Nicotine less addictive via vaping then smoking?

[VNeil]

I can accept facts just fine and my work in science was all about observing "measurable" facts, but they have to be "measurable", solid and without question.... As a matter of fact, if anything, I am the direct opposite of what you claim as I am the type of person that REQUIRES solid facts before I believe much of anything. Above all, I have zero problems with being proved wrong on issues that are debated .... As a matter of fact, I would rather be proved wrong about something than stumble around with a non factual concept in my head. How's that for loving science and facts. Being an EE, I only delve in facts.

But, you still haven't explained why all of the people who claim they are addicted to nicotine are imaging things.... I mean I could handle someone saying that possibly it was because of my addictive personality that caused me to "think" that it was nicotine that was providing me with a fix. This would be half-baked but at least it may be somewhat plausible. But to suggest that everyone is imagining things is bordering on insulting each individual with the problem of nicotine addiction (oh sorry, I forgot, that doesn't exist)....Nor do I think all of it is due to propaganda. Look man, I hate propaganda as much as the rest of you do. I hate big tobacco, Big pharma and all of the rest of it. As a consequence, I seriously doubt that propaganda has caused me to think the way I do or even to assume things that may be wrong.

It boils down to this when it comes to me and nicotine ..... I can FEEL it when it enters my body and does it's magic......... These feelings are quite real and not from some abstract psychological concept in the recesses of my mind. I FEEL it enter my body and the craving then subsides. So, yes, in these regards I do have a bit of a hard time thinking that somehow this is all in everyone's imagination. Something has to be causing this phenomenon. However, with that said, if it is 100% proved that it is non addictive, then I will simply have to know that some other unknown factor may be involved and go from there. I have no problems with being wrong or admitting anything, do you?

Axiom, why do you have such a hard time with the idea that the effect nicotine has on you is, based on all the science, different than nicotine delivered to a never-smoker via vaping or NRTs. You always end your argument with your experience but you are a smoker. You cannot know what it feels like to ingest nicotine as a never-smoker. I will postulate that you are a victim of the propaganda that cigarettes = nicotine.

 

[DaveSignal]

Caspsaicin is what makes peppers hot.
It's in pretty much every pepper.

Just like nicotine is in tomatoes and eggplants.


I'd say it's crazy that you think this.
But that's just me.

Just because it came from a pepper doesn't mean its not a drug. It has a direct effect on the nervous system and is extracted and prescribed as a drug. Many drugs occur naturally, some are illegal. There is another drug that comes from the Coca plant. And another that comes from Poppy seeds.

 

[AXIOM_1]

One more thing.... It seems to me that quite a few studies have been done with non smokers... What about smokers? It seems to me that there is the possibility of something in the tobacco that is causing people to become addicted to nicotine. I could believe this notion but it is difficult to think that it is in the imagination.

 

[DC2]

Just because it came from a pepper doesn't mean its not a drug. It has a direct effect on the nervous system and is extracted and prescribed as a drug. Many drugs occur naturally, some are illegal. There is another drug that comes from the Coca plant.

Big Pharma will be sending you Christmas cards.

 

[VNeil]

I can accept facts just fine and my work in science was all about observing "measurable" facts, but they have to be "measurable", solid and without question....

Are you suggesting that the researcher I linked knows less than you do, and is not in command of all the facts as they are presently known? You seem to be in denial that these trials have been done, and deny the results. What, precisely, is missing from the facts presented int he discussions here? Do I have to do all your research for you and buy a subscription to Nature or wherever these studies were published and then violate copyright by reproducing them here? What would convince you that these studies were done and the results are as the researcher I quoted suggests?

 

[VNeil]

One more thing.... It seems to me that quite a few studies have been done with non smokers... What about smokers? It seems to me that there is the possibility of something in the tobacco that is causing people to become addicted to nicotine. I could believe this notion but it is difficult to think that it is in the imagination.

I give up. Really. That is the point I and others have been hammering home. Smokers are different because cigarette delivery is different!!!!!!! It does not matter why, the observations are a statistical fact, to the extent facts could be known.

 

[VNeil]

One more thing.... It seems to me that quite a few studies have been done with non smokers... What about smokers? It seems to me that there is the possibility of something in the tobacco that is causing people to become addicted to nicotine. I could believe this notion but it is difficult to think that it is in the imagination.

It is not just a possibility, it is "observational fact" born out by the studies of smokers vs never-smokers. And if you are chasing the why, surely the idea that tobacco companies put "dependency accelerants" in tobacco, aside from whatever nature does in that way, should not be beyond belief. We do not know, of course, it is all trade secret. The govt surely knows but they don't talk about it either for some strange reason.

No one in this thread has suggested it is all in the imagination of ex smokers. Only you keep alluding to it.

 

[DaveSignal]

Big Pharma will be sending you Christmas cards.

You are saying that a drug has to be synthetically created in a lab? And that anything occuring natually can't be labeled as such? This is silly. Humans have been using drugs since the beginning of time.

 

[DC2]

You are saying that a drug has to be synthetically created in a lab? And that anything occuring natually can't be labeled as such? This is silly. Humans have been using drugs since the beginning of time.

You're not getting my point.
That's probably my fault, as I tend to be cryptic.

Drugs are owned by Big Pharma, who make TONS of money doing so.
They are regulated by the FDA who makes lots of money doing so.

You can call anything you want a drug.
Big Pharma would love for everything to be a drug.

Of course humans have been using what you like to call "drugs" since the beginning of time.
That isn't hard to understand.

Aspirin comes from tree bark.

The point is, Big Pharma would love for you to include nicotine as a drug.
Just like capsaicin, which you also deem to be a drug.

They'll make their money.
And really, that's all they want.

Just wait until nicotine is an official "drug" for treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
Or ADHD, or schizophrenia, or Tourette's Syndrome or ulcerative colitis.

You'll still be getting their Christmas cards.
And vapers will be crap out of luck.

 

[AXIOM_1]

It is not just a possibility, it is "observational fact" born out by the studies of smokers vs never-smokers. And if you are chasing the why, surely the idea that tobacco companies put "dependency accelerants" in tobacco, aside from whatever nature does in that way, should not be beyond belief. We do not know, of course, it is all trade secret. The govt surely knows but they don't talk about it either for some strange reason.

No one in this thread has suggested it is all in the imagination of ex smokers. Only you keep alluding to it.

I think you need to re read what I wrote as this is what I just eluded to.... I have ZERO problem with that theory because that does indeed sound more plausible. I was thinking that there is something in tobacco that is causing certain people to be addicted to nicotine and that's why it does not show up in studies with never smokers, either that or there is some weird genetic component. Now that Does make sense and is plausible..... plus knowing the Giant and crooked Tobacco companies, this would more than likely be something they would not hesitate on doing. I have suspected something along these lines for many years. I mean any Company who sells people things that kills them would have no trouble in doing something underhanded like that.

 

[DaveSignal]

You're not getting my point.
That's probably my fault, as I tend to be cryptic.

Drugs are owned by Big Pharma, who make TONS of money doing so.
They are regulated by the FDA who makes lots of money doing so.

You can call anything you want a drug.
Big Pharma would love for everything to be a drug.

Of course humans have been using what you like to call "drugs" since the beginning of time.
That isn't hard to understand.

The point is, Big Pharma would love for you to include nicotine as a drug.
Just like capsaicin, which you also deem to be a drug.

They'll make their money.
And really, that's all they want.

Just wait until nicotine is an official drug for treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
Or ADHD, or schizophrenia, or Tourette's Syndrome or ulcerative colitis.

You'll still be getting their Christmas cards.
And vapers will be crap out of luck.

I hope that recreational drugs such as alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are too mainstream to be owned by Big Pharma. But there are many drugs produced by Big Pharma that contain caffeine as one of the pshycoactive ingredients. Yet caffeine is still avaialble in coffee, soda, energy drinks through a speparate channel, without going through Big Pharma. If nicotine can be used in a way to actually prevent serious nuerological diseases that take lives, then I would hope that it is offered as a medication, in addition to being available for our recreational use.

 

[DC2]

If nicotine can be used in a way to actually prevent serious nuerological diseases that take lives, then I would hope that it is offered as a medication, in addition to being available for our recreational use.

I share your hope, but I doubt it will go down like that.

 

[VNeil]

I think you need to re read what I wrote as this is what I just eluded to.... I have ZERO problem with that theory because that does indeed sound more plausible. I was thinking that there is something in tobacco that is causing certain people to be addicted to nicotine and that's why it does not show up in studies with never smokers, either that or there is some weird genetic component. Now that Does make sense and is plausible..... plus knowing the Giant and crooked Tobacco companies, this would more than likely be something they would not hesitate on doing. I have suspected something along these lines for many years. I mean any Company who sells people things that kills them would have no trouble in doing something underhanded like that.

Yes, your idea that BT puts "accelerants" into cigarettes is widely speculated here. But the fact is that natural tobacco already has a ton of potential accelerants. Hopefully we can now agree upon the following FACTS:

1. Long term cigarette smoking results in a very strong dependency on CIGARETTES (not necessarily nicotine alone, that is speculation and propaganda). It is real and tangible, it is born out by the anecdotal experience of virtually every ex-smoker in this forum, as well as scientific clinical studies.

2. There is no factual evidence that nicotine delivered via NRTs or vaping creates dependency. Despite hundreds of subjects being given nicotine in doses similar to cigarette use, for the purpose of studying neurological benefits of nicotine.

3. The fact that those trials are done at all is an indication that nicotine by itself does not create dependency because it would be a violation of ethics to even study it otherwise (for the same reason any possible medical benefits of those unmentionable substances cannot be clinically tested, at least on never-users).

4. The fact that the FDA allows OTC sales of NRTs is an indication that they are not dependency creating because, again, products that create dependencies are restricted to prescription only.

5. And lastly, early in this thread was a link to an FDA web page stating, explicitly, that nicotine in the form of NRTs has no known dependency issues or harmful effects on healthy humans. What more can you ask for than this? And that FDA page was a revelation for me because I never before knew the FDA was so blatant about it. We don't need to make assumptions based on #4 anymore.

Those are the facts. You are free to chase the WHYs. Such as what BT does or doesn't put into their cigs verses what nature puts in.

 

[DaveSignal]

Yes, your idea that BT puts "accelerants" into cigarettes is widely speculated here. But the fact is that natural tobacco already has a ton of potential accelerants. Hopefully we can now agree upon the following FACTS:

1. Long term cigarette smoking results in a very strong dependency on CIGARETTES (not necessarily nicotine alone, that is speculation and propaganda). It is real and tangible, it is born out by the anecdotal experience of virtually every ex-smoker in this forum, as well as scientific clinical studies.

2. There is no factual evidence that nicotine delivered via NRTs or vaping creates dependency. Despite hundreds of subjects being given nicotine in doses similar to cigarette use, for the purpose of studying neurological benefits of nicotine.

3. The fact that those trials are done at all is an indication that nicotine by itself does not create dependency because it would be a violation of ethics to even study it otherwise (for the same reason any possible medical benefits of those unmentionable substances cannot be clinically tested, at least on never-users).

4. The fact that the FDA allows OTC sales of NRTs is an indication that they are not dependency creating because, again, products that create dependencies are restricted to prescription only.

5. And lastly, early in this thread was a link to an FDA web page stating, explicitly, that nicotine in the form of NRTs has no known dependency issues or harmful effects on healthy humans. What more can you ask for than this? And that FDA page was a revelation for me because I never before knew the FDA was so blatant about it. We don't need to make assumptions based on #4 anymore.

Those are the facts. You are free to chase the WHYs. Such as what BT does or doesn't put into their cigs verses what nature puts in.

Are these studies you are referring to involving users 'vaping' nicotine? Or is it just skin tests? Because I think that KEY difference that makes for the dependency is inhaling it.

 

[VNeil]

Are these studies you are referring to involving users 'vaping' nicotine? Or is it just skin tests? Because I think that KEY difference that makes for the dependency is inhaling it.

The studies used conventional NRTs to deliver the nic, as I recall. You are free to conduct your own studies of vaping and what that might do differently. It is not necessarily a KEY difference. Nic in the blood is nic in the blood? IOW, the idea that it is a key difference is mere speculation on your part. Unfortunately the medical community seems very reluctant to actually study vaping, aside from tests meant to fail and further agendas.

 

[DaveSignal]

Well, its a more immediate and intesne feeling to inhale something than it is to slowly absorb through the skin.

 

[VNeil]

Well, its a more immediate and intesne feeling to inhale something than it is to slowly absorb through the skin.

And that has what to do with the neuroscience if dependency ?

 

[DC2]

And that has what to do with the neuroscience if dependency ?

I think it's generally accepted that quicker absorption of a substance can produce higher levels of dependence.
But the term "generally accepted" sticks in my craw a bit.

 

[AXIOM_1]

Yes, your idea that BT puts "accelerates" into cigarettes is widely speculated here. But the fact is that natural tobacco already has a ton of potential accelerants. Hopefully we can now agree upon the following FACTS:

1. Long term cigarette smoking results in a very strong dependency on CIGARETTES (not necessarily nicotine alone, that is speculation and propaganda). It is real and tangible, it is born out by the anecdotal experience of virtually every ex-smoker in this forum, as well as scientific clinical studies.

2. There is no factual evidence that nicotine delivered via NRTs or vaping creates dependency. Despite hundreds of subjects being given nicotine in doses similar to cigarette use, for the purpose of studying neurological benefits of nicotine.

3. The fact that those trials are done at all is an indication that nicotine by itself does not create dependency because it would be a violation of ethics to even study it otherwise (for the same reason any possible medical benefits of those unmentionable substances cannot be clinically tested, at least on never-users).

4. The fact that the FDA allows OTC sales of NRTs is an indication that they are not dependency creating because, again, products that create dependencies are restricted to prescription only.

5. And lastly, early in this thread was a link to an FDA web page stating, explicitly, that nicotine in the form of NRTs has no known dependency issues or harmful effects on healthy humans. What more can you ask for than this? And that FDA page was a revelation for me because I never before knew the FDA was so blatant about it. We don't kneed to make assumptions based on #4 anymore.

Those are the facts. You are free to chase the WHYs. Such as what BT does or doesn't put into their cigs verses what nature puts in.

Good Gawd, why didn't you state all this in the first place? We could have avoided much discussion. I am very scientifically minded and things need to be pointed out to me in a very factual manner. To state that nicotine in not addictive is troublesome, especially to someone who is addicted to it...... So, in an "indirect" way, according to what you have pointed out, and to the long termed smoker, nicotine is addictive......... So, to say that nicotine is not addictive is not exactly correct either. It would be more accurate to state that in it's raw form it is not addicting to someone who has never used tobacco products. But to the person who has used tobacco products in the past, then nicotine can be very addicting. Wouldn't you say that stating it like this is accurate? Sounds to me like they added a catalyst to tobacco.

No, I don't expect you or anyone else to do my research for me but it's not so much what you say but how you say it. I can swing with what you have stated and I will check the links over more later on. Seems very plausible too me for sure. But still, I AM addicted to NICOTINE it's just that it may have been caused by tobacco additives. No matter what the cause, I am still addicted to nicotine which I have had no question about all along.

 

[Jman8]

Well, I consider it adverse that I avoid and refuse to willingly spend time anyplace where I can't vape. That's the biggest reason I despise airline travel, and why I won't own property anywhere that would require lengthy flights to get to. In this respect, it affects my life for the worse, but this adversity is imposed by society, not be nature. I suspect what you really mean by "adverse" is that it has consequences in terms of health or the ability to perform physical or mental tasks..


Is that really necessary?

I meant that it is apparently considered adverse wherever it is done, because of how compulsive it is (or may be), even while cravings for it are far less substantial.

That it is, for anyone, deemed adverse wherever it is done, is ANTZ logic. So yes, that type of assertion is really necessary.