"Scientists" use vapor to study cigarette smoke. Science laughs.

[Nate760]

first you give me a source that is widely used on Facebook. Unscientific, just some news site that often shoots off pseudoscience and conspiracy theories

Then you give me one with an obvious political slant.

This is an ad hominem, not a rebuttal. If you found something in either link that isn't properly sourced, please tell me what it is.

Yes nicotine has its beneficial uses under certain conditions, so does morphine, adrenaline, alcohol, and even ........

This discussion is not about whether nicotine is beneficial. It's about whether nicotine, in and of itself, induces dependence and/or addiction. You're moving the goalposts.

I can even tell you from experience that when I used a nicotine patch, it elevated my mood ten-fold, but it wasn't so nice to me in other areas.

It depends on the individuals, genes, biology, etc.

In my opinion that is.

So what's your point? "It improved my mood" has nothing to do with the question of physiological dependence.

Wouldn't matter anyway, you'd wrote off the other perspective as bs. And someone from the other side would say the same for yours.

How about you respond to what I actually say, instead of assuming things I might say. You're just switching from fallacy to fallacy here.

I'd say everyone is different. Truth lies in the middle.

The truth is whatever the truth is. It is not contingent on the opinions or experiences of any person or group of people.

 

[Tdr81]

Damnit now I gotta do all that work again lol

 

[Painter_]

Please pass the popcorn...

 

[Archer74]

I believe they are referring to the act of smoking (put cigarette in mouth, take a puff, inhale, blow out smoke) and not the addiction to the substance in the tobacco.

 

[Tdr81]

A few things to get you started


http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html.

http://www.georgetown.edu/news/slowing-down-of-alzheimers-may-involve-nicotine.html


http://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/Nicotine-Researcher-Honored-for-Study.

http://m.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nicotine



Funny a quote from your own mind unleashed

"tobacco has also been considered harmful because it is highly addictive, but whether nicotine has the same addictive potential remains unclear. " unclear unclear unclear


Still so much" we don't know"....... Don't know don't know

 

[AndriaD]

news dot yahoo dot com/studies-vaping-brain-may-offer-clues-smoking-addiction-001827022.html

Because what better way to determine the properties of a substance than by studying the properties of a completely different substance? This reeks of scientific awesomeness.



TRANSLATION: We will study the addiction profile of cigarette smoking by having people do a non-smoking activity with little to no potential for addiction. Why? Because science.



TRANSLATION: That gentleman suffered some unfortunate second- and third-degree burns over 80% of his body, but he'll go on to live a very full life once the skin grafts are complete.



TRANSLATION: Vaping appears to be an enjoyable activity that you can taste and smell. We know this because we're scientists. We went to science school and everything.

Yep, this is pretty much EXACTLY what I thought when I read the article -- "they're going to study smoking.. by studying vaping." I mean.. WHA...?

Where do they get these clowns, anyway? Hold cattle call auditions to see who looks best in white coats? "You get to play a scientist, and get a clipboard and everything."

Andria

 

[Nate760]

I believe they are referring to the act of smoking (put cigarette in mouth, take a puff, inhale, blow out smoke) and not the addiction to the substance in the tobacco.

It seems the researchers themselves can't quite decide what the point of their own study is. They make several references to wanting to understand why smoking is so addictive (which, if they're using an MRI to measure changes in brain chemistry, is a physiological question). Then, elsewhere in the article, they state that the behavioral and sensory aspects of a smoking habit are the things they're trying to understand. If the latter is actually the case, putting people in a completely non-real-world environment, and having them do something that isn't even smoking, is an exceedingly strange way to go about gathering insights into the nuances of a typical smoking ritual.

 

[Nate760]

Division of Periodontology: Tobacco Use Cessation Program.

Nicotine May Slow Progression to Alzheimer's Disease - Georgetown University

Nicotine Researcher Honored for Contributions to Study of Addiction | Georgetown University Medical Center.

Nicotine | Psychology Today

First link: makes no effort to differentiate between smoking and nicotine, thus telling us absolutely nothing about nicotine itself.

Second link: doesn't tell us whether the nonsmoking study subjects who received nicotine therapy displayed any symptoms of dependence, making it useless for the purposes of this discussion.

Third link: same as first link. The data being referenced only involve the delivery of nicotine through cigarette smoke. We already know cigarette smoke is addictive. However, we still have no reason to believe nicotine is the only reason, or even the main reason, why that is.

Fourth link: slurry-gushing nonsense. Makes the claim, in the very first sentence, that nicotine is "the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the U.S." Nicotine and cigarette smoking are not the same thing. Nicotine and tobacco are not the same thing. People who can't make these simple and very important distinctions cannot and should not be taken seriously, and their views should not form the basis of any public health policy anywhere.

 

[granolaboy]

I remember when you needed credentials to actually call yourself a scientist...like a doctorate and peer-reviewed published papers in the journal of your discipline.

Seems anyone can be a scientist these days and call anything an experiment, whether it follows the scientific method or not...

 

[AndriaD]

First link: makes no effort to differentiate between smoking and nicotine, thus telling us absolutely nothing about nicotine itself.

Second link: doesn't tell us whether the nonsmoking study subjects who received nicotine therapy displayed any symptoms of dependence, making it useless for the purposes of this discussion.

Third link: same as first link. The data being referenced only involve the delivery of nicotine through cigarette smoke. We already know cigarette smoke is addictive. However, we still have no reason to believe nicotine is the only reason, or even the main reason, why that is.

Fourth link: slurry-gushing nonsense. Makes the claim, in the very first sentence, that nicotine is "the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the U.S." Nicotine and cigarette smoking are not the same thing. Nicotine and tobacco are not the same thing. People who can't make these simple and very important distinctions cannot and should not be taken seriously, and their views should not form the basis of any public health policy anywhere.

And while we're debunking... there's the VERY OBVIOUS fact that not one of us WHO USED TO SMOKE can use our own experiences to know if nicotine is addictive or not -- we used to smoke, so that ship has long ago sailed.

The ONLY way that nicotine, in isolation, can be evaluated for addictive potential, is if the study is done on NEVER SMOKERS, in fact, NEVER TOBACCO OF ANY KIND USERS.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

The ONLY way that nicotine, in isolation, can be evaluated for addictive potential, is if the study is done on NEVER SMOKERS, in fact, NEVER TOBACCO OF ANY KIND USERS.

This is a very crucial point that cannot be emphasized enough. The best research we have on nicotine use by never-smokers comes from Dr. Newhouse at Vanderbilt, who I quoted earlier in the thread. In his study, never-smokers wore nicotine patches every day for six months, and not a single subject displayed any symptoms of dependence or withdrawal upon cessation.

 

[Tdr81]

First link: makes no effort to differentiate between smoking and nicotine, thus telling us absolutely nothing about nicotine itself.

Second link: doesn't tell us whether the nonsmoking study subjects who received nicotine therapy displayed any symptoms of dependence, making it useless for the purposes of this discussion.

Third link: same as first link. The data being referenced only involve the delivery of nicotine through cigarette smoke. We already know cigarette smoke is addictive. However, we still have no reason to believe nicotine is the only reason, or even the main reason, why that is.

Fourth link: slurry-gushing nonsense. Makes the claim, in the very first sentence, that nicotine is "the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the U.S." Nicotine and cigarette smoking are not the same thing. Nicotine and tobacco are not the same thing. People who can't make these simple and very important distinctions cannot and should not be taken seriously, and their views should not form the basis of any public health policy anywhere.

and you read what you wanted to read and completely ignored those links that referenced nicotine separately from smoking....

I mean in the first link:

He explained how NICOTINE effects the brain.

The Georgetown links specifically targeted nicotine but also referenced "smoking"...


Think you should re read the Georgetown articles specifically.


Third link I threw in to match your mind" unleashed " reference.... Even though it is a psychology website and magazine that's been around for ages.


Are you a scientist? A researcher? Have a degree in psychology? Nah don't think so. You know nil just like I know nil. I dunno I don't take anyone seriously to the degree that I would say well this must be true. I would say I go along with the joke "we can get you to believe anything as long as we say a new scientific srudy" especially if it is what you wanna hear. Even though you don't read whole thing.

 

[AndriaD]

This is a very crucial point that cannot be emphasized enough. The best research we have on nicotine use by never-smokers comes from Dr. Newhouse at Vanderbilt, who I quoted earlier in the thread. In his study, never-smokers wore nicotine patches every day for six months, and not a single subject displayed any symptoms of dependence or withdrawal upon cessation.

Exactly. But if any of those subjects had ever been a smoker, I'd be willing to bet (and I'm not a betting person!) that at the end of the 6 months, you'd have had a struggle on your hands to get those patches back from the subject. Which underscores both a) the physiological component of addiction, and b) the fact that nicotine dependence is "helped along" by any number of the other chemicals in cigarette smoke -- probably the minor alkaloids, but also the infamous ammonia and probably other substances whose nature could only be understood by a biochemist! It's as if those other chemicals create the framework which the nicotine then occupies, but if those other chemicals aren't present, and have never been present because a person has never smoked or used any other form of tobacco, then the framework simply isn't there for the nicotine to inhabit. I'm not a biochemist or any other kind of chemist, but I understand the concept of "synergy" and the role of catalysts in any chemical reaction; the "framework" is certainly a metaphor, for the benefit of those who are also not chemists.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

Are you a scientist? A researcher? Have a degree in psychology? Nah don't think so. You know nil just like I know nil. I dunno I don't take anyone seriously to the degree that I would say well this must be true. I would say I go along with the joke "we can get you to believe anything as long as we say a new scientific srudy" especially if it is what you wanna hear. Even though you don't read whole thing.

I can see that you're new here, so I'm not going to expend any further effort correcting your misconceptions or highlighting your obvious propensity for fallacious reasoning and argument. I would recommend you spend at least a month or two following the News and Campaigning boards and reading through some of the previous threads before becoming a regular participant in the discussions.

Before we started vaping, most of us here believed a good many of the claims that government officials and "public health" advocates make with regard to tobacco, smoking, and nicotine. Up until a little over a year ago, I myself still believed some of them. But then I started finding out how deep the rabbit hole goes, and I probably still haven't gotten to the bottom. But I can confidently state that for the first 39 years of my life, nearly everything I thought I knew about nicotine, smoking, and tobacco was a lie. Were it not for this forum, the people in it, and the resource materials to which I've been exposed because of it, I would still think many of the same things you do.

 

[Painter_]

During my first 6 months I dropped from 24 mg to 3 mg. I thought that it was easy to do, I smoked for about 30 years 1 PAD. I did not feel any effects of reducing the amount of nicotine I was using. Then I started to do DIY juice, I would make two batches of 240 ML 1 with nicotine and one without and mix them up so I did not know which one was spiked and which one was not. I still did not notice a difference. Very recently (two weeks) I was traveling on business and visited some vape stores. I found a juice that I really liked and wanted to buy a bottle and all they had was 6 mg. I vaped the whole bottle in about 5 days. Went back to using 0 nicotine not a difference, I have not had nicotine in over a week and never noticed it missing.

When I smoked I tried to quit many times and it was the worst experience. Now that I vape I can go days without vaping or I can chain vape. I can use nicotine or not use nicotine. I firmly believe from my unscientific experiment that once nicotine is removed from the other chemicals in tobacco that it is not really additive. I am excited to see the studies come out to confirm my findings.

 

[Nate760]

During my first 6 months I dropped from 24 mg to 3 mg. I thought that it was easy to do, I smoked for about 30 years 1 PAD. I did not feel any effects of reducing the amount of nicotine I was using. Then I started to do DIY juice, I would make two batches of 240 ML 1 with nicotine and one without and mix them up so I did not know which one was spiked and which one was not. I still did not notice a difference. Very recently (two weeks) I was traveling on business and visited some vape stores. I found a juice that I really liked and wanted to buy a bottle and all they had was 6 mg. I vaped the whole bottle in about 5 days. Went back to using 0 nicotine not a difference, I have not had nicotine in over a week and never noticed it missing.

When I smoked I tried to quit many times and it was the worst experience. Now that I vape I can go days without vaping or I can chain vape. I can use nicotine or not use nicotine. I firmly believe from my unscientific experiment that once nicotine is removed from the other chemicals in tobacco that it is not really additive. I am excited to see the studies come out to confirm my findings.

I went straight from a 25-year 1/2-PAD smoking habit to a Blu starter kit, and I didn't experience any physiological withdrawal symptoms. I've experienced withdrawal from other things (as a function of having three major orthopedic surgeries in a 13-month period), so I can state with a fair amount of confidence that I know it when I feel it. For a few days I still had a pretty strong urge to smoke, but there was absolutely nothing I'd describe as a manifestation of physical dependence. I'd stopped doing something habitually that I was really accustomed to doing habitually, and that's all it felt like.

I'd never tried to quit before, so obviously I have no comparative frame of reference as far as quitting with vaping vs. other modes of quitting. But I can see how it probably would've been a lot more miserable if I'd done it without something that replicated (however feebly) the behavioral ritual associated with smoking.

 

[AndriaD]

I went straight from a 25-year 1/2-PAD smoking habit to a Blu starter kit, and I didn't experience any physiological withdrawal symptoms. I've experienced withdrawal from other things (as a function of having three major orthopedic surgeries in a 13-month period), so I can state with a fair amount of confidence that I know it when I feel it. For a few days I still had a pretty strong urge to smoke, but there was absolutely nothing I'd describe as a manifestation of physical dependence. I'd stopped doing something habitually that I was really accustomed to doing habitually, and that's all it felt like.

This is exactly why, on my 2nd time around at the 10-day point when the cravings started up again, I think there was something more going on than simple "withdrawal" -- it was only about 40 days after my appendectomy, and my surgeon had told me that folks with IBS often have serious digestive problems for several months after an appendectomy -- and the first time I quit, back in March, I experienced ZERO cravings of this type --the deep, profound NEED kind of feeling, despite the fact that I was basically "vaping my face off." As soon as I added WTA, those horrible cravings went completely away and haven't returned, so there was obviously some physical need for some of those trace alkaloids -- I'd guess anabatine for its anti-inflammatory properties. Knowing this, I didn't and don't feel so much self-reproach for having briefly gone back to smoking -- there really was something in cigarette smoke that my innards needed; if I'd had the WTA from the get-go, perhaps I could have avoided the relapse, but at least I avoided a *2nd* relapse by getting it when I did.

I'd never tried to quit before, so obviously I have no comparative frame of reference as far as quitting with vaping vs. other modes of quitting. But I can see how it probably would've been a lot more miserable if I'd done it without something that replicated (however feebly) the behavioral ritual associated with smoking.

I'd tried 4 times, the last 2 times with the patch. The only semi-success was the first attempt, when I made it 3 months before I caved, but the entire 3 months was positively wretched; I just finally had enough of the misery and put an end to it the fastest way I knew -- smoking. 2nd time, I was pregnant, and though I managed to get down to 3-4 cigs a day, I never did fully quit. The last 2 times, with the patch, I never made it more than about 6 days. Pure hell -- those patches are WORSE than useless, because they get this big marketing build-up, so you think maybe they'll work -- all they did was give me heart palpitations, but they sure didn't do a single thing about my urge to smoke. The last time I tried was nearly 20 yrs ago, because I had just given up entirely on the idea of ever quitting -- I figured I was stuck smoking till I died of it. E-cigs are pure serendipity, and BP can kiss my ...., their crap is absolutely, 100% useless in every possible way, and they ought to be sued for every smoker whose hopes they raised with their snake-oil.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

As soon as I added WTA, those horrible cravings went completely away and haven't returned, so there was obviously some physical need for some of those trace alkaloids -- I'd guess anabatine for its anti-inflammatory properties.

At any rate, your experience would seem to support the point to which I keep coming back: tobacco dependence is not all about nicotine. Not by a long shot.

 

[Oliver]

OK - I'm gonna bite:

FYI, I do have a degree in psychology and studied addictive behaviors in my course options (a sort of "major", if you will). I do not think that makes the blindest bit of difference on this issue, since a. a lot of previous assumptions about nicotine's addictive properties are being reassessed currently, and b. You're as likely to find non-psychology majors with very good insights into nicotine addiction on the pages of ECF as you are, generally, in academic psychology.

That said, I do have some thoughts.....

The simplest way of summing up what we know is this: "Nicotine is a necessary but not sufficient component of the tobacco dependence phenomenon."

I think what's probably happening is that nicotine is a behaviourally sensitizing agent. When delivered rapidly (in cigarette smoke), the behavioural association with a cigarette is very strong. When delivered through an e-cigarette, less strong (since the nicotine is absorbed less rapidly). When delivered through a patch, there's next to no association.

Accordingly, the evidence we have on nicotine being "non-addictive", which comes from studies in which patches are used needs to be viewed with a degree of skepticism.

Another insight: A legacy of the "tobacco wars" of the 1990s is that discussions about "habit" are somewhat taboo in tobacco control circles since this was the principal argument by the tobacco industry. And, yet, "habit reinforced by nicotine", is probably the best way of understanding the largest part of the phenomenon.

A parallel would be the "nature versus nurture" debate in psychology which has largely been reconciled by the (somewhat obvious seeming) notion that it doesn't make any sense to speak about one without the other, and that each interact at a highly complex level to produce the behavioral outcomes that can be measured.

I think that's a near perfect analogy to the nicotine versus habit dichotomy.

Other things are also likely to be true: WTAs for instance and their influence on either the sensitization process, or on the tolerance/withdrawal process. Individual differences in propensity for dependence whether from sensitization or tolerance/withdrawal. etc etc.

 

[Kent C]

This....

The simplest way of summing up what we know is this: "Nicotine is a necessary but not sufficient component of the tobacco dependence phenomenon."

... and this:

Accordingly, the evidence we have on nicotine being "non-addictive", which comes from studies in which patches are used needs to be viewed with a degree of skepticism.

... goes with my long term held belief that it is both the nicotine and the 'smoke/vapor' that makes up the compelling enjoyment of smoking and vaping. I used to think it was 50:50 but it may be just the vapor for many. I've said if 'patches' or Nicorette 'smoked' - they might work better. Even ecigs where you may be getting inhale vapor (and some nic), but not so much exhale vapor isn't as pleasant.

And I've posted many times - an obvious 'sub-ohm' candidate:

"Sherlock Holmes sat silent for a few minutes with his finger tips still pressed together, his legs stretched out in front of him and his gaze directed upwards to the ceiling. Then he took down from the rack the old and oily clay pipe , which was to him as a counselor, and, having it, he leaned back in his chair, with the thick blue cloud-wreaths spinning up from him, and a look of infinite languor in his face."

Holmes again, to Watson:
"It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes."

Or, we can remember the case in which Holmes needed a pound of the strongest shag tobacco to resolve the problem and stayed alone all the day smoking, and Watson found him in a sort of trance, in a room that "was so filled with the smoke that the light of the lamp upon the table was blurred by it and my first impression as I opened the door was that a fire has broken out".

And even the more recent Sherlock BBC style - there's one line where I had to laugh where he said to another at the murder site where he was observing: "Quit thinking. It's distracting!" lol. Focus is primary.

I think many smokers and vapers can relate to this and there's a reason why - the contemplative, 'relaxed focus' one gets from the nicotine along with the visual of the smoke/vapor which unlike other 'environmental' aspects - talking, tv, radio, music, etc. doesn't impinge on the psyche. (well, unless you're an ANTZ It's a bit like a babbling brook or light ocean waves.... or other stuff they put in those relaxing CDs and then there's the incense phenomena as well - not just for covering up other odors?

Unfortunately, that's a bit too subjective (and not a constant factor) to be 'tested', but imo, just as 'necessary' as nicotine and may be even 'sufficient' or at least prominent - esp. for zero nic vapers.