Genetic Predisposition to Nicotine / Marketing E Cigs to Kids / Young Adults

[Robert]

This is going to sound very politically incorrect, but hear me out and maybe you'll see this like I'm starting to.


How old were you when you started smoking? Did you enjoy it?

16, yes

It say here More on Genetic Predisposition to Nicotine Dependence

Some people have a Genetic Predisposition to Nicotine so if your 16 and have this gene, maybe you should be given an e-cig? IMHO?

If your Great Grandfather smoked and yer dad and yer son, then maybe you should point that 16 yo. grandson of your towards an e-cig, before they start the real thing.

I'm not saying to go get them one, but if they come in smelling like a cigarette at age 16 what can you do? Beat them? Lock them up? Nothing would have stopped me after those first 20 cigarettes- I was hooked.

I mean hasn't there been thousands of years of smoking and cancer? If we are smart enough to finally have the nicotine without the cancer and other harmfull effects, shouldn't we have it? and They have it? if they need it?

Any Thoughts?

 

[Vocalek]

Hi Robert: I didn't see this post the first time out. Just linked from "Non-Smokers, Smokers, and Vapers" thread.

Yes, I think there is some research on the genetic predisposition. I started smoking my freshman year in college and became hooked on how much it improved my ability to concentrate and my memory (you can definitely use those things in college!). My mother was always complaining about feeling dumb and not being able to remember things, so I tried to convert her to smoking. It didn't work.

Well, her cognitive abilities have gotten much worse, and now she has hallucinations and delusions. She has been diagnosed with Lewy Body Disease. It is a type of dementia related to Parkinson's. Instead of plaques and tangles, such as you see with Alzheimer's, these alpha-synuclein proteins (aka "Lewy bodies") build up in the brain, affecting not only cognitive abilities, but motor skills as well. She is stiffening up, has worsening mobility issues, can't reach her feet to put on socks and shoes, and she falls down a lot. When she does, it's like that old TV commercial. She can't get up, so they have to call 911 to get the paramedics to come and lift her off the floor.

This is my future. There is a genetic aspect to it. Your odds of getting it are greatly increased if a close family member has it.

Now get this: Research shows that nicotine is protective against Parkinson's. Heavy smokers don't get it.

So this would explain why, when I give up all forms of nicotine, my IQ drops by a good 50 points. Seriously, I can't concentrate, I keep making stupid mistakes, and it does NOT go away.

So for me, nicotine is a permanent requirement.

This morning she said to me, "I'm glad I never took up smoking." What could I say? I said nothing.

Despite the hassles, I'm glad I did take up smoking, because it led me to the one known substance in the world that can prevent (or at least postpone?) her fate from becoming my fate.

 

[ladyraj]

I respectfully submit that the link offered to demonstrate a psysiological/genetic predisposition to nicotine addiction is also related to developing lung cancer and is suspect at best. From your link:

"More precisely, they found a genetic configuration typical for nicotine-dependent individuals. Unfortunately, the same genetic variant can be involved in triggering lung cancer, the scientists reported in the latest issue of the journal Addiction."

Now one must ask which came first, the chicken or the egg. How can a set of genes just happen to create a physical problem (lung cancer) that is so closely related to the psychological disorder known as addiction to nicotine. Well, it seems that is rather easy...thru correlational studies. Alcoholics have an alcoholic gene. People who eat too much have an obesity gene, people who smoke have a nicotine gene...

OH Please, the human dna has been reproducing wonderfully for eons. Mutation is a part of that cycle, sometimes that mutation is good, sometimes not...but do you think the beauty of human dna is programming future generations for addictive disease?

This article was written by addiction specialists...these professionals attempt to link the product of the mind with physical disorders. Usually this is to make the addicted and their families to accept the situation and move on. How can one seperate the visual impact of a loved one smoking in the environment and then picking up the habit later on. This is the basic nature or nurture argument.

Regarding the smoking scenario and whether to give a minor an e-cig...would you give them a cigarette?

Regarding genetic mutations that result in organic disease...My father, all 5 of his siblings, his father...etc, all suffered Alzheimers the last 5-7 years of their life. Studies have demonstrated that nicotine may halt the progression of the disease...I will not give up nicotine for that reason. Vape on!

 

[Vocalek]

Guess that puts us in the same boat, LadyRaj

And in my case, I'm thinking that using nicotine gave me greater relief because I started out more distressed than someone else without the organic problems.

 

[rocketvapor]

Now get this: Research shows that nicotine is protective against Parkinson's. Heavy smokers don't get it.

Um, not to be a jerk, but Michael J. Fox, a celebrity actor with Parkinson's disease, is (or was) a long-term heavy smoker.

I guess this proves that there is no one single solution. Interesting theory, though, and needs more research.

 

[ladyraj]

Guess that puts us in the same boat, LadyRaj

And in my case, I'm thinking that using nicotine gave me greater relief because I started out more distressed than someone else without the organic problems.

Then I'll be in good company!

Interesting...intriquing...tell me more!

 

[Melwig]

Honestly I am not sure I believe much of anything that comes out of the "US scientists" labs these days. Most people have forgotten that they had to redefine "addiction" in order to include habituation to classify nicotine in there when they were first suing the tobacco companies.

Think about this. If there was truly a nicotine addiction, would they have stopped allowing smoking on planes and airports overnight in a single stroke? Would they not have expected SOMEONE to lose it on a plane and run amok? Yet no "nicotine addict" ever has. No "nicotine addict" has ever gone on a raging crime spree to get cigarettes. No "nicotine addict" in a hospital with enforced withdrawal has ever hallucinated or required sedation..yet every other substance from alcohol to hard drugs has produced some or all of those behaviors from their addicts.

Nicotine is an habituation, like coffee or cola, and like those, withdrawing from it causes discomfort and unease,..yes even downright misery, but that is not the same as the full out withdrawal symptoms of an "addict" that are sometimes life threatening . We throw that word around so much now that it has lost all real meaning and so much of the "science" behind it all has lost credibility.

Frankly I think that having pulled out all the stops to get nicotine to be promoted as such a "bad guy" has left a lot of the powers that be feeling as if they shot themselves in the foot. Enter the "nicotine addiction as a disease" and you have two possible modes of earning money. 1) you give people a great excuse for not stopping smoking, because let's face it, if every one quit tomorrow the revenue loss would be catastrophic.
2) You open up a road for Big Pharm. to step in and persuade you to take dozens of expensive meds. over long periods of time..that certainly helps bridge the revenue gap. After all, they didn't get everyone with "restless leg syndrome".

Also the math does not really work out. Up until very recently, the majority of adults smoked, so would not the majority of adults therefore have this gene? And if they didn't..then what made them smoke?

As for poor Michael Fox, he is still hanging in there bless his heart, not to mention that people get pregnant while taking the pill..doesn't mean its not an extremely effective method of birth control. He might not have smoked enough, early enough or with a high enough nicotine content to get the full benefits, or it might not have worked with his physiology. Nothing is that absolute, even smoking, not every single smoker will inevitably die of a disease that is smoking related. Some smokers never suffer any ill effects whatsoever.

Nicotine has been shown to inhibit the formation of amyloid plaque and also to protect brain cells that produce dopamine. Alzheimer's patients have amyloid plaque in their brains and Parkinson's disease starts showing symptoms when 80-90% of the dopamine producing cells die off.

Some things we know and can quantify as facts...the rest?
M

 

[dragonpuff]

I started smoking a pack a day when i was 12 and never looked back. I also have many "cognitive problems," so to speak, when i quit. Genetic? Well, both of my parents and all of my siblings are heavy smokers, so probably.

But what exactly is genetic? Do i believe we are prone to "addiction"? If you define addiction or dependence as the need to consume something despite its detrimental effects, then no, i do not believe my family is genetically prone to addiction.

However, there is another dimension of nicotine use that is often ignored, even by the very scientists who study it. It is ignored because of the anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine sentiment -- any doctor who dares to speak of this risks becoming ostracized. Remember, nicotine is a drug, and like all drugs, it can have (gulp, dare i say this in public) POSITIVE EFFECTS .

Studies have shown that nicotine can be used for the prevention or treatment of many neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. It has possible implications in the treatment of serious neuropsychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, and it is often prescribed by doctors for certain intestinal conditions like ulcerative colitis (off-label use, of course).

So what exactly is it that we are predisposed to? In my humble opinion, we are simply predisposed to neurological conditions which are very well-treated by nicotine. So once we start smoking, we naturally become dependent on it, much like a diabetic becomes dependent on his insulin. Doctors often negatively refer to this type of thing as "self-medication."

Saying that we are predisposed to "dependence" for no particular reason is just another way of beating around the bush IMO.

 

[TheLizinator]

Finding a genetic marker for something does not doom offspring to getting any particular condition (although there are hereditary diseases that can plague families in that way, this would not apply to conditions such as cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, or most other diseases). While a genetic link to Parkinson's has been found, it accounts for less than 25% of familial cases (so you are statistically 75% safe from developing the disease, guess it's the glass half full/half empty point of view).

As for nature being merciful in not passing on genetic weaknesses, this is simply not so. Nature is nondiscriminating in weeding out the weak links and favoring the strong; that only the strong survive is the way evolution occurs. Moreover, just because a creature is well-suited for the current prevailing environment, any trend that changes the environment can suddenly be hostile to the genetic adaptations of the previously favored creature. There are no "good" or "bad" genetic makeups, just a constantly shifting play being genetics and environment. "Genetics is the gun, environment pulls the trigger" in the old nature vs nature debate. Traits are clearly passed on, including personality predispositions to things like shyness, aggression, etc. While we can theorize until the cows come home about what sort of parenting creates a dysfunctional child, nature should never be ignored in the nurture studies. I think it's that people long to feel they are in control of their own destinies, that behavioral changes and free will can outsmart Mother Nature. I think that is mostly delusional and we will ultimately realize the power of our genetic makeup in determining our fate. The belief that smoking or not smoking will cheat old Ma Nature is pretty naive.

Plaques and tangles, are only characteristic of Alzheimers, not Parkinson's. Parkinson's stems from the basal ganglia and involves a loss of dopamine receptors in the brain. It is much more a motor/coordination disorder rather than dementia. No plaques and tangles, however, in Parkinson's. The only true similarity between Alzheimers and Parkinsons is that they are both brain disorders.

 

[ladyraj]

It has always been...and will always be...that it is not what one is born with...it is in what one does with what their born with.

In the era I was born into, women were perceived as good culturally via their reproductive system and ruled the roost not the board-room. This is in stark contrast to other cultures were the matriarchial line was an indicator of status. Culture, or environment, sets the stage for actualizing potential with in confines of preset boundaries. If natural ability is hampered by social constrictions the biological potential is side-tracked and replaced with "accepted" and voluntary limitation of ability and the expression of innate qualities. In short, if you don't use it, you will lose it.

Low and behold, there are individuals who would proclaim that human beings are at the mercy of their genetics. Yes, traits and propensity for disease can be passed on familial routes or show up as an accident of nature...mutation. But in the case of addictive disorders how can one tell the individual in question was born with the specific gene or if the environment altered that gene. After all, to become addicted to something means that one is old enough to partake...where is the baby DNA to compare to?

Using nicotine as an example: If I take a smoker, examine their genes for the "nicotine addiction mutation", and found it I would have 2 possible explanations: 1) the smoking subjects born with it, or 2) did the repeated habit alter the gene in question?

 

[Vocalek]

So what exactly is it that we are predisposed to? In my humble opinion, we are simply predisposed to neurological conditions which are very well-treated by nicotine. So once we start smoking, we naturally become dependent on it, much like a diabetic becomes dependent on his insulin. Doctors often negatively refer to this type of thing as "self-medication."

Saying that we are predisposed to "dependence" for no particular reason is just another way of beating around the bush IMO.

I very much agree with your humble opinion.

And I'm getting sick and tired of seeing this self-medication referred to as "abuse." Why is it considered abusive to take care of your problems?

Is it considered "abusive" when folks who have a headache take an analgesic?

 

[dragonpuff]

I very much agree with your humble opinion.

And I'm getting sick and tired of seeing this self-medication referred to as "abuse." Why is it considered abusive to take care of your problems?

Is it considered "abusive" when folks who have a headache take an analgesic?

The fun part is, they call it SELF-medicating (a prejorative term in the psychiatric community) because they didn't prescribe it or recommend it to you. You know, like chantix