There are some good scientific reasons for discussing this point. These issues are not usually presented in one place. Therefore, please excuse the extended discussion of these points.
_____________________________________
You write as though you are a non-smoker (although you don't specifically state this), so the best advice is probably as given above: vape with zero-nic.
However it's worth looking at all the issues here just for interest value. The decision of whether to start vaping with nicotine or not is similar to the decision to start drinking alcohol or not - you can probably do without it and it is unlikely to add to your quality of life - on average. There are a couple of notable exceptions, though:
- If you have a family history of auto-immune disease [1] then you could be one of those who need to supplement your normal dietary intake of nicotine.
- If you are in a profession where your actions are critical to life, and find that your performance at certain times of the day is well below par, then you might decide that nicotine is the best of the various options for improving cognitive function at that time.
A genetic predisposition to one of the auto-immune conditions means that you would have an above-average chance of presenting with one of these serious, potentially fatal and always life-changing diseases, which are in some cases known as 'non-smoker diseases' since smoking is known to have a protective effect against them. Nicotine is believed to be the primary factor in this protection as some therapeutic benefit is demonstrated. We need nicotine as it is an active part of the normal diet, and all large-scale clinical surveys without exception report that no one has ever tested negative for nicotine [6]. Some people need to supplement their dietary intake of active nutrients, and supplementary nicotine is clearly a good thing for members of some families.
If by some chance you are a surgeon or an air traffic controller, and when working the early shift you find that your performance is sub-par and there is a genuine risk that your actions will endanger others, then given all the correct information you might decide that nicotine consumption at that time is on balance the best option. Nicotine is the best cognitive function enhancer known apart from amphetamine, which unlike nicotine has serious negatives.
Some considerations
There are some important points to consider here:
1. Nicotine is unbeatable as a safe, normal cognitive function enhancer and cognitive impairment normaliser. Because it is part of the normal diet, any possible harm is limited to huge overdose-related issues (in other words it is like vitamin D: useful and unlikely to cause harm unless consumed in massive, atypical amounts).
2. As far as is known to science at this point in time, dependence on nicotine cannot be created except by delivery in tobacco. This is because the cocktail of potentiators and synergens in tobacco act together with nicotine to create the dependence often seen in tobacco users but not seen in consumers of pure nicotine. In effect, the cocktail of 9,600 compounds in tobacco [5] acts to 'chemically re-wire' the brain, causing the subsequent dependence on nicotine.
The world's leading expert on administration of nicotine to non-smokers, Dr Paul Newhouse of Vanderbilt, has administered pure nicotine daily in high doses for several months to hundreds of never-smokers, and reports that since there has never been a single case of dependence, in his opinion the dependence potential of pure nicotine is about zero [2]. There are multiple clinical trials by others that report the same thing. No clinical trial has ever reported a single case of nicotine dependence in any never-smoker exposed to nicotine, no matter how high the dose or for how long; without exception they report no dependence issue.
3. However, we cannot state categorically at this time that ecigs will not create nicotine dependence in one person in 10,000 never-smokers who use them, as this has not been tested for. Ecigs can be a highly efficient delivery device for nicotine, and any statement that they are "much slower" than cigarettes to deliver the required dose can be disregarded [3].
It is highly unlikely that statistically-measurable numbers of dependent persons could be created since it appears to need the tobacco MAOIs to chemically 're-wire' the brain for routine creation of dependence on nicotine.
4. There is a cautionary note here for the science-inclined: if sub-ohm vaping can create measurable quantities of aldehydes by a process of thermal degradation of the refill liquids, and if a sub-ohm vaper were to be a never-smoker, and if aldehydes in general have a possible role as MAOIs [4], then it is theoretically possible that some never-smoker sub-ohm vapers may become dependent on nicotine.
The decision
On balance it is unlikely that you will have any real need for nicotine, though not impossible. If you do decide to consume nicotine for one of the reasons given above, to avoid any possibility of dependence being created, then it is suggested that you consume it in the form of pills - since the potential for dependence is known to be zero by this route but is not tested by the ecig route. The difference is likely to be marginal, but there is a clear difference in the delivery route, so they are not equivalent.
Ecigs are also far more effective for avoidance of smoking than medical nicotine inhalers, which are just as ineffective as other NRTs. The lowest success rate for correctly-advised smokers attempting to transition to ecig use will be about 30% in the real world (as opposed to in an artificial environment), whereas no NRT can exceed a 10% success rate and even that is wildly optimistic. This points out that since ecigs are, in real terms, at least three times more effective than a medical nicotine inhaler, the fact that no NRT can create identifiable levels of dependence cannot logically be transferred to ecigs, since they are clearly far more effective [7].
Caution
There is one very important caution. If (a) your family shows a genetic predisposition to auto-immune disease, and (b) you suddenly cease consumption of nicotine after a long period of dietary supplementation, then there appears to be a possibility that this can actually increase the chances of presenting with the disease. This is because there is a strong statistical correlation between smoking cessation and presenting with one of this class of medical conditions, for those with a clear genetic predisposition. It may possibly be that sudden nicotine cessation can help to trigger onset of the condition.
-----------------
[1]
Autoimmune disease - Wikipedia
[2]
Vaping Quotes
[3] There is a simple, easy practical test for this: take one never-smoker, and a known efficient APV, and a good strength of refill liquid such as 36mg (3.6%). A third party heats the atomiser by puffing on the device. Someone holds a stopwatch. The never-smoker then takes a 5-second mouth inhale of the vapour, then fully inhales it. The stopwatch is started at the end of the inhale, and stopped when the person reports a nicotine effect.
The reaction time will be quite close to that experienced with a cigarette; and if you dispute this observation, then it is suggested that you test it. Make sure to video it and upload to YouTube, for our amusement. The concept that it takes "considerably longer" or "several minutes" to derive nicotine from any other source than cigarettes is rather easily disproved.
[4] It is believed that the MAOIs in tobacco (harman and norharman) and especially in tobacco smoke (additional pyrolytic aldehydes) cause the chemical dependency on nicotine seen in smokers, by acting as potentiators for nicotine. Thus, if assorted aldehydes are consumed along with nicotine, as thermal degradation products from extreme vaping, there is a possibility that a route to dependency creation may be present.
[5] Rodgman, Perfetti 2013.
[6] There have been several large-scale clinical tests with hundreds of subjects that looked for nicotine presence in the population. One carried out by the CDC had 800 subjects. No person has ever been reported as testing negative in these trials.
[7] We can multiply ecig clinical trial success rates by a factor of 3 to get a real-world equivalent for that product type. That is to say, ecigs cannot be properly tested in an RCT because of the artificial environment and the way this cannot reproduce natural results for this type of consumer product (which relies for its success, in good part, for an unlimited choice of products and mentoring as to their use). So, if an RCT 'success rate' for smoking cessation with an ecig were for example to be 9%, then in the real world we would see a 27% 'success rate' (judged by a 100% successful transition to exclusive use of ecigs) for those particular subjects.
On the other hand, it is well-recognised that clinical trial success rates for pharmaceutical interventions for smoking cessation must be divided by 3 to determine the result that will be obtained in the real world. It is impossible for RCT success rates to be seen in the normal environment; real results are far worse than suggested by RCT results. If a clinical trial reports a smoking cessation success rate of 9% at 1 year for a pharmacotherapy, we will see a real-world success rate of about 3%.
To say that this points out the difference in real-world effectiveness between ecigs and pharmacotherapies is something of an understatement. What it actually shows is that consumer products work far better than medicines; so if you have a problem to fix, then use a consumer product first.
