Well its not me that has said it. Its the result of scientific testing and analysis of cigarettes and tobacco. So if I am wrong then so are the scientists and biologists that studied this subject and came up with this information.
Just some information for you
- Thread starter drewterry
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I mean I have never seen a hummingbird addicted to nicotine have you? And I dont think people are addicted to potatoes and tomatoes so since potatoes and tomatoes and a lot of other food contain nicotine I dont think nicotine is addictive. I mean people can it and not be addicted to the foods that contain it right? You should research chocolate and sugar and read some scientific papers about how addictive they are. And think about this.. the FDA requires all companies to place labels on their products that tell you what is in that product right? How come tobacco companies arent required to do that? If they did you would see what I am talking about.
I think its kind of funny that assuming you are correct and nicotine is an addictive poison that the FDA has found that it is safe to put this same addictive poison in gum and patches and use this "addictive" poison as a way to get people to quit smoking. And what is even more amusing is that noone seems to get addicted to nicotine gum or patches. So you take something that the FDA claims is addictive and give it to people who are addicted to it in order to get them to stop being addicted to it. That is basically what you and the rest of the propagandists are saying and that makes no sense whatsoever. It would be like giving someone cocain to break their addiction to ........ Something just doesnt add up here.
Its not nicotine that smokers are addicted to. The fact that noone gets addicted to foods that contain nicotine proves that. The fact that nicotine in the form of gum and patches is not addictive of itself and doesnt stop smokers from needing a cigarette fix proves that. Its the chemicals and sugar and crap that is added to the tobacco that is addictive not the nicotine itself. I mean seriously think about it.
Well its a good racket if you can get it. Just spread disinformation and then dupe millions of people into believing it and make billions of dollars off of it. Its the best scam around. I mean they convince you that nicotine is addictive and that you should stop smoking it and dont say a word about any of the other 4000 chemicals just so that they can sell you more nicotine in a non addictive form to kick your habit of supposedly being addicted to nicotine which doesnt work because like I said nicotine is not addictive so you spend hundreds of dollars on gum patches and the like and then go right back to smoking cigarette and the real chemicals you are actually addicted to. They get you coming and going.
Drew, a scientific paper does not equal science.
When reviewing a paper it is useful to work out what the author's hypothesis is. Sometimes there is one hypothesis, other times many. So, reading this abstract, what might they be?
1. That sugars added to tobacco contribute to the addictive properties of tobacco.
2. That sugars added to tobacco cause smoking to be more appealing, particularly to adolescents.
3. That sugars added to tobacco contribute to the toxicity of tobacco smoke.
I think you'd be hard pushed to find any suggestion that the authors hypothesised sugars to be the main mechanism of addiction in tobacco smoke.
Further, the first hypothesis is not confirmed - the abstract merely describes the conversion of sugars to acetaldehyde, a known addictive compound. We do not find, at least in this abstract, for instance, the volume of acetaldehyde produced or research on the levels necessary to cause addiction etc.
Not much of a paper, by the looks of things - and you'd really need to read the whole thing to get a real understanding of the methodology used, statistical analysis and overall conclusions by the authors.
When reviewing a paper it is useful to work out what the author's hypothesis is. Sometimes there is one hypothesis, other times many. So, reading this abstract, what might they be?
1. That sugars added to tobacco contribute to the addictive properties of tobacco.
2. That sugars added to tobacco cause smoking to be more appealing, particularly to adolescents.
3. That sugars added to tobacco contribute to the toxicity of tobacco smoke.
I think you'd be hard pushed to find any suggestion that the authors hypothesised sugars to be the main mechanism of addiction in tobacco smoke.
Further, the first hypothesis is not confirmed - the abstract merely describes the conversion of sugars to acetaldehyde, a known addictive compound. We do not find, at least in this abstract, for instance, the volume of acetaldehyde produced or research on the levels necessary to cause addiction etc.
Not much of a paper, by the looks of things - and you'd really need to read the whole thing to get a real understanding of the methodology used, statistical analysis and overall conclusions by the authors.
In fact this sentence:
kind of tells you what the authors regard as the main mechanism of addiction!
kind of tells you what the authors regard as the main mechanism of addiction!
I don't really like either of them. I definitely do not crave them. I prefer cinnamon buns.
Drew, I am not here to argue...I'm sure there is some validity to your argument. Is it the end of the story? I doubt it.
One thing that you have not backed up as far as I can tell is your opening statement:
"There is no tar in cigarettes"
In fact, something you copied and pasted from somewhere seems to contradict this (from post #7 in this thread):
"2. Theobromine, an active ingredient found in chocolate (from cocoa). It is a bronchodilator, which expands the body's airways and lets asthmatics breath easier. When it is added to cigarettes, it expands the airways for increased smoke and nicotine intake. This forces more nicotine and smoke (and tar) into the lungs at a faster rate than natural tobacco."
So is there, or is there not tar in cigarettes?
Just looking for clarity.
I mean what you people are basically telling me is that in order to get someone to stop being addicted to smack you would give them a kilo of smack. You have been duped. Nicotine is not addictive. I mean if nicotine was addictive why dont the FDA manufacture products to make you stop smoking that contain the rest of the chemicals in a cigarette minus the nicotine? If nicotine was addictive the last thing they would give you to break your addiction to nicotine would be nicotine. Wouldnt it?
Here is a pretty good webage that describes tar...Tar in Cigarettes - Toxic Chemicals in Cigarettes
I mean aside from nicotine you have 4000 chemicals or so in a cigarette. How do you know that its not one of those 4000 chemicals that is actually addictive. The odds that it is nicotine that is the addictive chemical in cigarettes is 4000 to one approximately. Those are some seriously long odds.
Drew, you keep saying nobody is addicted to foods that contain nicotine, using potatoes and tomatoes as examples. You are saying this proves that nicotine is not addictive. You also keep saying that it is the sugar in cigarettes that addicts people.
Cigarettes contain nicotine AND sugar. You are saying this is why people are addicted.
Potatoes and tomatoes ALSO contain nicotine AND sugars. But you say that nobody is addicted to these.
Something definitely doesn't add up.
The number of reasonable responses to this 'hypothesis' is a testament to the maturity of many of the members of this forum. Unlike you guys, I can't bring myself to point out the blatantly obviously logical missteps without being derisive.
I have a LOT to learn about social etiquette from all of you.
I have a LOT to learn about social etiquette from all of you.
"Tar" is the term used to describe the toxic chemicals found in cigarettes.
So basically if you say that tar causes cancer you are saying the combination of about 4001 chemicals put together produce a smoke through combustion that might or might not cause cancer because not every smoker gets cancer. Now think about this. Tobacco only contains one of those chemicals naturally. That is nicotine which is a bitter alkaloid like coffee and cocoa. So that really leaves things open to interpretation doesnt it?
So basically if you say that tar causes cancer you are saying the combination of about 4001 chemicals put together produce a smoke through combustion that might or might not cause cancer because not every smoker gets cancer. Now think about this. Tobacco only contains one of those chemicals naturally. That is nicotine which is a bitter alkaloid like coffee and cocoa. So that really leaves things open to interpretation doesnt it?
Also, as far as what is addictive about cigarettes....
It is my opinion that it is the combination of ingredients and the way they work together, including nicotine, that keeps people hooked.
Maybe nicotine on it's own isn't incredibly addictive. I don't know. I am not a scientist. Besides, scientific theories can, and should, change over time as new information comes to light. But I am pretty sure that nicotine is at least a little addictive, if not more than a little.
And then you have all the habitual/psychological reasons which I think are truly 90% of addiction.
It is my opinion that it is the combination of ingredients and the way they work together, including nicotine, that keeps people hooked.
Maybe nicotine on it's own isn't incredibly addictive. I don't know. I am not a scientist. Besides, scientific theories can, and should, change over time as new information comes to light. But I am pretty sure that nicotine is at least a little addictive, if not more than a little.
And then you have all the habitual/psychological reasons which I think are truly 90% of addiction.
Potatoes and tomatoes dont contain theobromine. That is the difference. Theobromine is a chemical that is in chocolate that makes chocolate so addictive. I have stated this before. Its not the nicotine that is addictive and its not the sugars that are the same as the ones found in potatoes and tomatoes that are addictive. Its one of the other chemicals found in tobacco. The one they added to it to make it more appealing and to make it addictive. That chemical is theombromine.
- Status
Similar threads
