New-ish study from new zealand: "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation"

[rothenbj]

Jman8, I believe rolygate's information comes from studying only the cigalike products that are attempting to get medical approval and not the APVs that we advanced users and hobbyists (created my own nicquid and now build my first coil Friday so I guess that's what I've become) use.

I know I wasn't vaping any more than I used to smoke on Friday, but vaped considerably more in testing out the rda. I had to cease and desist for the night because I was getting the symptoms of too much nicotine.

That being said and your observation of those that take up vaping and immediately quit smoking brings up a factor that the science seems to ignore. Nicotine isn't the only reason people smoke and nicotine isn't as important or as addicting for some people as it is for others. Whenever someone asks me about e cigs,I try to find out how and why they smoke. Everyone has bought the nicotine is more addictive than x trash, bhut it's not.

A person who can go hours or days without a cigarette certainly isn't addicted to nicotine and can easily move onto something that looks like a cigarette. Even someone that smokes daily may just be addicted to the habit. Replace the cigarette ritual with a new one that simulates it and you have an instant quitter. Then what you have left are those that, like caffeine junkies, need their nicotine or that something else provided by smoking. It took me over six months that I was in that something else crown. I can not vape or vape low content nicquid as long as I have my 4-5 portions of snus daily. If I am going to vape, I really prefer WTA but that's just me.

The bottom line is that we're all different and the ANTZ don't really understand or care to understand that.

 

[AgentAnia]

....your observation of those that take up vaping and immediately quit smoking brings up a factor that the science seems to ignore. Nicotine isn't the only reason people smoke and nicotine isn't as important or as addicting for some people as it is for others.....

....The bottom line is that we're all different and the ANTZ don't really understand or care to understand that.

YES! Something clicked into place in my brain as I read your post. Most (if not all) clinical trials of ecigs use as their premise only one factor among the many that influence smokers/vapers, and it's usually the "addiction," or brain chemistry, factor. Until researchers understand both the people and the devices, their research is fatally flawed from the start. (This is, of course, assuming the researchers' good intentions; it has nothing to do with those who reach their conclusions before starting the research...)

 

[rolygate]

Also, when the subject of nicotine 'addiction' comes up, we should consider changing our language and must consider the state of actual, existing research.

Currently it seems better to use the term 'addiction' for a dependence that has a significant risk for some kind of harm, whether physical or social; 'dependence' is better for a compulsion to act or consume where no significant harm can be demonstrated. Nicotine is most certainly in the second group: no measurable harm from long-term consumption has ever been demonstrated. There is a huge data mountain on this topic so it cannot be dismissed.

If we believe that pure, unadulterated nicotine (as delivered by an ecig) is shown to cause dependence then we ought to be able to find at least one clinical trial that demonstrates it. Given the legs this topic has, we could be forgiven for thinking there must be dozens of such trials.

There are none. All references lead to clinical trials of smoking or using ex-smokers. We know that smoking creates dependence on nicotine and therefore trials with smokers or ex-smokers are simply irrelevant.

No one has ever published a clinical trial of nicotine administered to never-smokers that showed dependence resulted. This is almost certainly because no such result can be obtained. Such a trial would be worth fortunes to the people whose incomes depend on tobacco control, which has now morphed into nicotine control. The value of such a trial could be calculated in tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

On the other hand, there are several such trials (for other purposes) that reported no dependence resulted even after administration of high doses of nicotine to never-smokers for several months.

Nicotine needs to be delivered with synergens and/or brain chemistry altering compounds such as MAOIs or it will not cause statistically-demonstrable dependence, never mind have any clinically-significant effect.

Also see:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/529552-nicotine-myths.html

 

[Drael]

Good thoughts everyone. Yes, the numbers did seem low to me, and now you have all discussed it, I can see several reasons why that is so, such as poor delivery mechanism, and cessation, rather than replacement.

I would expect a number more like 1/3, something markedly better than NRT, and even higher if they used WTA.

Another factor worth considering in nicotine only delivery (as opposed with with mao-i), is the onset/duration curve. Vapourization seems to be slightly slower in absorbtion than smoking, but of course significantly more similar in onset and duration curve versus gum or lozenge and especially patch. That coupled with the ritual makes it much more like the conditioned behaviour. And add WTA, and a passable rig, and you are pretty darn close to the experience, with better flavours and happier lungs.