for the children" and I'm afraid it might be enough.
That is the fallback position, and the one that a portion of America eats like candy.
If having less nicotine in your system meant an easier withdrawal or lower addiction level, then the patches and other NRTs would probably have a much higher success rate. Also, a 21mg patch provides MUCH more nicotine than the 12mg juice I used when I started vaping (18mg and 24mg seemed too harsh as far as throat hit)...... yet, I smoked and ended up back on a pack a day when I tried the patch 3 times, and managed to quit smoking on 1/2 that dose with vaping. I think we're addicted to more than the nicotine, we're addicted to the action of smoking, the inhaling and exhaling, the cloud of smoke, the social aspects, etc, etc, etc.
My theory is there's more than nicotine in cigarettes which are addictive.
Maybe...the combination of nicotine and other chemicals...Who knows.
Just my 2 cents coming from one who smoked 2-3 PAD for 40 years.
Maybe...the combination of nicotine and other chemicals...Who knows.
Just my 2 cents coming from one who smoked 2-3 PAD for 40 years.
And even then, those additional "addictive" chemicals aren't addictive to everyone, as is clearly proven by the fact that so many smokers start using an e-cigarette without those chemicals and don't miss them whatsoever.
As mentioned earlier, there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to cigarette smokers. It could be the nicotine, the other MAOIs, the hand-to-mouth habit and/or a combination of any of the above that keeps people smoking. Vaping highlights this fact. Clearly, the ANTZ focus solely on nicotine reduction for the past 30 years has been myopic. My own situation, where I was able to pick up an e-cig, switch immediately and use a low 6-10 mg; while my husband couldn't give up smoking until he started using snus (which replaced whatever in tobacco that e-cigarettes are missing) and needs a strong menthol throat hit but the same nicotine content, shows that smokers are getting very different things from smoking. But according to the ANTZ, my husband and I simply both smoked a pack a day because we were addicted to nicotine.
The scary part about all of this is the lobby to reduce nicotine in cigarettes under the theory that will make smoking "less satisfying" to smokers. It completely ignores the fact (now proven by vapers) that many smokers smoke for the other MAOIs and the hand-to-mouth habit.
10,000,000 gazillion likes for the post above from Kristin.
Vapers need to wake up and realize that the nicotine addiction is just one small component.
Stop eating what they are feeding you and learn from the experiences of your fellow vapers on this forum.
We know the truth, and are probably the only ones in the world who do.
And we have a responsibility to educate.
If we don't take on that responsibility, then we will be the ones who suffer the consequences.
Vapers need to wake up and realize that the nicotine addiction is just one small component.
Stop eating what they are feeding you and learn from the experiences of your fellow vapers on this forum.
We know the truth, and are probably the only ones in the world who do.
And we have a responsibility to educate.
If we don't take on that responsibility, then we will be the ones who suffer the consequences.
Last edited:
I was wondering if the claims made by NRT is why people have this idea that weaning to lower levels of nicotine makes it easier to quit. If you believe that method is effective, then it's logical to think that if you are used to lower levels of nicotine that you are becoming "less addicted." But dismal quit rates of NRT proves that even people who lower nicotine intake aren't any less addicted. No matter how low you go, you still need to take that final step and quit altogether and once you do that you are not only giving up nicotine but also the behavior. Ask someone who bites their nails how hard it is to give up a behavior!
However, people who slowly wean off cigarettes smoked per day are actually modifying their behavior too, rather than just lowering the nicotine. But there are studies that show cold turkey is just as effective, if not more effective, than weaning off. If that is true, than people who are at full nicotine strength when they quit cold turkey can't really be "more addicted" than those who have reduced their nicotine intake before they quit.
Newbie here and I was just thinking that with all this FDA stuff and legislation looming large on the horizon would it be an idea to re-brand this forum to something along the lines of vaping and move away from e-cigatette in order to distance us further away from tobacco and smoking.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Kristin told me "that ship has already sailed" and after looking at a lot of media, I can see she is right.
BUT if we stop calling cigarettes "analogs" and start calling them "combustibles" we align ourselves with a lot of medical experts and scientists who are asking the FDA to loosen up on nicotine.
However, I would also see other vapers support those of us who NEED the WTA instead of saying things along the line of "we don't need it so you're silly to fight for it."
I'm not asking y'all to fight for it, but don't tell us not to fight for it. Otherwise, if WTA is banned, I might go ahead and SUPPORT the FDA's attack on e-cigs after I've been forced back to combustibles. Because, hey, if you don't care about me.........
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
