The future of E figs ?

[rolygate]

It is almost correct to say, "It is absolutely impossible to become dependent on pure nicotine", and the same thing but in a different way: "Pure nicotine has no potential for dependence". The reason this is very close to the truth is that it has been found impossible to demonstrate any dependence on nicotine clinically (this means in clinical trials or other studies). Hundreds of never-smokers have been given large quantities of nicotine daily for up to six months, and no person has ever shown any sign of dependence: no withdrawal, no continued use, no sign of any effect of this type. However, there are said to be two or three cases on record of persons who had never smoked but became dependent on nicotine gum. This is statistically invisible of course: a few cases vs millions of users.

So an honest and reasonable person could say quite truthfully that it is impossible to become dependent on pure nicotine (i.e. a non-smoker consuming nicotine without tobacco) because the odds are literally millions to one against. However, it is not *scientifically* correct as the word 'impossible' should not be used: apparently it may have happened once or twice (and this aligns with the 'get hooked on the first thing that comes along' model anyway: some people will eventually get hooked on something, and it might be something no one else could become dependent on).

Nicotine dependence occurs after tobacco use, especially smoking. You just can't get it any other way. There is a remote possibility that high-power vaping might produce a handful of new dependent cases among never-smokers who become vapers, due to the aldehyde creation most likely, but even these numbers are likely to be completely invisible statistically.

Nicotine dependence is common and persistent after smoking. That means it is often seen, and it is hard to get rid of. Not smoking or using tobacco in any form reduces nicotine dependence since the tobacco-nicotine usage recedes with time, and the dependence reduces. "Not smoking" also includes vaping, as vaping isn't smoking (there is no tobacco). Vapers commonly reduce the amount of nicotine they consume, over time. Vaping = not smoking.

 

[CallmeRage]

I always thought it was big cigarette companies paying the fda and slipping some extra cash on these "studies" for false information so they can keep making money.

 

[d4gger]

am I to understand that tobacco smoking of which I participated in to the tune of a pad and better when stressed for neigh on 40 years created a dependance which vaping completely and quite effectively cured with minimal discomfort could not/would not be -had I only ever vaped nicotine, was I only addicted because i smoking the cigarette or was there really very little addiction to nicotine and more a habit of behaviours

I asked because if I did not get sufficient quantity of smokes for a few days at a time due to being in a highly restricted area where smoking was frowned upon I would become sluggish and experience lethargy and muddy confusion in my thinking. I have no lethargy or confusion and have not had a smoke since March 1 I vape 18 mg / ml on a nautilaus mini at about 7-8 watts and switch off to lower nic sometimes but don't recognize any cravings and really didn't intend to quit tobacco it just happened couldn't stand the taste and heat etc of cig so weaned down - just trying to understand.

I quit once many years ago but often felt anxious and gained a lot of weight -about 40 lbs -which by the way is about the weight many gain on some brands of anti psychotics. And does using a dripper at 20 watts or so with less nicotine per ml create greater dependance

I'll state explicitly that this is all purely anecdotal.

My experience is that, after some six months tobacco-free, I can take or leave the nicotine in my liquid. I like a touch of throat-hit and find nicotine to complement caffeine (to which I will be legally married, when my state recognizes unions between a man and his coffee) quite nicely, so I do like nicotine. However, on a whim, I mixed up 1 mg/mL and 0 mg/mL for a week's supply a few weeks back. I made it just fine, and actually only used the 1 mg/mL the first two days - after that, I was nic-free until mixing day came again. No cravings for a cig or for nic, no sleep loss or lethargy, no other problems to report. The next week I mixed back to using nicotine (6 mg/mL), for similar reasons to my use of honey in my coffee - I just find it pleasant

And I'll say I don't think your e-cigs "cured" your tobacco addiction. However, you were given an alternative delivery system for nicotine while your body and brain chemistry got used to being tobacco-free, and that's precisely what I love about mine

 

[Caro123]

It is almost correct to say, "It is absolutely impossible to become dependent on pure nicotine", and the same thing but in a different way: "Pure nicotine has no potential for dependence". The reason this is very close to the truth is that it has been found impossible to demonstrate any dependence on nicotine clinically (this means in clinical trials or other studies). Hundreds of never-smokers have been given large quantities of nicotine daily for up to six months, and no person has ever shown any sign of dependence: no withdrawal, no continued use, no sign of any effect of this type. However, there are said to be two or three cases on record of persons who had never smoked but became dependent on nicotine gum. This is statistically invisible of course: a few cases vs millions of users.

So an honest and reasonable person could say quite truthfully that it is impossible to become dependent on pure nicotine (i.e. a non-smoker consuming nicotine without tobacco) because the odds are literally millions to one against. However, it is not *scientifically* correct as the word 'impossible' should not be used: apparently it may have happened once or twice (and this aligns with the 'get hooked on the first thing that comes along' model anyway: some people will eventually get hooked on something, and it might be something no one else could become dependent on).

Nicotine dependence occurs after tobacco use, especially smoking. You just can't get it any other way. There is a remote possibility that high-power vaping might produce a handful of new dependent cases among never-smokers who become vapers, due to the aldehyde creation most likely, but even these numbers are likely to be completely invisible statistically.

Nicotine dependence is common and persistent after smoking. That means it is often seen, and it is hard to get rid of. Not smoking or using tobacco in any form reduces nicotine dependence since the tobacco-nicotine usage recedes with time, and the dependence reduces. "Not smoking" also includes vaping, as vaping isn't smoking (there is no tobacco). Vapers commonly reduce the amount of nicotine they consume, over time. Vaping = not smoking.

is there a link to these studies I am guessing these would be studies done to implement gums or patches?

 

[Caro123]

I'll state explicitly that this is all purely anecdotal.

My experience is that, after some six months tobacco-free, I can take or leave the nicotine in my liquid. I like a touch of throat-hit and find nicotine to complement caffeine (to which I will be legally married, when my state recognizes unions between a man and his coffee) quite nicely, so I do like nicotine. However, on a whim, I mixed up 1 mg/mL and 0 mg/mL for a week's supply a few weeks back. I made it just fine, and actually only used the 1 mg/mL the first two days - after that, I was nic-free until mixing day came again. No cravings for a cig or for nic, no sleep loss or lethargy, no other problems to report. The next week I mixed back to using nicotine (6 mg/mL), for similar reasons to my use of honey in my coffee - I just find it pleasant

And I'll say I don't think your e-cigs "cured" your tobacco addiction. However, you were given an alternative delivery system for nicotine while your body and brain chemistry got used to being tobacco-free, and that's precisely what I love about mine

this is a talking point thank you

 

[caramel]

is there a link to these studies I am guessing these would be studies done to implement gums or patches?

The gum was "invented" in the sixties based on the simple observation that people can switch from smoking to chewing tobacco.

I don't think there were any studies explaining how exactly the addiction works, how the cravings happen or the best methods to relieve them would be. They just implemented a "synthetic" chewing tobacco substitute.

For more than 4 decades, ANTZ wasted billions of dollars on prohibitionist propaganda and junk "studies", with no dollars spent on elucidating the tobacco addiction either.

 

[rolygate]

I always thought it was big cigarette companies paying the fda and slipping some extra cash on these "studies" for false information so they can keep making money.

Smoking is a license to print money for multiple beneficiaries. These recipients vary by country; for example in the UK, the national government is a greater than 90% stakeholder in cigarette sales, but this does not apply in the USA: the States are the biggest governmental beneficiary, with huge MSA funds paid to them as well as the local taxes. California and New York have done particularly well out of the MSA system (the Master Settlement Agreement - basically, a fine that the tobacco companies must pay the States to compensate them for costs associated with smoking). The MSA funds are paid ultimately by the consumer, not the tobacco companies, in any case (the price of a pack is raised by the amount the company has to pay the State). It's just another tax.

However, in most places in the developed world (and perhaps everywhere - I haven't looked at the figures), the pharmaceutical industry earns more from smoking than the tobacco industry. This is easy to work out in the UK where the figures are easy to obtain and on a nicely small scale, and we can see that tobacco earns £2bn a year from sales and pharma earns at least £3bn from smoking-related disease (probably £4bn+).

Also, we can see that pharma probably makes more than the tobacco industry from smoking, on a global scale: the global profit (not gross) from tobacco sales is around $45bn (the gross sales figure is around $850bn - most is tax); and the percentage of pharma's global gross of $1.1 trillion due to smoking-related disease cannot be less than 10% and is most likely around 15% (therefore over $100bn and maybe $150bn), the profit margins are high, and the greatest proportion of the most profitable sales of all takes place in the rich countries.

So it is not surprising to find that the pharmaceutical industry is the principal commercial actor behind opposition to ecigs. If you follow the money trail back from bent research, bent researchers, bent politicians and bent propaganda, if it doesn't lead back to State funding (to protect their revenues) it always leads back to pharma. It would be a disaster for pharma if THR (ecigs and Snus) took over from smoking. The same goes for the US States and the governments of small, socialised countries like the UK (where government makes the same from smoking on the backend as the frontend: they get monster taxes on the frontend (OTC sales) and don't have to pay pensions and huge social support costs for the elderly, who die 10 years early if they smoke - the 'backend').

The tobacco industry did a deal with government to keep quiet in return for a guaranteed, high-profit future. Their revenues are safe and they have far less need to fight like pharma. Governments will give the ecig trade to Big Tobacco anyway, so it's all been fixed already; BT can then do what they like with it.

 

[rolygate]

is there a link to these studies I am guessing these would be studies done to implement gums or patches?

There are no clinical studies that demonstrate pure nicotine has any potential for dependence. There are multiple studies that demonstrate it is impossible to create nicotine dependence clinically. This means: hundreds of never-smokers have been given large quantities of nicotine daily (equivalent to 15 cigarettes a day in some cases) for up to 6 months, and no person has ever shown any sign of dependence: no withdrawal symptoms, no desire to continue use, no continuation of use, or any other effect of this type.

It is impossible to create nicotine dependence under close medical management, no matter how much you give people or for how long.

Nicotine dependence results from smoking, and to a far lesser extent from oral tobacco use. The theory is that cigarettes are engineered to be as addictive as possible, by boosting the effect of nicotine as much as possible and by reducing any negative effects of smoke inhalation as much as possible (cigarettes contain anaesthetics and antitussives, to soothe the throat and stop coughing). The actual dependence creation is believed to result from a combination of multiple factors, including the potentiation of nicotine by MAOIs, the boosting of nicotine absorption, the additive effect of other tobacco alkaloids such as anatabine, the creation of additional pyrolytic aldehydes (more nicotine-potentiating compounds such as aldehydes are created in the combustion process), and then some synergy between all these multiple effects and factors.

In other words, smoking tobacco produces a bunch of things that multiply the dependence potential of nicotine by many times.

You can give a non-smoker as much nicotine as you like but it won't get them 'addicted'. And this has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials: not a single person, ever, has been made dependent on nicotine under medical management, despite plenty of trying. A person has to have been exposed to tobacco first: they must have consumed it at some point, in order to show any sign of dependence on nicotine.

For references, please google <ecigarette politics> and go to the References page, for links to many of the clinical trials where nicotine was being investigated as a nutrient and in order to do so they had to (a) use non-smokers (of course), and (b) give them massive doses. Note that there isn't a single clinical trial where any subject was made dependent on nicotine, ever, anywhere. Not for want of trying.

Also consider this:
a) All clinical trials and studies must be approved by an ethics panel: a committee who approve trials in order to prevent trials going ahead that may risk the subjects' health.

b) You cannot get approval for any clinical trial where the subjects' health is at risk unless they are dying. In other words, experimental treatments for terminally ill cancer patients. You cannot get approval for a trial of [insert illegal drug names here] etc as they are likely to result in dependence for some patients.

c) You can easily get approval for a clinical trial involving the administration of massive amounts of nicotine to persons who have never been exposed to it (in supra-dietary amounts of course: everyone consumes nicotine as part of the diet - if not, they may become ill). There are multiple clinical trials that do just this. Indeed, specialists such as Dr Newhouse of Vanderbilt appear to do little else.

d) So you need to ask yourself: why is it that researchers can give unexposed individuals very large doses of nicotine for extended periods of time, when the only permitted situation where subjects can be legitimately exposed to potentially addictive or harmful drugs is when they are terminally ill?

The answer is presumably that experts are quite clear on these issues: nicotine is harmless and has no potential for dependence. Otherwise, such experiments would never be conceived, would never be approved, would never be carried out (except by those happy to be sued for millions), and clearly would never see the light of day in the first place.

Now compare that to the propaganda.

Someone always gains from propaganda as that is its purpose.

 

[skoony]

All the public smoking prohibitions aren't to curb smoking?

no.they are a way to demonize smoking in the eyes of the
general public in order to heap unjustifiable taxation on
smokers.
what a lot of people forget is when smoking bans first came
about it was aimed primarily at public venues.bars,restaurants,
theaters and other venues where people of all classes mingled
and socialized. when people socialize they develop public opinion.
public opinion uncontrolled by the powers that be.
it all morphed into the clean indoor act covering everything
indoors.believe it or not there are states one can still smoke
indoors.others like Minnesota have complete indoor bans for
publicly and privately owned establishments.others are in between.
however the lessons learned from enacting these bans and how they
affected public opinion are not going unnoticed.
public opinion is no longer a grass roots local function of societal
intermingling.its shaped by public schooling,media blitzkrieg and
massive PR campaigns.

regards
mike

 

[jpargana]

If smoking and BT were the darling of governments, wouldn't they have fewer restrictions on where one could smoke, rather than more and more every year? I know when I lived in Russia I smoked like a dragon- 3-4 packs a day, or more when I was drinking, which was pretty much every night, because smoking was allowed virtually everywhere...

Does that really make you believe they are not?
In England, people did not stop smoking just because they could no longer smoke in pubs after 2007. They simply stopped going to pubs.
Those are just laws and ordinances passed to make non-smokers believe that Govt's are "worried" about tobacco use - while not really harming their BT buddies.
It's just like the menthol exception, in the tobacco flavouring bans that happened in the States - clover cigarettes, for example, were banned, "because they were appealing to young smokers", but there was this exception conveniently made for menthol - the ONE flavour that was used by more than an half... of young smokers!!
Politicians grabbed a few more votes from concerned citizens, because they PRETENDED they were "worried" about "the young people", while protecting their buddies who sell menthol cigarettes to the "young people". Not only did they NOT ban menthol, they also allowed the sale of new menthol-crush cigarettes. Now, if a young smoker runs out of his usual menthol cigarettes, he can just buy ANY other brand and crush that menthol capsule. How "kewl" is that ???

If you are not convinced yet, think about this:
Who paired with Big Pharma to "convince" Govt's to include e-cigs in the new European TPD, that will be much more sewvere with e-cigs than with tobacco cigarettes? Big Tobacco.
Under the new TPD, to whom will the "regulated" e-cigarette business be delivered, on a silver platter? Big Tobacco.
Who sells the tobacco cigarettes that are soooo profitable in excise taxes to every government? Big Tobacco.
Who is feeling threatened by the big competition to tobacco cigarettes provided by our devices? Big Tobacco.
Who is promoting all the "scientific news and studies" full of lies, made to attack e-cigs? PUBLIC "health" groups (running under Govt's directives) that are ALSO sponsored by Pharma).
Who is promoting unfair taxes on e-cigs, in an attempt to recover lost revenue, raise e-cigs prices and make them LESS appealing over the tobacco cigaretttes sold by their buddies at Big Tobacco? Governments are.

 

[sonicbomb]

I smoked cigarettes for 20+ years, and have now vaped for 5 years. I use a very low nicotine base (3-4mg), and if I'm reading rolygates data correctly nicotine isn't actually addictive as such. If my mod is within easy reach and I'm sitting at a computer, I tend will hit it every five minutes or less. Just the thought of not having access to a vape actually makes me feel quite agitated. However, If I'm sufficiently occupied, I can go for hours without even thinking about taking a hit.
I suppose this lends weight to the argument that addiction (in this context) is psychological in nature, rather than chemical.

 

[tj99959]

As we have seen in the case of GM, the Government doesn't care about bondholders...

Tell me about it!!!!
not that I'm angry or anything


Becoming self reliant is the only solution to government regs IMO

 

[jpargana]

Doesn't matter what anyone does after the 20% Prevalence Rule operates - smoking prevalence can't be significantly reduced except by THR. That's why they're all going nuts trying to block ecigs. In Sweden, 66% of tobacco users are snusers and 33% are smokers (Snus is their specially-processed oral tobacco).

Imagine what it would do to State budgets if 2/3rds of current smokers switched to ecigs and/or quit, and 1/3rd stayed as smokers. It would basically remove the current administrators from office as they couldn't cope economically - every State would look like Detroit.

Also add in the fact that male smoking prevalence, and disease, is moving toward a zero point in Sweden. That is a disaster of unimaginable proportions for national and regional governments.

Which sooooo clearly explains exactly why Snus is STILL being banned in the EU, after 20 years - even with sound statistics showing how less harmful other forms of tobacco are when compared to smoking.

This clearly is NOT about OUR health. It is about THEIR wealth.

 

[rolygate]

I smoked cigarettes for 20+ years, and have now vaped for 5 years. .....if I'm reading rolygates data correctly nicotine isn't actually addictive as such.
...............
I suppose this lends weight to the argument that addiction (in this context) is psychological in nature, rather than chemical.

Nicotine dependence is caused by smoking (leaving aside the less common dependence in the West due to oral tobacco use). What seems to happen is that the brain is chemically re-wired. This change is persistent though apparently not permanent in most cases.

Smokers commonly become dependent on nicotine as a result of combusted tobacco consumption. It has been speculated that the dependence creation potential may ascend like this:

In place #3: oral tobacco use.
#2: smoking in historic eras, before cigarette engineering was advanced; and smoking cigars and pipes today
#1: cigarette smoking in the modern era, with advanced ingredient engineering

After smoking cigarettes, the brain has been functionally altered. The nicotine dependence resulting is persistent - it lasts some time, and it is hard to break free of. Many people can get free of it with time and motivation - not smoking is the way to do it, and that apparently includes vaping since the addictive compounds are not present. Vapers can often reduce the amount of nicotine they consume and even remove it eventually if they wish.

We should not, however, overlook those who have a medical need for nicotine. That class of people includes multiple sub-groups with specific gene arrangements, who will benefit from dietary nicotine supplementation: those vulnerable to some degenerative diseases, auto-immune diseases and cognitive dysfunction conditions. These people need plenty of nicotine and if they don't get it, may develop a variety of medical conditions. Indeed there are auto-immune diseases known as 'non-smoker's diseases' since smokers appear to be protected from them. This overlooks the fact that eventually smoking may cause more harm than good.

There is a reason that nicotine is present in the normal, healthy diet; that everyone tests positive for it (that is, everyone who eats vegetables); and that you feed your baby nicotine in her mashed-up baby food. Some just need more than others, it probably depends on your genetic make-up. If your family has a history of auto-immune or neurodegenerative disease especially at comparatively early ages, then it could be a very bad idea to give up smoking entirely - a couple of cigarettes a day could be protecting you from potentially fatal or life-changing conditions that will far outweigh the effects of a couple of cigarettes daily.

It's tempting to say just vape instead, but we would first need to be absolutely sure that it is just the nicotine that has the prophylactic and beneficial effects for these conditions. It's not a bad bet though. A winner in these situations appears to be WTA refills, as that covers all the bases: a full alkaloid load including anatabine, which is known to be a powerful anti-inflammatory, and some/many of these medical conditions are also classed as inflammatory diseases (some can even be diagnosed in the first instance by your optician, since the inflammation can affect many structures including the eyes).

Dependence or addiction (which in the modern idiom is dependence with a significant risk of harm) may often have a behavioural component. The material above just addresses the chemical component of dependence.

 

[caramel]

Well let's see who gets hit in the case of a tobaccolypse where all smokers switch tomorrow to vaping, to the effect that the incidence of cancers and heart diseases drops abruptly in the next few years.

- BT can sell vapes
- BG can nudge general sales tax a little bit higher and/or impose sin taxes on vaping
- BP can nudge price in the general catalog to make for the loss in the lung cancer section
- cardiologists and related practitioners will take a soft/moderate hit, as heart & stroke are pretty popular with non-smokers too
- oncologists and practitioners, especially those focused on lungs, will take a hard hit
- various impostors, shills and clerks in the Tobacco Control industry will be out of a job

Incidentally, the most vocal categories in the War Against Vapes are the last two - ACS, ALA, ATS and the Antz.

Coincidence?

 

[Caro123]

There are no clinical studies that demonstrate pure nicotine has any potential for dependence. There are multiple studies that demonstrate it is impossible to create nicotine dependence clinically. This means: hundreds of never-smokers have been given large quantities of nicotine daily (equivalent to 15 cigarettes a day in some cases) for up to 6 months, and no person has ever shown any sign of dependence: no withdrawal symptoms, no desire to continue use, no continuation of use, or any other effect of this type.

It is impossible to create nicotine dependence under close medical management, no matter how much you give people or for how long.

Nicotine dependence results from smoking, and to a far lesser extent from oral tobacco use. The theory is that cigarettes are engineered to be as addictive as possible, by boosting the effect of nicotine as much as possible and by reducing any negative effects of smoke inhalation as much as possible (cigarettes contain anaesthetics and antitussives, to soothe the throat and stop coughing). The actual dependence creation is believed to result from a combination of multiple factors, including the potentiation of nicotine by MAOIs, the boosting of nicotine absorption, the additive effect of other tobacco alkaloids such as anatabine, the creation of additional pyrolytic aldehydes (more nicotine-potentiating compounds such as aldehydes are created in the combustion process), and then some synergy between all these multiple effects and factors.

In other words, smoking tobacco produces a bunch of things that multiply the dependence potential of nicotine by many times.

You can give a non-smoker as much nicotine as you like but it won't get them 'addicted'. And this has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials: not a single person, ever, has been made dependent on nicotine under medical management, despite plenty of trying. A person has to have been exposed to tobacco first: they must have consumed it at some point, in order to show any sign of dependence on nicotine.

For references, please google <ecigarette politics> and go to the References page, for links to many of the clinical trials where nicotine was being investigated as a nutrient and in order to do so they had to (a) use non-smokers (of course), and (b) give them massive doses. Note that there isn't a single clinical trial where any subject was made dependent on nicotine, ever, anywhere. Not for want of trying.

Also consider this:
a) All clinical trials and studies must be approved by an ethics panel: a committee who approve trials in order to prevent trials going ahead that may risk the subjects' health.

b) You cannot get approval for any clinical trial where the subjects' health is at risk unless they are dying. In other words, experimental treatments for terminally ill cancer patients. You cannot get approval for a trial of [insert illegal drug names here] etc as they are likely to result in dependence for some patients.

c) You can easily get approval for a clinical trial involving the administration of massive amounts of nicotine to persons who have never been exposed to it (in supra-dietary amounts of course: everyone consumes nicotine as part of the diet - if not, they may become ill). There are multiple clinical trials that do just this. Indeed, specialists such as Dr Newhouse of Vanderbilt appear to do little else.

d) So you need to ask yourself: why is it that researchers can give unexposed individuals very large doses of nicotine for extended periods of time, when the only permitted situation where subjects can be legitimately exposed to potentially addictive or harmful drugs is when they are terminally ill?

The answer is presumably that experts are quite clear on these issues: nicotine is harmless and has no potential for dependence. Otherwise, such experiments would never be conceived, would never be approved, would never be carried out (except by those happy to be sued for millions), and clearly would never see the light of day in the first place.

Now compare that to the propaganda.

Someone always gains from propaganda as that is its purpose.

absolutely fascinating I shall explore this in more depth - thank you!

 

[caramel]

Does that really make you believe they are not?
In England, people did not stop smoking just because they could no longer smoke in pubs after 2007. They simply stopped going to pubs. [...]

One may argue that the current economic slump may be caused, at least in part, by the exclusion - through various smoking bans and restrictions - of %20 of the population from "social" activities and consumption.

And that their re-insertion in such consumption activities could have visible economic benefits.

Just imagine an influx of some extra %20 customers.

 

[Caro123]

Nicotine dependence is caused by smoking (leaving aside the less common dependence in the West due to oral tobacco use). What seems to happen is that the brain is chemically re-wired. This change is persistent though apparently not permanent in most cases.

Smokers commonly become dependent on nicotine as a result of combusted tobacco consumption. It has been speculated that the dependence creation potential may ascend like this:

In place #3: oral tobacco use.
#2: smoking in historic eras, before cigarette engineering was advanced; and smoking cigars and pipes today
#1: cigarette smoking in the modern era, with advanced ingredient engineering

After smoking cigarettes, the brain has been functionally altered. The nicotine dependence resulting is persistent - it lasts some time, and it is hard to break free of. Many people can get free of it with time and motivation - not smoking is the way to do it, and that apparently includes vaping since the addictive compounds are not present. Vapers can often reduce the amount of nicotine they consume and even remove it eventually if they wish.

We should not, however, overlook those who have a medical need for nicotine. That class of people includes multiple sub-groups with specific gene arrangements, who will benefit from dietary nicotine supplementation: those vulnerable to some degenerative diseases, auto-immune diseases and cognitive dysfunction conditions. These people need plenty of nicotine and if they don't get it, may develop a variety of medical conditions. Indeed there are auto-immune diseases known as 'non-smoker's diseases' since smokers appear to be protected from them. This overlooks the fact that eventually smoking may cause more harm than good.

There is a reason that nicotine is present in the normal, healthy diet; that everyone tests positive for it (that is, everyone who eats vegetables); and that you feed your baby nicotine in her mashed-up baby food. Some just need more than others, it probably depends on your genetic make-up. If your family has a history of auto-immune or neurodegenerative disease especially at comparatively early ages, then it could be a very bad idea to give up smoking entirely - a couple of cigarettes a day could be protecting you from potentially fatal or life-changing conditions that will far outweigh the effects of a couple of cigarettes daily.

It's tempting to say just vape instead, but we would first need to be absolutely sure that it is just the nicotine that has the prophylactic and beneficial effects for these conditions. It's not a bad bet though. A winner in these situations appears to be WTA refills, as that covers all the bases: a full alkaloid load including anatabine, which is known to be a powerful anti-inflammatory, and some/many of these medical conditions are also classed as inflammatory diseases (some can even be diagnosed in the first instance by your optician, since the inflammation can affect many structures including the eyes).

Dependence or addiction (which in the modern idiom is dependence with a significant risk of harm) may often have a behavioural component. The material above just addresses the chemical component of dependence.

so tobacco addiction is possibly a genetic predisposition, can be induced because of smoking tobacco, tobacco through the years has been altered to make it MORE habit forming, tobacco addiction has a biological component as well as a psychological/behavioural component, vaping satisfies the need for nicotine but MAY not provide all of the needed components for some - but whole tobacco alkaloids supplement might be needed by those who cannot get off the smokes with vaping eliquids only? There seems to be no way in .... that vaping can ever become the freedom train from BT they and BG along with BP will have to hijack the vape (which they have already partially done via propaganda, taxation) they have too much to lose - how terribly depressing for the ordinary joe?

 

[Caro123]

One may argue that the current economic slump may be caused, at least in part, by the exclusion - through various smoking bans and restrictions - of %20 of the population from "social" activities and consumption.

And that their re-insertion in such consumption activities could have visible economic benefits.

Just imagine an influx of some extra %20 customers.

exclusion from social activities was a very real thing for my elderly father when they closed the Legions to smokers, he was too old to stand out in the cold to have his smoke TC abuse of the elderly-very sad.

 

[jpargana]

One may argue that the current economic slump may be caused, at least in part, by the exclusion - through various smoking bans and restrictions - of %20 of the population from "social" activities and consumption.

And that their re-insertion in such consumption activities could have visible economic benefits.

Just imagine an influx of some extra %20 customers.

This.
And do you know what really makes me mad about the England example - one that is to be repeated in Portugal in 2020?
Those businesses only closed their doors because non-smokers, the ones who demanded "clean air" inside pubs, NEVER showed up to replace the smokers they managed to throw out of pubs. I could imagine non-smokers complaining about cigarette smoke because they LIKED to go to pubs, but did not want to breathe smoke WHILE doing so. Of course, this never happened. Was it reeeealy a big trouble for them, that people were allowed to smoke in places they did not go to anyway, nor did they INTEND to go in the future ??
This same model will be adopted in Portugal in 2020. A business owner will not be able to choose his own business model anymore. And this, after owners being forced by law to spend hard-earned money on air extraction equipment - a condition required currently for a place to allow smoking.

If owners have spent money in order to be able to allow smoking inside, then it is because the MAJORITY of his patrons are smokers, and allowing smoking is GOOD for business in that specific place. Otherwise, a much *cheaper* non-smoking sign at the door would be enough to care for a majority of non-smoking patrons, IF that was the case.

But no. There's the need of control, for "health's sake".

People who are jogging OUTSIDE, in the street, and only enter a coffe shop to have a quick coffe - or to ask for a FREE glass of water, because they have been running - now want to have a say on what people who spend their time INSIDE, SUPPORTING the business, can, or can not do. Because they do NOT want to be "troubled" by cigarette smoke int the five minutes or so they spend there. Even when, by the OWNER's choice, there is a "smoking allowed" sign clearly visible at the door.