Archive | March 2016

How dangerous really is the long term use of nicotine only (not cigarettes)?

How dangerous really is the long term use of nicotine only (not cigarettes)? by João Pargana

Answer by João Pargana:

I will let you read, and find your own conclusions:

Nicotine as Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526783/

Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Increases the Motivation to Self-Administer Nicotine in Rats
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full

The myth of nicotine addiction
http://www.formindep.org/The-myth-of-nicotine-addiction.html#myth

The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

Tobacco: A Forgotten Healing Plant
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/06/12/tobacco-forgotten-healing-plant/

Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm345087.htm
Quote:
"The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence."
"The NRT gum and patch products were switched to OTC marketing between 1996 and 2002, based on scientific research showing that these products were safe for use without a prescription. The nicotine lozenge and mini-lozenge were approved directly for OTC use in 2002 and 2009, respectively."

Nicotine “no more harmful to health than caffeine”
https://www.rsph.org.uk/en/about-us/latest-news/press-releases/press-release1.cfm/pid/32B2FF71-A11A-42F6-A0C8EF19BA0E0C4F

Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

Is Everything We Know About Nicotine Wrong?
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/10/nicotine-are-we-wrong.html

Is Nicotine All Bad? – Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/

Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466669/

Nicotine and Health
http://pt.scribd.com/doc/195347257/Nicotine-and-Health
Quotes:
"Nicotine as an insecticide is highly toxic; on the other hand, it is one of the safest of medicines. As with many exposures, it all depends on the dose and the speed of delivery"
"No increase in hospitalization or mortality was found in non-smokers regularly using nicotine gum"
"With Parkinson disease, current cigarette smoking more than halves the risk of future Parkinson disease, while coffee drinking reduces the risk by one third, and nicotine in the smoke may be the active protective agent"
"Cigarette smoke causes most lung cancers. Nicotine itself does not cause cancer"
"Nicotine from electronic cigarettes used in planes or crowded situations is clearly not a health risk to those in close proximity. Measuring trace toxicants is dif?cult and no-one has so far succeeded in measuring toxicants in the blood of passive vapers. Airlines have understandably banned e-cigarette use, as security is their priority, and trains may ban them for passenger comfort, but restrictions on e-cigarette use indoors would be hard to justify on medical grounds, as e-cigarettes (no ash, no smoke, no second hand smoke) do not emit sidestream smoke. Propylene glycol, water vapor, and a trace of nicotine on the exhaled breath of e-cigarette users are not harmful for vapers or bystanders"
"Cigarette smoking should be much more highly taxed now that a safer and satisfying alternative product is now available. This is the tipping point principle. Electronic cigarettes should be made as accessible as cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes should be sold widely and lightly regulated to ensure product safety"

Nicotine Propaganda (Dr Paul Newhouse)
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/nicotine-propaganda.html
Quotes:
"Use of the term 'addictive' is deliberately emotive and used for the purpose of inflaming the debate when applied to a material for which harm is impossible to measure reliably; it is incorrect because modern custom is to use the word 'dependence' and 'dependence forming' for a material causing no reliably measurable harm (e.g. coffee, for which there is some evidence for dependence creation).
'Addictive' is used when the custom or consumption is likely to cause reliably-identifiable harm of some kind (e.g. gambling addiction, crack addiction)."

http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/the-great-nicotine-myth.html
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/is-nicotine-addictive.html
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/nicotine-clinical-trials-why-aren-t-there-any.html
Quotes:
"It is unlikely that an honest trial of nicotine's potential for dependence could be carried out at this time, since the results would likely be catastrophic for some commercial agendas and ideologies. We should be looking for historical examples that have been removed from view due to their unacceptable results, as with the CDC trial of nicotine in the population."
"2. FDA announces nicotine not addictive or dangerous
 In April 2013 the FDA announced they no longer considered nicotine to be dependence-creating, liable to abuse, or dangerous if over-consumed.
 
In their Consumer Updates, they proposed removing several of the warning labels from NRTs. They have now conceded that several decades of evidence from nicotine-containing meds sales demonstrates that nicotine has no measurable potential for addiction and presents no danger of harm through overdose."

Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix
Quotes:
"Perhaps most surprising is that, in studies by Boyd and others, nicotine has not caused addiction or withdrawal when used to treat disease. These findings fly in the face of nicotine’s reputation as one of the most addictive substances known, but it’s a reputation built on myth. Tobacco may well be as addictive as heroin, as some have claimed. But as scientists know, getting mice or other animals hooked on nicotine alone is dauntingly difficult. As a 2007 paper in the journal Neuropharmacology put it: “Tobacco use has one of the highest rates of addiction of any abused drug.” Paradoxically it’s almost impossible to get laboratory animals hooked on pure nicotine, though it has a mildly pleasant effect."
"The same study found that tobacco smoke itself is necessary to amp up nicotine’s addictiveness. In 2005, for instance, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that animals self-administer a combination of nicotine and acetaldehyde, an organic chemical found in tobacco, significantly more often than either chemical alone. In 2009, a French team found that combining nicotine with a cocktail of five other chemicals found in tobacco — anabasine, nornicotine, anatabine, cotinine and myosmine — significantly increased rats’ hyperactivity and self-administration of the mix compared with nicotine alone."
"In short, the estimated 45.3 million people, or 19.3 percent of all adults, in the United States who still smoke are not nicotine fiends. They’re nicotine-anabasine-nornicotine-anatabine-cotinine-myosmine-acetaldehyde-and-who-knows-what-else fiends. It is tobacco, with its thousands of chemical constituents, that rightly merits our fear and loathing as the Great Satan of addictiveness. Nicotine, alone: not so much. "

Caffeine and nicotine may improve the health of dopaminergic systems
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7389/561
Quote:
"Parkinson's disease belongs to that small group of conditions that occur less often among cigarette smokers than in non-smokers. […] The protective effect is large—according to the pooled data, current smokers have a 60% reduction in risk compared with those who have never smoked—and consistent between studies in different settings"
 
Lower the risk of developing Parkinson’s with nicotine… A healthier way
http://parkinsonhope.org/lower-the-risk-of-developing-parkinsons-with-nicotine-a-healthier-way/
 
Nicotine: An Unlikely Brain Enhancing Drug
http://bebrainfit.com/nicotine-brain-enhancing-drug/

How dangerous really is the long term use of nicotine only (not cigarettes)?

Advertisements

Is there a war brewing between those who vape nicotine and those who get it from tobacco?

Answer by Steve Peach:

On a personal level, there's always been plenty of friction between ex-smokers and their unenlightened fellows who haven't quit yet – the most annoying anti-smoker is the recently converted ex-smoker. After they get over the initial enthusiasm, or even trip up and relapse to smoking a few times, they tend to be a bit more thoughtful and considerate when "helping" their fellows.
The same sort of scenario plays out all the time when people join vaping activist, hobbyist and support groups online. It's sometimes difficult to preserve that "vaping saved my life" enthusiasm once they become aware of the entrenched battles that are still being fought just to preserve their ability to even discover vaping in the first place. Of course plenty of people just take their successful exit from tobacco addiction for granted and drop out of the scene with their own needs taken care of. But those who stick with it discover the worst adversary isn't big tobacco (not that they aren't up to their own nefarious plots) but all the folks who were supposedly looking out for their welfare when they were smokers – government, pharma and especially the tobacco control (movement) industry.
Smoker's Rights groups never enjoyed widespread public credibility, since smoking is universally condemned as society's Worst, Evil, Ever, it followed that smokers don't actually deserve any rights and the organizations must just be "astroturfing" for faceless, evil, corporate, Big Tobacco.  But now newly-minted vaping activists find themselves on the receiving end of traditional tobacco control weapons – baffling regulation, arbitrary public use bans, well funded disinformation campaigns… And eventually it occurs to a few to wonder if maybe the great war on tobacco was similarly (corrupt) misguided.
But your average smoker doesn't actually advocate for their own right to smoke, they've been indoctrinated just like everyone else. The best they're hoping for is just to be left alone to pay their sin tax and die in peace. There really isn't such a thing as a pro-smoking popular movement. Which may explain why tobacco control seems to be having such a hard time understanding – they're so geared up to fight "marketing" from "the industry" that they can't even process consumer advocates or personal testimonials.
So yeah, there are a lot of skirmishes going on, but a war between smokers and vapers doesn't seem likely. Ironically, the irrational attacks on vaping may have done more to retroactively legitimize the smokers rights position – if it's not about health, then is it really about control? or money? or morality? If anti-smoking crusaders are unimpressed by my personal rescue from the health effects of tobacco addiction, what is it they are really trying to accomplish?

Is there a war brewing between those who vape nicotine and those who get it from tobacco?