Why are so many people against non-smokers vaping?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RosaJ

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 30, 2012
2,014
3,034
The Woodlands, TX, USA
oh I fully agree, but people seem to forget we have not given up tobacco, just changed how we use it and what is in it

I'm not refuting your statement, please don't take offense. tobacco is a plant, when we smoked we were inhaling the burnt plant with its nicotine and also 4,000 other chemicals to better absorb the nicotine through the lungs and to ensure that we became addicted to cigarettes. The nicotine we use is extracted from tobacco in liquid form, so we're not inhaling burnt plant or the other 4,000 chemicals. I've often wondered if some of the nic liquid we're vaping is synthetic nicotine (if there is such a thing). Anyway, liquid nicotine is currently being used in some of the medicine we take, and it's currently being researched for the treatment of alzheimers/dementia. So, it's reasonable to conclude that liquid nicotine is not the evil culprit some people make it to be.

Again, I reiterate, I'm not a scientist nor a doctor.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
i assumed all nicotine was addictive, and feel like i'm misunderstanding something here
Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties. However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential.

Tobacco smoke contains the monoamine oxidase inhibitors harman, norharman, anabasine, anatabine, and nornicotine. These compounds significantly decrease MAO activity in smokers. MAO enzymes break down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. It is thought that the powerful interaction between the MAOI's and the nicotine is responsible for most of the addictive properties of tobacco smoking.
 

p-doze

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 20, 2013
274
256
United States
Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern research shows that nicotine acts on the brain to produce a number of effects. Specifically, research examining its addictive nature has been found to show that nicotine activates the mesolimbic pathway ("reward system") – the circuitry within the brain that regulates feelings of pleasure and euphoria.[63]
Dopamine is one of the key neurotransmitters actively involved in the brain. Research shows that by increasing the levels of dopamine within the reward circuits in the brain, nicotine acts as a chemical with intense addictive qualities. In many studies it has been shown to be more addictive than ....... and ....... Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes downregulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms. An example is the increase in norepinephrine, one of the successors to dopamine, which inhibit reuptake of the glutamate receptors,[67] in charge of memory and cognition. The net effect is an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, the opposite of other addictive drugs such as ....... and ......, which reduce reward pathway sensitivity.[52] This neuronal brain alteration can persist for months after administration ceases.

link to the study that was quoted in the text starting with 'technically' http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
are you implying that anyone who has been solely vaping e-liquid w/nicotine should be able to quit cold turkey tomorrow and not have any withdrawal symptoms?

Theoretically, if they've been vaping long enough. But I was specifically addressing never-smokers. There are a few things to think about with so-called "nicotine addiction."

1) If all that smokers and tobacco users really were "addicted" to was nicotine, then why do nicotine products fail for 94% of smokers who use it to replace smoking? Obviously, it's not the lack of nicotine making them go back to smoking/chewing.

2) If all smokers wanted was the nicotine PLUS the "habit" of smoking (ie. the action of smoking at certain times) then why do so many vapers find "something missing" with e-cigarettes? They get the nicotine (sometimes over 4.5%!) and the feeling of smoking, but it still doesn't help them quit altogether. Many (if not most) of these folks find using a smokeless tobacco (like snus,) that has all of the MAOIs and other tobacco chemicals in it, helps them finally replace smoking fully.

Not to mention the folks who switch and nearly instantly reduce to 0 mg or start with 0 mg. They obviously didn't need the nicotine so much, right? So, based on this evidence, there is a strong indication that a good portion of smokers are either dependent upon something more than just the nicotine and hand/mouth that is making it harder to quit or it was just an oral fixation in the first place. Most smokers will fall into being a combination of the two.

3) The term "addiction" for smoking/nicotine is still debated in science circles. The worst withdrawal symptoms most people have from smoking are extremely minor compared to street and prescription drugs. The physical symptoms are actually very similar to caffeine withdrawal. It's that urge to still want to smoke that is compared to other drugs - because smokers would still smoke even with the high risks, whereas caffeine users find it a lot easier to refrain if they develop an ulcer or something. Of course, caffeine drinkers are rarely even told to quit (so not too many opportunities to study what would happen if you told 4.3 million caffeine users to quit, even though they aren't having any negative health effects at the time) and they don't usually have a "drinking habit" the same way smokers have a smoking habit. (Meaning, most caffeine drinkers don't have 20 times a day they drink coffee nor reach for a cup when feeling stressed or bored. THAT is habit.)

So, there are a lot of reasons for the argument that smoking is NOT an addiction to nicotine. More likely, it's a dependence upon nicotine and other chemicals, like caffeine dependence, with the added habit that makes it much harder to quit than caffeine. Not to mention that, in spite of what the ANTZ claim, people DO enjoy the feeling and taste of smoking. It's an acquired taste like premium alcohol, black espresso or pungent/raw foods, but it is enjoyable for many of those who do it, nonetheless. Put those all together and what you have is a mild chemical dependence that is amplified enough by enjoyment and habit to make it APPEAR to be an addiction.

So, non-tobacco users who start using ncotine e-cigarettes may not ever even become addicted, because it's not even really a nicotine addiction. And, of course, those studies of ulcerative colitis patients not becoming addicted to nicotine alone support this.

On the other hand, the ANTZ claim that non-smokers can become addicted to extracted nicotine has little evidence supporting it. There have been a few surveys that uncovered the very rare (by their own conclusion) occurrence of never-smokers claiming dependence on nicotine gum. Something like 4 respondents out of around 1,500 were never-tobacco users. (Again, remember that chewing gum can be habit-forming.) But it is very rare to find never-users of tobacco using pharmaceutical nicotine of any kind (another argument against the ANTZ fear mongering that droves of people will start vaping because they think it's safer - has that happened with NRT gum and lozenges to any significant degree??)

I believe we need to rethink all of the things we've been taught by the ANTZ about nicotine "addiction."

Sorry - that ended up being really long! :oops:

(This post is my personal opinion and not intended to represent CASAA policy nor represent the opinions of other CASAA directors.)
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
The ANTZ lie that nicotine is as or more addictive than her-oin is based on pure speculation NOT scientific research. That claim got started when the Surgeon General represented a survey of drug addicts who said they could quit everything but smoking as evidence that nicotine is as or more addictive than those drugs. How is that science?? I mean, if you smoked AND you were addicted to a drug that caused you to lose your job, family and dignity and you managed to quit that drug, how motivated would you be to quit a comforting habit that may help fill the void and isn't immediately affecting your life? You just gave up her-oin for Pete's sake!

And this claim directly contradicts the ANTZ other claim that smokers should have no problem being "courteous" and abstaining from smoking for several others while forced to not smoke in public places. If it's really so addictive, how can they expect smokers to abstain for so long so easily? I'd ask them - which would you rather spend a 7 hour plane ride with? A her-oin addict needing a "fix" or a nicotine "addict" needing nicotine? So, are they REALLY the same?? LOL! ;)

Edited to add: Just try to find an actual STUDY that shows nicotine is as or more "addictive" than her-oin. Even the Wiki post on nioctine cites 2 news articles and a web page to support the allegation - none of which cite actual studies or research!
 
Last edited:

patkin

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Nov 6, 2012
3,774
4,141
Arizona USA
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Oh, he is a definite ANTZ and very against tobacco harm reduction. He set the THR movement back 20 years claiming smokeless tobacco was just as hazardous as smoking (or, conversely, smoking is no more dangerous than smokeless tobacco!) It'll be very interesting to watch how Njoy deals with his ANTZ attitudes.

He testified:

"No matter what you may hear today or read in press reports later, I cannot conclude that the use of any tobacco product is a safer alternative to smoking. While it may be technically feasible someday to create a reduced-harm tobacco product, the Institute of Medicine recently concluded that no such product exists today. When and if such a product is ever constructed, we would then have to take a look at the hard scientific data of that particular product."
- 2003 U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona

Has he seen "hard scientific data" regarding electronic cigarettes that the rest of us don't know about? What has convinced him that e-cigarettes are such a reduced-harm tobacco product?

(Sorry - that takes us WAY off topic! :oops:)
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Really? If so, that's the end of me suggesting Njoy to anyone. I wonder how many youtube reviewers know this.

Yup:

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona Joins NJOY Electronic Cigarettes

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona Joins NJOY Electronic Cigarettes’ Board of Directors

Don't get me wrong - if he actually HAS had a change of heart about THR, this could be a HUGE benefit to THR and vaping! (Even if we THR advocates will have a very hard time forgiving the fact that his lies probably killed millions of smokers who may have switched to smoke-free but for his claim that it wouldn't make a difference. :()
 

p-doze

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 20, 2013
274
256
United States
please don't interpret my nit picking personally, but that doesn't contain any reference to e-cigs, only to other tobacco products that aren't cigarettes. do you have the link to the rest of that testimony?

and he's a politician. flip flopping is what they do. obama was for gay marriage when he ran for his state senate seat, then he was against it when he ran for the US seat, then he favored civil unions during his 1st presidential election, and now he's all for gay marriage. things change.
 
Last edited:

RosaJ

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 30, 2012
2,014
3,034
The Woodlands, TX, USA
Really? If so, that's the end of me suggesting Njoy to anyone. I wonder how many youtube reviewers know this.

Yup:

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona Joins NJOY Electronic Cigarettes

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona Joins NJOY Electronic Cigarettes’ Board of Directors

Oh I don't know, I personally wouldn't go that far. After all, many vapers were converted to electronic cigarettes by trying the cigalikes first and then realizing they wanted a better battery and delivery system. It could be that he's the token "devil's advocate" so the FDA can't come back and say Lorilard is biased. Who knows...
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
but that doesn't contain any reference to e-cigs, only to other tobacco products that aren't cigarettes. do you have the link to the rest of that testimony?

It doesn't matter if it doesn't reference e-cigarettes, though. We have more science proving that smoke-free tobacco has far less health risks than smoking than we do for e-cigarettes. In fact, the estimates we use on the health risks of e-cigarettes is based on the science of smoke-free tobacco health risks. So, if he denies that smoke-free tobacco is harm reduction, then how can he be OK with e-cigarettes? As I asked - where is his "hard scientific data" that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking, since he demanded such evidence for smoke-free? There hasn't been any research published about e-cigarettes that is anywhere near as extensive as the research he had available to him in 2003 regarding smoke-free tobacco.

Anyhow - here is a link to his full 2003 testimony: Can Tobacco Cure Smoking? A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction
 

p-doze

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 20, 2013
274
256
United States
i read his denial about harm reduction as a non-admittance or non-endorsement of using one known carcinogen (smokeless tobacco) to quit another (cigarettes).
IIRC, in 2003, snus was still a niche product in the US, similarly to how e-cigs are today. chewing tobacco and dip were the only widely available alternatives to cigarettes and cigars, and both chewing tobacco and dip have scientifically proven connections to cancer. not to mention all these lovely results (NSFW)Cancer Pictures - KillTheCan.org (NSFW)
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
both chewing tobacco and dip have scientifically proven connections to cancer. not to mention all these lovely results (NSFW)Cancer Pictures - KillTheCan.org (NSFW)

The risk of cancer from chew/dip are still far lower than with smoking. It's so low that there aren't any studies that can produce a definitive connection to oral cancer in never-smokers. They also have no tally of the number of smokeless users who are never smokers who get oral cancer or die from it annually.

Even if snus wasn't used as much in the US, the research WAS available.

Epidemiologic studies addressing this issue primarily consist of case-control studies. They show that the use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff is associated with very low risks for cancers of the oral cavity and related structures (relative risks [RR] from 0.6 to 1.7).
Smokeless Tobacco and Oral Cancer: A Review of the Risks and Determinants

Understand that most scientists and researchers agree that a risk increase under 2.0 is pretty insignificant.

The claim that smoke-free tobacco significantly increases health risks - and anywhere near the health risks of smoking - is pure ANTZ propaganda and Carmona is partly to blame for perpetuating the lie. The science directly contradicts the ANTZ claims.
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
guess it's time for the physical dependence vs addiction portion of this thread!
Interesting, I was going to point out the difference between dependence and addiction when you posted about the headaches from caffeine withdrawal.
If you already know the difference, why did you post that the headaches were from addiction rather than dependence?
 

p-doze

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 20, 2013
274
256
United States
The risk of cancer from chew/dip are still far lower than with smoking. It's so low that there aren't any studies that can produce a definitive connection to oral cancer in never-smokers. They also have no tally of the number of smokeless users who are never smokers who get oral cancer or die from it annually.

Even if snus wasn't used as much in the US, the research WAS available.



Understand that most scientists and researchers agree that a risk increase under 2.0 is pretty insignificant.

The claim that smoke-free tobacco significantly increases health risks - and anywhere near the health risks of smoking - is pure ANTZ propaganda and Carmona is partly to blame for perpetuating the lie. The science directly contradicts the ANTZ claims.

more propaganda:

If you haven’t yet swapped the Skoal for sunflower seeds, here’s one more reason to do so: While smokeless tobacco has been linked to cancer, scientists haven’t been able to pinpoint one specific chemical as cancer-causing—until now.

After 24 rats were exposed to the chemical (S)NNN—present in smokeless tobacco products—for more than two years (a dose comparable to half a tin a day for 30 years), all were dead within 17 months. All of them developed oral tumors. “These rats weren’t blasted with the chemical either,” says Silvia Balbo, Ph.D., a researcher at the Masonic Cancer Center of the University of Minnesota. “They were exposed to an amount similar to chronic use in a human.”

Here’s the problem: While trend reports suggest cigarette sales are on the decline, smokeless tobacco sales are on the rise. But while dip might carry a lower cancer risk than cigarettes, the severity of the chemical effect depends on your body’s capacity to metabolize and detoxify the carcinogens, Balbo says.

Smokeless Tobacco's Cancer Causing Ingredient | Men's Health News

Aug. 22, 2012 -- Dip, chew, snuff, and other types of smokeless tobacco are known to increase risk for oral cancer. Now new research in rats is zeroing in on exactly how this may occur.

The findings were presented at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting in Philadelphia.

The newly identified cancer-causing culprit in these products is (S)-NNN. It is part of a larger family of chemicals called nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are also found in such foods as beer and bacon. They form naturally in the stomach when people eat foods containing high levels of nitrite. Nitrosamine levels in smokeless tobacco are far higher than in food, according to a prepared statement.

Researchers fed rats a low dose of two forms of chemicals found in smokeless tobacco for 17 months. The doses were about equivalent to a person who used half a tin of smokeless tobacco every day for 30 years. (S)-NNN seemed to cause large numbers of oral and esophageal tumors in the rats, the study shows.

"There is a very specific oral carcinogen in smokeless tobacco and it is potent," says researcher Silvia Balbo, PhD. She is a cancer researcher at the Masonic Cancer Center of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

This compound is found in all smokeless tobacco products, including those that look like breath mints, strips, or candy, and “snus,” which are pouches filled with tobacco that are placed between the upper lip and gum. E-cigarettes or vapors do not contain tobacco and do not fall into this category.

Is Smokeless Tobacco the Lesser of Two Evils?

Traditional cigarettes also have this cancer-causing chemical, but the risk for oral cancer may be related to what smokeless tobacco products do when they sit in the mouth versus when they are burnt and inhaled.

Balbo says the next step is to understand how, or if, the study findings apply to humans.

Many people may view smokeless tobacco products as safe as or safer than cigarettes. "We see more and more advertising for these products and they are not as badly viewed as smoking, but they are not harmless,” she says.

"Is jay walking safer than jay walking blindfolded?" asks Nathan Cobb, MD. He is a research investigator at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the American Legacy Foundation and a pulmonologist at Georgetown University, both in Washington D.C.

"You are not going to get lung cancer from them, but you will be at higher risk for other types of cancer,” he says.

We knew it was harmful, but we didn't know exactly how until now, says Richard B. Hayes, PhD. He leads the division of epidemiology at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City.

"This study identifies an agent in smokelesss tobacco that causes cancer in animal models,” he says. But this is not to say that it's the only one. Hayes likens this to earlier hopes that adding filters to cigarette tips would lower smoking risks. Unfortunately, that didn't quite pan out.
Cancer-Causing Chemical in Smokeless Tobacco ID'd
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
They usually use rats that are already predisposed to getting tumors even without any chemical exposure.

Just because there is a cancer-causing chemical in a product, it doesn't automatically follow that the product causes cancer in humans. There are "cancer-causing" nitrosamines in bacon, but they don't know to what level one must be exposed to make it actually "cause" cancer. The same nitrosamines are found in e-cigarette liquid. And the TSNAs levels found in modern chew/dip are very low. So just finding nitrosamines does not mean it will cause cancer in humans.

These NNN and NNK levels are lower, across the board, than those of moist snuff products from the 1980s and 1990s, which I documented in a review article in 2004 (here). Epidemiologic studies from the 1980s and 1990s show that oral cancer risks among moist snuff users were minimally elevated, if at all, when those higher level products were being used.

While Hecht and colleagues assert that “smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic to humans, causing oral, pancreatic and esophageal cancer,” a comprehensive study of cancer risks among smokeless users (here) documented no significant risk for any of these cancers. There is virtually no evidence that current TSNA levels are associated with ANY significant cancer risks. Reducing current levels cannot lower an immeasurable cancer risk.
- Dr. Brad Rodu

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/low-nitrosamine-levels-in-altria-and.html

Regarding the claim that TSNAs are human carcinogens: It is worth noting that there is no direct evidence of this and it must be inferred from a variety of very indirect sources. Subjecting non-human animals to exceptionally high doses of these chemicals has induced cancer in some cases, but there are few chemicals for which this is not true. We can reason by analogy, considering other nitrosamines where there is convincing epidemiologic evidence of carcinogenicity. But these are only suggestive of possible human carcinogenicity from TSNAs in doses/quantities that are actually experienced.

The only direct evidence that TSNAs in ST are carcinogenic comes from comparing studies of older or non-Western products (which have much higher levels of TSNAs) to studies of modern products. This is the only source of a contrasting exposure to TSNAs, holding most other things (in particular, exposure to smokeless tobacco) equal. Some studies of older or non-Western products show an association with oral cancer, whereas modern studies of modern products do not. Thus, if one believes that the older and non-Western studies sometimes show positive associations because of genuine different effects (and not poorer methodology or publication bias), the reasonable conclusion is that TSNAs cause cancer in high concentrations, but the concentrations in current products do not cause measurable levels of cancer.
- Dr. Carl Phillips
Responses to the SCENIHR questions - Carl V. Phillips(tobaccoharmreduction.org)
 

mkbilbo

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 4, 2013
2,294
2,874
Austin, TX
www.thesmilingwolf.com
Don't get me wrong - if he actually HAS had a change of heart about THR, this could be a HUGE benefit to THR and vaping! (Even if we THR advocates will have a very hard time forgiving the fact that his lies probably killed millions of smokers who may have switched to smoke-free but for his claim that it wouldn't make a difference. :()

Well, money does go a long way to "changing hearts"...

(Sigh)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread