Nicotine less addictive via vaping then smoking?

[VNeil]

Obviously.

It was actually meant to be a rhetorical question.
Because I thought the answer was so obvious.

Maybe I assume too much, and am often too subtle or ambiguous.
I don't like to spell things out, but rather encourage people to think a bit.

But in your case, I'm going to assume you already knew all that.
And you're just helping me out.

I think the cigarette addiction is even more complicated than that. if it weren't, vaping would be more successful in terms of "instant gratification" in terms of a quick and easy quit. While it appears to be better than NRT's at 5%, I've seen numbers thrown around like 30-35% and anecdotal I know many people try it and fail. And I know personally there is something seriously missing from the vape experience (verses cigs). That something plus the loss of all the behavioral things is what makes NRTs so unsiccessful. It was hard enough for me to quit with all the similar behaviroal stuff (and nic) in place.

 

[AXIOM_1]

Ok, so we have reduced your argument to the idea that 1:x people might be susceptible to high levels of nicotine dependence when delivered by vaping. That "x" could be 1:100 or 1:1000 you are careful to leave the context blank.
So your argument basically falls on the possibility of a few outliers, and it is a few or they would have shown up in the hundreds of test subjects that have participated in nicotine studies, yet NONE of them developed a dependency. And as such your argument has no relevency to the discussion as to the general dependence of nicotine on never-smokers. You have no factual basis that these outliers even exist, it is based solely on "what you think".

I personally rest my case

Yes, and you have no "factual basis" from the trial tests that have been preformed. If you can provide me with FACTS and research data (not just info from half baked experiments) then you will make a believer out of me. In other words, if you can provide me with the actual data and finding to all tests (so I can scan it myself) then I will become a believer. But, if it is like the data ( or lack of) that I have already seen, then no, I will remain with my current belief in regards to nicotine.

If I was to believe in the theory that you stand by then that would mean that all of the current vapers (me included) who are getting their "fix" from vaping are in reality not getting a real fix at all because addiction to nicotine is an illusion and therefore it makes this entire need for a fix to be in our heads.... Psychosomatic, or all in our heads huh? Well, I am in tune with my body pretty well and I am pretty well sure that neither myself or all of the other people who are getting their physical nicotine fix from vaping are imagining things.

 

[VNeil]

the meaning of the word drug has nothing to do
with any thing. try comparing nicotine with morphine
and let me know what you come up with.
regards
mike

If nicotine is a drug then so is caffeine, sugar and countless other consumer products and foods. Calling it a "drug" is all part of the propaganda war.

 

[DaveSignal]

If nicotine is a drug then so is caffeine, sugar and countless other consumer products and foods. Calling it a "drug" is all part of the propaganda war.

caffeine is absolutely a drug. any chemical with a biological effect on humans is a drug. calling it what it is has nothing to do with propaganda.

 

[DaveSignal]

the meaning of the word drug has nothing to do
with any thing. try comparing nicotine with morphine
and let me know what you come up with.
regards
mike

I guess you didn't pick up on the analogy. For example: Nicotine and morphine are both drugs, but with vastly different pshycoactive effects. It is analagous to saying that nicotine and *illegal narcotic* are addictive. One is safe and the other might be dangerously unhealthy. But they are both addictive, just with different outcomes.

 

[VNeil]

Yes, and you have no "factual basis" from the trial tests that have been preformed. If you can provide me with FACTS and research data (not just info from half baked experiments) then you will make a believer out of me. In other words, if you can provide me with the actual data and finding to all tests (so I can scan it myself) then I will become a believer. But, if it is like the data ( or lack of) that I have already seen, then no, I will remain with my current belief in regards to nicotine.

If I was to believe in the theory that you stand by then that would mean that all of the current vapers (me included) who are getting their "fix" from vaping are in reality not getting a real fix at all because addiction to nicotine is an illusion and therefore it makes this entire need for a fix to be in our heads.... Psychosomatic, or all in our heads huh? Well, I am in tune with my body pretty well and I am pretty well sure that neither myself or all of the other people who are getting their physical nicotine fix from vaping are imagining things.

Post # 10 here.... Great Article on the Possible Health Benefits of Nicotine | E-Cigarette Forum

"One of the most respected researchers in the field, Dr. Paul Newhouse, Director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine, argues that nicotine “seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.” Tobacco has also been considered harmful because it is highly addictive, but whether nicotine has the same addictive potential remains unclear. According to Dr. Newhouse, “nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all… [it] seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked.”"

This is the conclusion of many peer reviewed clinical trials. There have been a number of peer reviewed studies based on clinical trials testing nicotine's value for various neurological conditions. None of the participants showed any signs of dependency when the trials ended and the supply of nicotine was cut off. Surely if you are active here you've seen other links to these trials. See the other links on the first page of this thread. That is a far better "factual basis" than what "I think" or "You think". You seem to be ignoring a huge statistical base for the conclusion that nicotine by itself has little or no evidence of dependency. And that was the basis for the FDA approving OTC sales of NRTs. If it was believed to be addictive then it could not be sold to the general public. For that matter, it could not even be ethically used in clinical trials regardless of the potential benefits.

You are totally ignoring too many facts to substantiate your opinions of what "you think".

In your second paragraph you continue to ignore the FACT that nicotine delivered via cigarettes has a very different effect than nicotine delivered through other means such as NRTs and vaping. Your dependency (and mine) is no illusion. I can attest to that. But if we vaped all our lives instead of smoked, the outcome apparently would have been very different in terms of dependency. We don't have to know WHY that is, we just have to know that multiple studies have shown this to be the case and there is no factual evidence of nicotine dependency among non-smokers. Period.

A lot of people, like you, simply cannot accept the facts. That shows the value of propaganda. And that is what is truly scary about all this, not nicotine.

 

[zoiDman]

Since when has the perception that something isn't "needed" been justification to ban it?

Sometimes "Perception" is Reality.

And sometimes Reality is Reality. Even if that Reality is defined by 1/10 of 1/10 or 1/10 of 1 Percent of the Users of a Product.

 

[skoony]

I guess you didn't pick up on the analogy. For example: Nicotine and morphine are both drugs, but with vastly different pshycoactive effects. It is analagous to saying that nicotine and *illegal narcotic* are addictive. One is safe and the other might be dangerously unhealthy. But they are both addictive, just with different outcomes.

neither morphine or smoking causes any dependency in the
majority of those who use them. the word is still out when it
comes to nicotine. two of these may cause addiction.
nicotine alone simply can´t.
mike

 

[DaveSignal]

Post # 10 here.... Great Article on the Possible Health Benefits of Nicotine | E-Cigarette Forum

"One of the most respected researchers in the field, Dr. Paul Newhouse, Director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine, argues that nicotine “seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.” Tobacco has also been considered harmful because it is highly addictive, but whether nicotine has the same addictive potential remains unclear. According to Dr. Newhouse, “nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all… [it] seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked.”"

This is the conclusion of many peer reviewed clinical trials. There have been a number of peer reviewed studies based on clinical trials testing nicotine's value for various neurological conditions. None of the participants showed any signs of dependency when the trials ended and the supply of nicotine was cut off. Surely if you are active here you've seen other links to these trials. See the other links on the first page of this thread. That is a far better "factual basis" than what "I think" or "You think". You seem to be ignoring a huge statistical base for the conclusion that nicotine by itself has little or no evidence of dependency. And that was the basis for the FDA approving OTC sales of NRTs. If it was believed to be addictive then it could not be sold to the general public. For that matter, it could not even be ethically used in clinical trials regardless of the potential benefits.

You are totally ignoring too many facts to substantiate your opinions of what "you think".

In your second paragraph you continue to ignore the FACT that nicotine delivered via cigarettes has a very different effect than nicotine delivered through other means such as NRTs and vaping. Your dependency (and mine) is no illusion. I can attest to that. But if we vaped all our lives instead of smoked, the outcome apparently would have been very different in terms of dependency. We don't have to know WHY that is, we just have to know that multiple studies have shown this to be the case and there is no factual evidence of nicotine dependency among non-smokers. Period.

A lot of people, like you, simply cannot accept the facts. That shows the value of propaganda. And that is what is truly scary about all this, not nicotine.

What you are saying is that there is some kind of barrier that is broken by smoking tobacco? Where once you break that barrier, then the nicotine from vaping is useful and works. But if that barrier hasn't yet been torn down, then the nicotine has no addictive properties? I guess I can believe this. So the only way to get addicted to nicotine is to start by smoking cigarettes. So anyone who starts simply by vaping can't be addicted. But if you did start by smoking, you can continue the dependency by vaping. Kind of like methadone? I think methadone is addictive too though, probably just not to the same degree of the chemical dependencies it is designed to treat, though.

 

[VNeil]

caffeine is absolutely a drug. any chemical with a biological effect on humans is a drug. calling it what it is has nothing to do with propaganda.

Then why is caffeine never referred to as a "drug", except to argue the inarguable as you are doing now, yet nicotine always is? Foods are various chemical/molecular compounds, foods have all sorts of "biological effects". But never referred to as "drugs". Alcohol (in the form of adult beverages) are never referred to as "drugs". All this twisting of definitions is tiring.

In fact, the definition of a drug is buried in FDA protocol. And at the present time, nicotine is not regulated by the FDA like other OTC products such as cough medicines. NRTs are regulated, but only in order to attain the much desired "NRT" label. The active ingredient is not regulated, which I find very interesting.

It is all propaganda. Nothing more or less.

 

[DaveSignal]

Then why is caffeine never referred to as a "drug", except to argue the inarguable as you are doing now, yet nicotine always is? Foods are various chemical/molecular compounds, foods have all sorts of "biological effects". But never referred to as "drugs". Alcohol (in the form of adult beverages) are never referred to as "drugs". All this twisting of definitions is tiring.

In fact, the definition of a drug is buried in FDA protocol. And at the present time, nicotine is not regulated by the FDA like other OTC products such as cough medicines. NRTs are regulated, but only in order to attain the much desired "NRT" label. The active ingredient is not regulated, which I find very interesting.

It is all propaganda. Nothing more or less.

nobody is twisting definitions. alcohol and cafeine are very well known drugs. they are probably in the definition of the word drug.

ETA: here is "drug" taken from wikipedia:
Psychoactive drugs are chemical substances that affect the function of the nervous system, altering perception, mood or consciousness.[10] Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs worldwide.[11]

Recreational drugs are drugs that are not used for medicinal purposes, but are instead used for pleasure.[12] Common recreational drugs include alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, as well as other substances such as opiates and amphetamines.

 

[DC2]

I think the cigarette addiction is even more complicated than that. if it weren't, vaping would be more successful in terms of "instant gratification" in terms of a quick and easy quit. While it appears to be better than NRT's at 5%, I've seen numbers thrown around like 30-35% and anecdotal I know many people try it and fail.

I posted this a very long time ago, and I still believe it today...
E-Cigarette Forum Discussion Thread | Page 355 | E-Cigarette Forum

--20% success rate for those that bought a bad model and got no support
--35% success rate for those that bought a good model and got no support
--55% success rate for those that had support from someone using an electronic cigarette
--80% success rate for those that found this forum

And I know personally there is something seriously missing from the vape experience (verses cigs).

Something is most definitely missing for some people.

That would be the Whole Tobacco Alkaloids.
Also known as WTA liquid.

There are many threads on the subject.
If you would like any links, just let me know.

 

[VNeil]

What you are saying is that there is some kind of barrier that is broken by smoking tobacco? Where once you break that barrier, then the nicotine from vaping is useful and works. But if that barrier hasn't yet been torn down, then the nicotine has no addictive properties? I guess I can believe this. So the only way to get addicted to nicotine is to start by smoking cigarettes. So anyone who starts simply by vaping can't be addicted. But if you did start by smoking, you can continue the dependency by vaping. Kind of like methadone? I think methadone is addictive too though, probably just not to the same degree of the chemical dependencies it is designed to treat, though.

First of all, I'm not trying to explain it. That is beyond my knowledge and yours. All I'm doing is presenting facts. Facts. Facts. The WHY does not matter. What matters is that the likelihood of nicotine dependency from non-cigarette delivery is remote, simply based on statistical fact. You do not have to have an explanation in order to validate an observation. The observation is sufficient.

And yes, we acquired a dependency on nicotine uniquely from the cigarette delivery method and we are continuing it. I know from personal experience, though, that only a year after my last cigarette my dependency level is way, way down from when I smoked. Even as I continue my dependency it is declining. And I am a chain vaping fiend, although down to 3mg or less now. I could be at zero if I cared but I own a 10 year supply of nic at my current 3mg usage rate so I have no particular motivation to take it to zero as fast as possible.

 

[DC2]

caffeine is absolutely a drug. any chemical with a biological effect on humans is a drug. calling it what it is has nothing to do with propaganda.

So, like water then.

 

[DaveSignal]

So, like water then.

hmmm... i mean any biologic effect other than digestion. Any chemical substance with an effect on the central nevous system is a drug. It can be something taken to alleivate pain, to feel good, to improve cognitive ability, to make you fall asleep, to help you stay awake, etc, etc. I think we all know what a drug is.

 

[VNeil]

So, like water then.

If the same forces were arrayed against water than surely we would see it referred to as a drug in the media, gov't pronouncements and etc.

 

[DC2]

hmmm... i mean any biologic effect other than digestion. Any chemical substance with an effect on the central nevous system is a drug. It can be something taken to alleivate pain, to feel good, to improve cognitive ability, to make you fall asleep, to help you stay awake, etc, etc. I think we all know what a drug is.

So like capsaicin then?
http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-4181/capsaicin-top/details

This medication is used to treat minor aches and pains of the muscles/joints (e.g.,arthritis, backache, sprains). Capsaicin works by decreasing a certain natural substance in your body (substance P) that helps pass pain signals to the brain.

Or maybe tomatoes?
Eggplant?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Who do you think defines what a drug is?
And why?

It's all about money and profit.
Not any kind of reason or science.

 

[DaveSignal]

Just because thats what it is doesn't make it a bad thing. Drugs are used to save many lives, every day. The drug we are talking about improves our lives without destroying our health or making us robbing criminals. Its a safe recreational drug.

ETA: capsaicin is a drug. tomatoes are not. i think its crazy that i need to explain this.

 

[AXIOM_1]

Post # 10 here.... Great Article on the Possible Health Benefits of Nicotine | E-Cigarette Forum

"One of the most respected researchers in the field, Dr. Paul Newhouse, Director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine, argues that nicotine “seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.” Tobacco has also been considered harmful because it is highly addictive, but whether nicotine has the same addictive potential remains unclear. According to Dr. Newhouse, “nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all… [it] seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked.”"

This is the conclusion of many peer reviewed clinical trials. There have been a number of peer reviewed studies based on clinical trials testing nicotine's value for various neurological conditions. None of the participants showed any signs of dependency when the trials ended and the supply of nicotine was cut off. Surely if you are active here you've seen other links to these trials. See the other links on the first page of this thread. That is a far better "factual basis" than what "I think" or "You think". You seem to be ignoring a huge statistical base for the conclusion that nicotine by itself has little or no evidence of dependency. And that was the basis for the FDA approving OTC sales of NRTs. If it was believed to be addictive then it could not be sold to the general public. For that matter, it could not even be ethically used in clinical trials regardless of the potential benefits.

You are totally ignoring too many facts to substantiate your opinions of what "you think".

In your second paragraph you continue to ignore the FACT that nicotine delivered via cigarettes has a very different effect than nicotine delivered through other means such as NRTs and vaping. Your dependency (and mine) is no illusion. I can attest to that. But if we vaped all our lives instead of smoked, the outcome apparently would have been very different in terms of dependency. We don't have to know WHY that is, we just have to know that multiple studies have shown this to be the case and there is no factual evidence of nicotine dependency among non-smokers. Period.

A lot of people, like you, simply cannot accept the facts. That shows the value of propaganda. And that is what is truly scary about all this, not nicotine.

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?

 

[DC2]

ETA: capsaicin is a drug. tomatoes are not.

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

Just like nicotine is in tomatoes and eggplants.

i think its crazy that i need to explain this.

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