As seen within the 2nd link from my above post, and here again if you missed it or even if you refuse to click on the link.
Nicotine Clinical Trials: Why Aren't There Any? contains this
It's the $64,000 question, and the one everyone argues about.
There is a very noticeable gap here: despite huge interest in nicotine's potential for dependence-creation, there is nothing available on that topic. This is such a critical omission that, reasonably, it cannot be accidental. There is no published study with an online link, and it is reported that there is nothing available in offline libraries. There is plenty of material on dependence in smokers or ex-smokers, but of course that is irrelevant to nicotine's potential for dependence: other ordinary ingredients in the diet could almost certainly be made 'addictive' by delivery in repeated large doses over many years in a carefully-engineered cocktail of synergens. For example it seems likely that dependence on vitamin A or a precursor could be created by this method, since there are several anecdotal reports of reinforcement occurring with abuse of unboosted, unmodified, raw products (e.g. carrot juice); but no one regards vitamin A in the diet, or supplements, as 'addictive'.
The use of the term addiction to describe a harmless dependence is commonly employed now to artificially inflame the debate by adding an unscientific, emotional component.
A crucial and suspicious omission
Because it is such a crucial omission, it is worth considering whether in fact it is possible that such a study has never been carried out anywhere in the world, ever. Since the anecdotal reports on nicotine's lack of dependence potential provide hints as to the outcome (all the evidence clearly shows that nicotine has no potential for reinforcement, outside of smoking), then perhaps this provides one answer as to why such a study has not been published.
Many would welcome a clinical trial that addresses the results of administration of pure nicotine to never-smokers [3], as this would answer some important questions. However, it is clear that such a study is unlikely to see the light of day, for numerous reasons.
Could such a study be carried out today?
Of course it could: we have just seen that multiple such trials have been approved and completed.
There are some difficulties to be faced, though:
Firstly, the taboo surrounding nicotine. However this hurdle, as we have seen, has been cleared many times.
The serious problem of 'rocking the boat'. This is a major obstacle - no senior medical figure wishes to make colleagues look stupid. And make no mistake: many senior figures will look very stupid indeed if such a trial, purely for measuring dependence, is authorised.
Funding: since clinical trial funds usually come from the pharmaceutical industry, but pharma is one of the main groups propping up the myth of nicotine's dependence potential, then funds are unlikely to be forthcoming. Pharma has a major investment in maintaining ownership of nicotine; but a harmless, non-dependence creating, normal dietary ingredient would belong to anyone.
Ideology and the tobacco control industry: the TCI has morphed from anti-smoking through anti-tobacco to anti-nicotine, in order to maintain its power, control and funding. It has to oppose nicotine use in order to survive. The tobacco control industry is immensely powerful due to its vast funding, principally as a result of the billions of dollars coming through the MSA system. Ecigs delivering harm-free nicotine will destroy cigarette sales, so the MSA payments will start to slide (already starting to happen at Q2 2014), so TCI funding will gradually disappear; therefore the TCI has to oppose nicotine use or see their immense salaries - and the very jobs themselves - vapourise.
Suppression and concealment
We already know that factual information about nicotine is suppressed:
In October 2013, Prof Mayer of Graz showed that nicotine's supposed high toxicity is a myth, and a new LD50 needs to be established up to twenty times higher
The CDC have done everything possible to hide their large-scale clinical trial showing that, since all 800 subjects tested positive, everyone in the population probably consumes and tests positive for dietary nicotine
NICE, the UK clinical authority, have recently had to make it clear that nicotine has no association with cancer, due to the appalling degree of ignorance among British doctors: 44% in a recent survey responded that they thought nicotine is associated with cancer. Nobody knows what brought on this sudden revelation of the truth, although pharmacotherapies might just possibly have something to do with it.
The FDA have finally decided to publicise the fact that nicotine is not dependence-creating, liable to abuse, or dangerous if over-consumed (in order to promote pharmacotherapies that utilise it). No doubt they would like to restrict this to medical nicotine, though unfortunately the molecule looks pretty much the same whoever consumes it, with or without an MA.
In April 2013 the FDA announced they no longer considered nicotine to be dependence-creating, liable to abuse, or dangerous if over-consumed.
In their Consumer Updates, they proposed removing several of the warning labels from NRTs. They have now conceded that several decades of evidence from nicotine-containing meds sales demonstrates that nicotine has no measurable potential for addiction and presents no danger of harm through overdose.
Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM346012.pdf
A trial of nicotinic acid (vitamin B3) would probably get the go-ahead without issues - but nicotine is a problem, due to the taboo but mainly for its potential to destroy medical reputations, areas of dogma, whole pharmaceutical catalogues, regulatory authorities' authority, and more of the same. For all practical purposes they are similar, and in some ways more than similar; but we might expect a trial of vitamin B3 to be approved while its sister compound would be difficult. However there are many countries, and even some in Europe, where a trial of nicotine with never-smokers could almost certainly be carried out currently without issues and without contention. The real question is probably, "Is it really tenable that a clinical trial of nicotine has never taken place?".
A modern trial that did get published would be a very interesting phenomenon anyway, given the current situation regarding the commercially-influenced 'management' of clinical trials. Allowing for the dozens of ways to rig a trial, and that the results of an unmanaged trial of nicotine's dependence potential are likely to be extremely embarrassing all round, it would be hard to see how its conclusions could be trusted. A historic trial would be of far greater interest, and surely it is reasonable to suggest that such a trial exists; such trials were commonplace. Example: the large-scale clinical trials examining the presence of nicotine in the population (in which every subject tested positive every time in every study). The CDC carried out one such study, in which 800 people all tested positive for nicotine; and now they have done their best to remove that trial from public view and undoubtedly would have removed it entirely had it not already been cited.
References #22 under Nicotine
The infamous CDC nicotine trial that they tried so hard to conceal - but as it had already been extensively cited, that proved impossible. They also conveniently named it to try and create the impression that dietary nicotine is instead absorbed from ETS.
Preliminary data: Exposure of persons aged = / >4 years to tobacco smoke - United States.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993
Journal of the American Medical Association. 1993;269:852
All 800 subjects in this clinical trial to determine the presence of nicotine in the population tested positive for nicotine metabolyte (cotinine), despite the majority being non-smokers and many having zero contact with smokers. The result so surprised the scientific community that another large-scale test was carried out, with 136 subjects, with the same result (everyone tests positive for nicotine).
Later, better knowledge of nutrition provided the explanation: nicotine is a normal ingredient in the diet, being present in many vegetables and contributing to a measurable plasma nicotine level in anyone with a good diet, although this was not widely known at the time (nutrition has always struggled for recognition as an important life science).
The CDC subsequently tried to hide this trial because it became clear to everyone that nicotine was a normal dietary ingredient, and this didn't agree with their agenda.
Many thanks to Dr Farsalinos for unearthing it.
. I did it slowly giving myself time to adjust between reductions, 2 or 3 mg at a time. Don't stress over it either, you can always go back up a notch if you feel the need 
