Nicotene - the new wonder drug (why smokers like to smoke)

This link outlines the historical and current state of research into nicotene.

discovermagazine.com...

f dozens of human and animal studies published over the past six years are borne out by large clinical trials, nicotine — freed at last of its noxious host, tobacco, and delivered instead by chewing gum or transdermal patch — may prove to be a weirdly, improbably effective drug for relieving or preventing a variety of neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Tourette’s and schizophrenia. It might even improve attention and focus enough to qualify as a cognitive enhancer. And, oh yeah, it’s long been associated with weight loss, with few known safety risks. (Although, in truth, few safety studies of the increasingly popular e-cigarettes have yet been published.)

It has long been known that smoking has health benefits. It has just as long been theorized that nicotene is more addictive than heroine
But is this reputation justified or was it another anti-smoker lie spread by tobacco control to scare the population and justify demonizing smokers?

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.

If it isn't addictive - what is?

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.

In short - smoking is the delivery system for a very effective and beneficial drug. And smoking is, to date, the necessary delivery system to amp that drug up to its full benefits.

Big Pharma has been researching nicotene as a useful medical for decades. It is well known that Big Pharma funds anti-smoker organizations through its foundation - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and its puppet institution, the World Health Organization.

Could the anti-smoker movement all be an attempt by Big Pharma to steal the beneficial medicinal effects of smoking and tobacco from Big Tobacco?

In my opinion - that would be a very very big yes. The only reason why nicotene is demonized and its beneficial effects denied is because Big Pharma has just not figured out how to tease out the beneficial effects of nicotene without also including the effective delivery system.

Smoke therapy for illness has a very long and very repected history.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Its the additional chemicals and preservatives that they add to our tobacco that causes any adverse medical conditions regarding there consumption. Stop adding benzene and numerous other carcinogens to mix and smoking would become far less unhealthy prospect i imagine.

If the nicotene is not the addicting substance, then something put with it is. Find out what that thing is and eliminate it. Until it is nicotene without the addictive additives cigarettes and their ilk are still addictive and harmful.

If I drink water, but only while mixed with poison, that the water is healthy is irrelevant cause the poison is killing me.

Not saying anything about whether smoking should be illegal, I believe in drug decriminalization, but to pretend that this makes smoking healthy is ridiculous.

This research would definitely add another explanation to the attempts of big gov to demonize e-cigarettes. Effective nicotine delivery system without tobacco...we can't have THAT now, you see?

Ha !!

I knew smoking always gave me an "edge".


..... Next time someone complains about the smoke or smell Im gonna say, "HEY ! ....Im just taking my medicine !

a reply to: Puppylove

If you drink water, with a beneficial drug and poisons, there is motivation and good reasons to get off that water.

If the beneficial drug was still in the water, and the poisons removed, then it becomes not a hazard to health, but just another way to bypass the BIg Pharma route of beneficial drug administration.

What this poster failed to note in their reply is that there is ALREADY an effective delivery system for nicotine that does NOT include any of the other aforementioned compounds, and that is the electronic cigarette (nicotine, vegetable glycerin, proplyene glycol, and water - and maybe food-grade flavors added). That poster left it dangling, so I wanted to tie up that dangle.

I don't oppose anyone's right to use tobacco, but I understand the undisputable hazards.

I do oppose the increasing trend to identify e-cigarettes (which is simply vapor administration of nicotine without the thousands of other addictive and harmful compounds) as an identical hazard.

Using them for almost two years, and increaasinigly I am pushed outside into the 'smoking' area because it is considered the SAME type of hazard. Many states are already restricting their use as identical to tobacco. If anything, if tobacco is the hazard, vapers (users of the e-cig) should be given special treatment as an incentive to those that are considering it, to reduce the public health burden.

During that same time, I have completely stabilized my blood pressure and weight, while getting off three prescriptions that were used to treat these problems unsuccessfully. My doctor is pleased and has no qualms with my continued use of an e-cig. I can't say the same about her treatment of my previous tobacco use.

A little off-topic, but again, this article not only explains some smoker's motivations, but also shows a motive for the proposal of regulations to restrict the alternative delivery system. I've seen a lot of misguided 'research' recently (one in particular recently posted in the New Jersey Journal of Medicine) that tries to make the e-cigarette appear MORE hazardous than the traditional tobacco cigarette, by showing results that indicate 10 times more formaldyhyde content in the vapor of an e-cig. However, reading the details, show that at NORMAL wattage levels there is NO content, only at extreme wattage (the levels that melt plastic and burn wicks) is there a greatly elevated level. The headline of that report did not even give a CLUE that the testing was flawed.

In short, nicotine is NOT the demon, it is a friend. On that me and the OP fully agree.

Well it is much the same as cannabis. Bugger all the possible benefits, as long as the right people are getting their money out of it.

i've been saying for years, it's not that they want you to quit smoking, it's that they have found something out about tobacco and and can't make any money off of it with so many people smoking.

i still smoke, the brand i smoke now is just pure dried tobacco, no additives and is also not a major brand and cost about $2.50 less per pack. with the other brand i use to smoke, i would smoke 2 packs a say and start a third one, and cough my a@@ off.
now i smoke a little over one pack, and hardly cough if ever.

another thing that i have noticed is that there is hardly any of the brown "nicotine" stains that would build up on things like the other brand. there is some still there but we have noticed that there is considerably less.

Don't those nicotine patches put nicotine right into your bloodstream? Why not just slap those nicotine patches on and save your lungs?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Have to say you do realize that in sufficient quantities, Nicotine is one of the most toxic substances known to Man? I find it rather interesting that such a substance could also have beneficial property's when administered in the correct dosage. Chemistry is fascinating!

a reply to: kaylaluv

I prefer to also sanitize the air around me at the same time (propylene glycol, BTW, is also used in hospital and emergency room settings to prevent airborne spread of pathogens).

That way, when one of those anti-smoking zealots approach me and protest about my 'pollution', I can smile. Then I tell them that at least I sanitize my exhalation, and also identify it so others can avoid it...then I blow a big cloud of vapor at them and tell them to get their invisible skanky breath away, and quit forcing me to guess where the fresh air is. And until then, I will continue to sanitize the area around them until they leave the area.

a reply to: andy06shake

Of COURSE it is.

So is WATER if you drink enough......

(not intended as a slam - just an addition to the sarcasm that is well-noted, that everything beneficial can also be a hazard if used improperly)

a reply to: lakesidepark

Point taken all through we are not composed of 80% nicotine. I just find properties regarding the stuff to be rather interesting.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

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.

If it isn't addictive - what is?

I can vouch for this,i consider myself to be pretty strong willed but i found cigarettes extremely addictive,i hate the smell on my fingers and on my breath but i still needed that hit,but after using a vape for about a year i eventually ended up liking the vape more than the real thing,i vape 18mg nicotine but i noticed straight away i was not addicted to the nicotine i didnt crave it like i did the cigs but it cant be the added chemicals in cigarettes that are addicting (although they probably contribute) because i mostly smoked natural tobacco.

nicotine is similar to caffeine really,completely harmless but i dont really notice an effect with either drug to be honest.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
i've been saying for years, it's not that they want you to quit smoking, it's that they have found something out about tobacco and and can't make any money off of it with so many people smoking.

What do you mean by this? i thought that they do make a lot of money of it so what would change that?

Im also curious as to what the agenda is for the big anti smoking campaign that started approx 15 years ago,i seriously doubt its out of concern for our health but freeing up hospital resources seems plausible.

Here is a very interesting theory on the whole thing,which basically says that nuclear testing in the 50s is what is actually causing all the lung cancer because of all the deadly particles floating around in the atmosphere,they even go as far to say that smoking in moderation might prevent lung cancer.

www.thetreeofliberty.com...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: lakesidepark

Point taken all through we are not composed of 80% nicotine. I just find properties regarding the stuff to be rather interesting.

some stressful days at work I'm quite sure I exceed 80 percent nicotine

Time to dust these puppies off...

a reply to: andy06shake

The chemicals that you are talking about - including benezene - is the natural by-product when you burn any organic material.

Benzene is NOT added to tobacco by Big Tobacco.

You get the same 1000s of chemical produced when you burn wood, candles, petroleum products, cotton and any other organic you can thing of.

Anti-smokers have tried to make you believe that tobacco smoke is a poison while inhaling the smoke from a BBQ is fine. There is very very little difference between different types of smoke. Including the smoke from cooking food.

Everyone smokes but only some people smoke tobacco

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This list seems to somewhat disagree regarding the addition of Benzene related additives.

en.wikipedia.org...

I certainly agree that to some extent or another everyone consumes cigarette smoke. Then again sitting or travelling in traffic apparently exposes one to far greater carcinogens than second hand cigarette smoke.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nicotene is NOT one of the most toxic substances known to man. That was another deliberate myth.

www.ecigarette-politics.com...\

In October 2013, Prof Mayer of Graz demolished the myth: he showed that there is no evidence at all for the assumption that nicotine is highly toxic; and in fact the LD50 should be around 10 to 20 times greater than the current figure [2].

In October 2013, Prof Mayer of Graz demolished the myth: he showed that there is no evidence at all for the assumption that nicotine is highly toxic; and in fact the LD50 should be around 10 to 20 times greater than the current figure [2]. His work shows that: Evidence for the validity of the current LD50 simply does not exist The method used to arrive at the LD50 is based on a guess made more than a hundred years ago There is no evidence whatsoever that a dose equivalent to the current LD50 has ever killed anyone There is overwhelming evidence that doses of multiple times the LD50 have been survived Suicide by ingestion of 1,500mg of nicotine is known to have failed, the only result being abdominal pain and vomiting There is strong evidence that the lethal dose is 4mg plasma nicotine, and this equates to a 500mg - 1,000mg dose Because ingestion of 1,500mg nicotine is not fatal, a lethal dose would need to be administered by injection or similar (it is impossible to deliberately inhale sufficient nicotine to cause death). Therefore it seems logical that a new LD50 for nicotine should be established at around 750mg, which is 12 times the current figure; and that this dosage must be administered intravenously or by some similar mechanism. There is no known fatal dose by ingestion for adults, because in the normal subject the result is copious vomiting that expels the material. It is also possible that, with a sufficiently large dose, enough could be absorbed in the mucous membranes of the mouth while swallowing to cause death. This dosage would presumably be in the multiple thousands of milligrammes. The current LD50 of 60mg was simply a convenient addition to the ideological and commercial propaganda surrounding the compound and there was never any evidence for it.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Indeed, more recent studies have shown that intravenous administration of up to 5 mg of nicotine, corresponding to 25 mg oral, i.e., 50 % of the allegedly lethal dose, led to only minor adverse effects, such as coughing and nausea (Henningfield et al. 1983; Gourlay and Benowitz 1997). Thus, Kobert estimated the lethal dose of nicotine on the basis of highly dubious self-experiments performed in the mid of the nineteenth century while ignoring conflicting data. His excellent reputation as a leading scholar in toxicology has apparently led to uncritical acceptance and citation of the 60-mg dose by contemporary fellows and successive researchers.

When anti-smokers LIE - they lie BIG!

Tired of Control Freaks