Vaping for nicotine advantages?

[nclay]

Well, the main reason for not using a patch is that nicotine may may be only tangentially related to the smoking habit. Most clinical studies conclude that the patch is pretty much worthless in the absence of some kind of support system or psychological therapy.

If someone is a non-smoker wouldn't it make more sense to use a patch to get nic into the blood?

 

[four2109]

I think I heard about the ammonia during the tobacco trials in the '90s, or shortly after as the documents were released. This doc is interesting reading.

The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro
Phillip Morris and the Origins, Spread, and Denial of Nicotine Freebasing

"1 In the 1950s Philip Morris had begun exploring the use of diammonium phosphate (DAP) in recon and found it to be a successful pectin releaser and a potent flavor enhancer, masking the unpleasant taste of stem.12 The company set up its first pilot plant for ammoniating tobacco (with DAP) in 1961, and 6 years later patented the “diammonium phosphate–blended leaf” (DAP-BL) process after realizing diammonium phosphate’s ability to increase free nicotine “delivery” in cigarettes.13 The patent, interestingly, contains nothing about DAP’s ability to freebase nicotine, citing only its importance as a pectin releaser.14"

Gas-phase nicotine is able to deposit quickly and easily in the respiratory tract and, because of its free-base form, crosses the blood–brain barrier more readily (“moves easily into fatty tissues”30), making the nicotine more “available” to the smoker and therefore more potent.
The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro

 

[mosspa]

If someone is a non-smoker wouldn't it make more sense to use a patch to get nic into the blood?

No, well at least for me it didn't. First, transdermal absorption is quite variable, especially in humans. Even in lab rats, which are much more similar to one another than humans are, significant variance exists between individuals in absorption rates, meaning that is difficult to predetermine dosage for a given time interval. Also, the transdermal process is much less quick than alveolar transfer, meaning that the user really has no control over the dosage they are getting at any one snapshot time interval. Inhalation remains the most efficient method of delivering a compound directly into the atrial bloodstream. It is much more quick than even intravenous injection, because when substances are absorbed in conjunction with inspired air, they directly enter the arterial blood supply, and they bypass the whole process that moves venous blood through the heart to get it to the lungs for oxygenation. Thus, the vaper/smoker has much more specific control over the dose of the compound. For my particular requirements for dosing myself with nicotine (i.e., which I do at a relatively high concentration per puff/drag), it is important that I am able to respond to my nicotine load in real time. If I start feeling nicotine effects after a puff/drag, I can, simply, not take another puff/drag until the effect subsides. I wouldn't have such control with a patch. By the time I recognized, for example, that my nicotine burden was too high, I wouldn't have any means of controlling it, which could lead to an unpleasant experience with nicotine intoxication. I would never deliver any drug transdermally, unless I had worked out the kinetics in conjunction with a solvent such as DMSO that would give me better dosing capability.

 

[Emmalfal]

It's pretty remarkable how enjoyable vape is, I think. I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a cigarette. They had become a gross and tedious habit. I can't imagine I'd stop even after reaching zero nicotine.

 

[mosspa]

I think I heard about the ammonia during the tobacco trials in the '90s, or shortly after as the documents were released. This doc is interesting reading.

The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro
Phillip Morris and the Origins, Spread, and Denial of Nicotine Freebasing

"1 In the 1950s Philip Morris had begun exploring the use of diammonium phosphate (DAP) in recon and found it to be a successful pectin releaser and a potent flavor enhancer, masking the unpleasant taste of stem.12 The company set up its first pilot plant for ammoniating tobacco (with DAP) in 1961, and 6 years later patented the “diammonium phosphate–blended leaf” (DAP-BL) process after realizing diammonium phosphate’s ability to increase free nicotine “delivery” in cigarettes.13 The patent, interestingly, contains nothing about DAP’s ability to freebase nicotine, citing only its importance as a pectin releaser.14"

Gas-phase nicotine is able to deposit quickly and easily in the respiratory tract and, because of its free-base form, crosses the blood–brain barrier more readily (“moves easily into fatty tissues”30), making the nicotine more “available” to the smoker and therefore more potent.
The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro

Just taking what is revealed here, this is is a bad thing because? Seems to me that this may have advanced the therapeutic value of smoking (i.e., more nicotine, more therapeutic value, everything else taken as constant, obviously). After reading this, it appears that diammonium phosphate may have been one of the good things big-tobacco added to cigarettes. As for many drugs, controlled freebasing presents an optimal delivery system for therapeutic agents such as nicotine. In this regard, as far as delivery of nicotine is concerned, this additive would make smoking tobacco more similar to vaping, from a nicotine delivery perspective. I fail to see why this is problematic. I might even go so far as to say such efforts should be lauded (non withstanding the profit incentive of big-tobacco and the nondisclosure of this activity).

 

[four2109]

" this additive would make smoking tobacco more similar to vaping, from a nicotine delivery perspective."
I don't understand how. It seems to me that vaping can't replicate it.

 

[mudram99]

No, well at least for me it didn't. First, transdermal absorption is quite variable, especially in humans. Even in lab rats, which are much more similar to one another than humans are, significant variance exists between individuals in absorption rates, meaning that is difficult to predetermine dosage for a given time interval. Also, the transdermal process is much less quick than alveolar transfer, meaning that the user really has no control over the dosage they are getting at any one snapshot time interval. Inhalation remains the most efficient method of delivering a compound directly into the atrial bloodstream. It is much more quick than even intravenous injection, because when substances are absorbed in conjunction with respired air, they directly enter the arterial blood supply, and they bypass the whole process that moves venous blood through the heart to get it to the lungs for oxygenation. Thus, the vaper/smoker has much more specific control over the dose of the compound. For my particular requirements for dosing myself with nicotine (i.e., which I do at a relatively high concentration per puff/drag), it is important that I am able to respond to my nicotine load in real time. If I start feeling nicotine effects after a puff/drag, I can, simply, not take another puff/drag until the effect subsides. I wouldn't have such control with a patch. By the time I recognized, for example, that my nicotine burden was too high, I wouldn't have any means of controlling it, which could lead to an unpleasant experience with nicotine intoxication. I would never deliver any drug transdermally, unless I had worked out the kinetics in conjunction with a solvent such as DMSO that would give me better dosing capability.

As someone who tried the patch when Strongly encouraged to do so by a company physician, based on their at the time focus of smoke cessation in employees. While I have previously shown no proclivity towards sensitivity to anything, the patches caused a pretty uncomfortable reaction regardless of where placed. I was not successful needless to say. I don't know if the reaction was from the nicotine transfer or the adhesive of the patch. Each application site would develop visibly reddened area just slightly large than the area of the patch. Also there would be a mild tenderness and sometimes itching. Over time I have tried everything except Chantix (had even got a prescription filled for it but wife after a quick research on the web and based on possible side-effects said I COULD not take that) and had in the past never been able to abstain for any period of time. Vaping so far is promising to be a possibility to at least remove 9.6k combusted chemical vapors/smoke. I have at minimum replaced a horrible habit with a bad one, and at best made a great difference health wise. My tagline reflects my quit stats.

 

[mosspa]

It's pretty remarkable how enjoyable vape is, I think. I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a cigarette. They had become a gross and tedious habit. I can't imagine I'd stop even after reaching zero nicotine.

And there doesn't appear to be any reason why you should

 

[mosspa]

" this additive would make smoking tobacco more similar to vaping, from a nicotine delivery perspective."
I don't understand how. It seems to me that vaping can't replicate it.

Replicate what?

 

[mosspa]

As someone who tried the patch when Strongly encouraged to do so by a company physician, based on their at the time focus of smoke cessation in employees. While I have previously shown no proclivity towards sensitivity to anything, the patches caused a pretty uncomfortable reaction regardless of where placed. I was not successful needless to say. I don't know if the reaction was from the nicotine transfer or the adhesive of the patch. Each application site would develop visibly reddened area just slightly large than the area of the patch. Also there would be a mild tenderness and sometimes itching. Over time I have tried everything except Chantix (had even got a prescription filled for it but wife after a quick research on the web and based on possible side-effects said I COULD not take that) and had in the past never been able to abstain for any period of time. Vaping so far is promising to be a possibility to at least remove 9.6k combusted chemical vapors/smoke. I have at minimum replaced a horrible habit with a bad one, and at best made a great difference health wise. My tagline reflects my quit stats.

I'm not sure that substitution of vaping is a 'lesser of two evils' kind of thing. Nicotine isn't a 'bad' drug, and habit substitution to vaping may, actually, be beneficial in the long run (dependent, of course, on your actual health circumstances)

 

[mosspa]

Just to add the to this discussion concerning the alcohol buzz intensification effect of vaping nicotine... I just vaped after about 2 hours of abstinence and after consuming three very full glasses of wine. The alcohol buzz intensification is, very much, still apparent. I'll continue to report on this regarding the phenomenological effects of reasonably high dose nicotine vaping by a 'relative' nicotine virgin as I continue to vape on my current schedule. Maybe it will lessen as my body gets again accustomed to nicotine (i.e., it has been over 40 years since my brain has seen this much nicotine) but, for right now, this effect is still pretty impressive.

 

[rolygate]

Surely, all pleasurable drugs are immoral?

 

[Shirtbloke]

I've occasionally said it before but I'm about to say it again - sometimes this site is a genuine education and this is one of those times. Thanks to Mosspa for starting this conversation. I have learned much.

 

[sofarsogood]

what has emerged to be the major topic here "Nicotine in relation to 'smoking addiction"

What I think I'm understanding from what you've written so far is that all of the chemicals in cigarettes have the same relationship to 'smoking addiction' as nicotine. If that is correct then is the paper about ALL the tobacco chemicals in relation to 'smoking addiction'. Is this similar to my medical panic attack years ago? May be I perceive that I must be craving chemicals in cigarettes but when they are tested in people who never smoked in the absense of the smoking ritual they have little or no reinforcing influence on their own. So when someone is trying to stop smoking the challenge is not chemicals with reinforcing or addicting influences but conditioned responses, anxiety, emotional distress, or better terminology that's not coming to mind?

 

[mosspa]

What I think I'm understanding from what you've written so far is that all of the chemicals in cigarettes have the same relationship to 'smoking addiction' as nicotine. If that is correct then is the paper about ALL the tobacco chemicals in relation to 'smoking addiction'. Is this similar to my medical panic attack years ago? May be I perceive that I must be craving chemicals in cigarettes but when they are tested in people who never smoked in the absense of the smoking ritual they have little or no reinforcing influence on their own. So when someone is trying to stop smoking the challenge is not chemicals with reinforcing or addicting influences but conditioned responses, anxiety, emotional distress, or better terminology that's not coming to mind?

In a nutshell, yes, but the conditioned responses are more than simple operants or respondents, the smoking behavior is very complex chain of individual responses, the completion of each one reinforces the last until the full chain has been completed. It is the habit strength of the whole smoking chain that is difficult to break after decades of performing it, 30-60 times a day, and most likely, the anxiety and emotional distress are signals that your brain is resisting the breaking of the habit.

 

[sofarsogood]

In a nutshell, yes, but the conditioned responses are more than simple operants or respondents, the smoking behavior is very complex chain of individual responses, the completion of each one reinforces the last until the full chain has been completed. It is the habit strength of the whole smoking chain that is difficult to break after decades of performing it, 30-60 times a day, and most likely, the anxiety and emotional distress are signals that your brain is resisting the breaking of the habit.

When you are more specific about what you have in mind for a paper I'll engage that but in the mean time,

When I started the quit smoking process, the day I start vaping, I see my cigs decline drastically without apparent effort, 80% control. I'm accessing something in me that's non verbal, manipulating it from a distance. I smoke when I want to avoid anxiety but I vape and vape and vape some more and observe my modified smoking behavior without trying to change it. After six weeks of dual use I'm still craving only 4 cigs a day. I'm ready to try zero cigs because my confidence in vaping has grown to the point where I'm certain the worst that can happen is relapse to 4 cigs a day. So as the days and weeks of no cigarettes stretch out my "cravings" are easier to endure because they are fading and because there is no anxiety about a total relapse. I believe that if I endure the discomforts, large or small, I'll win.

What ecigs did was not replace some chemical but increase my confidence, create an emotional firewall against failure that is on going, not temporary. (My last relapse was after 10 years.)

 

[AndriaD]

I'm not sure that substitution of vaping is a 'lesser of two evils' kind of thing. Nicotine isn't a 'bad' drug, and habit substitution to vaping may, actually, be beneficial in the long run (dependent, of course, on your actual health circumstances)

I'm really glad you pointed that out; everytime I try and contradict the idea that vaping is a "bad habit" people treat me like they think I've drunk the kool-aid. Some people are just DETERMINED to agree with ANTZ, no matter what.

Andria

 

[Idontknowanything]

Vaping has cleared my lungs and now i can actually run without getting tired instantly

 

[AndriaD]

When you are more specific about what you have in mind for a paper I'll engage that but in the mean time,

When I started the quit smoking process, the day I start vaping, I see my cigs decline drastically without apparent effort, 80% control. I'm accessing something in me that's non verbal, manipulating it from a distance. I smoke when I want to avoid anxiety but I vape and vape and vape some more and observe my modified smoking behavior without trying to change it. After six weeks of dual use I'm still craving only 4 cigs a day. I'm ready to try zero cigs because my confidence in vaping has grown to the point where I'm certain the worst that can happen is relapse to 4 cigs a day. So as the days and weeks of no cigarettes stretch out my "cravings" are easier to endure because they are fading and because there is no anxiety about a total relapse. I believe that if I endure the discomforts, large or small, I'll win.

What ecigs did was not replace some chemical but increase my confidence, create an emotional firewall against failure that is on going, not temporary. (My last relapse was after 10 years.)

That sort of confidence is exactly what e-cigs gave me -- if I could get my smoking down to 3-4 a day WITHOUT EVEN REALLY TRYING, I figured that "trying" would mean I could quit completely.

That sort of confidence also was why I went back to smoking, when the cravings post-appendectomy were so cruelly intense -- I figured, I quit once, I can do it again. Turned out to be harder the 2nd time, but not that much harder -- including WTA got me past the rough spots, whether they were addiction-induced rough spots, or just the continuing illness in my colon. But if I hadn't wanted so badly to go back to being a non-smoker, it might have been a lot harder.

I know some may dispute this, but in my own case, what it really came down to was, what do I really want? Do I want to be chained to a cigarette for the rest of my [shortened] life, or do I want to go back to being so happy about being a non-smoker I'm doing hoochie-koochie dances about it? I was really damn tired of that ball and chain!!!

Andria

 

[mosspa]

I'm really glad you pointed that out; everytime I try and contradict the idea that vaping is a "bad habit" people treat me like they think I've drunk the kool-aid. Some people are just DETERMINED to agree with ANTZ, no matter what.

ANTZ? I'm assuming not the movie