Slashdot Mirror
Nicotine Is the New Wonder Drug
Fantastic Lad sends us to Wired for a story on the upside of nicotine. Researchers are developing drugs based on nicotine that may prove beneficial for brains, bowels, blood vessels and immune systems. "Nicotine acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including seratonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. Now drugs derived from nicotine and the research on nicotine receptors are in clinical trials for everything from helping to heal wounds, to depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, anger management and anxiety." A separate story talks about nicotine warding off Parkinson's disease.
This certainly sounds too good to be true. Makes me wonder who's funding the research.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.
Stop making me smoke you damned scientists!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
quit smoking after 15 years. What a bitch. And NOW they say that the nicotine is good?
...was brought to you by the Tobacco Industry of America.
It's possible that something very bad for you that can kill you in a dozen different ways can be used in some different ways but it sounds a bit like those "drinking coffee while smoking is better for you than just smoking" articles. Something that technically might be one iota less harmful but in reality is still terrible for you.
Sure, nicotine will save your brain. But if it kills your body before that...
bomb the us up set someone
... if you're undertaking clinical trials with these drugs in the UK - don't do it in public enclosed spaces.
Meta will eat itself
Of course it offsets the chance that you catch some other disease... if you consider the chances you will die of lung cancer before you catch something else.
"Here, smoke this, and be sure to get the smoke deep down
into your lungs"
It's tobacco, it's one of the healthiest things for your body!
So the 50s cigarette commercials were right all along. Smoke up people, its good for you.
... is actually helping by "vaccinating" the nation against Parkinsons Disease and ensuring healthy bowels ?
"We usually thank people for not smoking, sir"
"Why, you don't know they're not going to ?"
Commander Vimes and Corporal Carrot (Pratchett's finest).
I can kind of vouch for this. Usually when I have my first smoke of the day I have to use the can soon after. I always thought they just put laxatives in cigarettes..
Today's Tomorrow is Yesterday's Future! --- "Where Ever You Go, There You Are" -- Diablo 1
So fags are good for you now?
Just make sure that report wasn't signed by anybody named Benson or Hedges!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Nicotine is a toxin. Heck it's more toxic that arsenic and roughly the same toxicity of cyanide (roughly 50mg). Something as dangerous as that shouldn't be prescribed for non-life threatening situations (smoking can be considered life threatening).
Now now, from 1st of july, smoking at public places is banned in many places. So, how can the patients smoke nicotine puff inside hospitals as medication ????
Anyway.. is this another CIA conspiracy like LSD on hippies, yippies?
Grumble...
Can't take a smoke break in peace anymore, with all these health nuts trying to get a free lungful of nicotine.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
you use less than 50 mg...
There is a product on the market, that has some great promise, to help stop smoking as well as help those who smoke but can't. (Like when you have to take a long flight, or are in the hospital, or any number of other places where smoking is banned.) Check it out. . . http://nicoworldwide.com/
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
The idea is that nicotine releases happy chemicals in your brain. I think we've already known this for a while - it's why it's so hard to quit smoking. Now they are realizing that happy chemicals can treat some psychological disorders. Plausible. However, there is a problem with this theory that we've recognized for a long time. When we artifically create these chemicals in the brain via medications or other chemicals and drugs, we get used to having the feeling. Then, in ordinary situations where we are supposed to experience happiness (ex. a day off, a sunny day, a good dessert, a good song) we don't feel anything. This leads further into depression because people literally cannot find happiness in activities they once found enjoyable. Any of the "happy chemicals" that might go off naturaly are so negligible compared to the constant chemicals caused by the drugs that the good experiences may just as well have never happened. So, nicotine makes you happy? Probably. Can help with certain mental disorders? Again, probably. But should it be used / is it the best solution? That is what's debatable.
"if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
There is nothing new about nicotine. Maybe these particular findings are new, but it has had many uses (most notably as a toxin) in pest management for a long time.
I had a bout of depression last year and I saw a psychiatrist. I went over my life history. At the end of the session, he recommended a cocktail of 3 different drugs! Apparently because I had had a manic episode once in my life when I was in high-school, I was a manic-depressive. I needed one drug for the depression, one for the mania, and some other one. Jesus Christ.
I stopped seeing him. I was looking into 'legal' highs for depression, such as St. John's Wort and
Since I also had problems concentrating, I tried smoking for the nicotine. I found that it really helped with my anxiety. I took a smoke after work, I relaxed, and then moved my bowels. I felt calm and focused rather than frenzied and harried. Things were right on course instead of all over the place. I've since given it up, however, since I started coughing.
I know smoking destroys your lungs gives you cancer after decades. My maternal grandparents died of cancers in their 60s, probably from smoking. All the people I try to turn on to smoking tell me that. But what are the long-term effects of taking anti-depression or anti-anxiety medication for decades.
It seems to me that cigarettes are a relatively cheap and simple anti-depressant. Although there are long term health consequences, we don't really know what the damage is from decades of wellbutrin. Of course, Big Pharma would rather have us rely on them for anti-depressants than use a simple plant that we could grow ourselves... Hey, that sounds familiar.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
WTF
NNR research has nothing to do with smoking, nor would anyone who studies it suggest that you ever smoke. The company in the artical (the one you didn't read), Targacept, used to be a branch of RJR. They are not anymore. Nicotine will still kill you. Don't believe me? Put some in your hand without being at least double gloved, I may even stop by your funeral. If you want to know more about it the company has a website, www.targacept.com. The drugs are taken in pill form or through an IV, not smoked.
This is really old news for us medical nerds.
Millis Phorris subvented clinical trials, anyone ?
Buy it at a corner store and smoke it, it's teh evil!!!!one!!!
Extract the same stuff, put it in pills and tablets, and sell it for a bajillion more, it's medicine.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
They're planning on using Nicotine as a basis for new drugs by using similar structures to target receptors in the brain and slow, pause or reverse diseases like parkinsons.
Alternatively they're looking at cremes which can be used to promote blood flow to parts of the body (begin Viagra jokes now please). Mostly as a way to prevent Diabetic amputations which means its better for the health care system since they wont have to chop off as many legs which means less people in wheelchairs and such.
It's not endorsing that people go light up. Just that they can probably make these things new drugs and get them in 'patch form' in the future (because lets face it lighting up a cigarette is not the best method of administering such a drug)
Maybe they'll start working with Marijuana again.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
...the benefits of nicotine when it comes to ADD. I can actually concentrate now. The only downside is the yellowed teeth thing. I suppose yellow is the new white.
Cocaine suppresses appetite big time, where's the article on that? Or can only the legal drugs get facetime?
Dr. Orva: Here, smoke this. And, be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.
Miles Monroe: I don't smoke.
Dr. Orva: It's tobacco. It's one of the healthiest things for your body.
,,,but breathing in tar and particulate matter does not. And even if they find some beneficial uses for nicotene, its use must still be weighed against its effects as an addictive stimulant, including constricting the arteries and making people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks.
No matter what uses they find for nicotene, you're not going to suddenly make smoking healthy, so it wouldn't matter even if the tobacco industry was funding this.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What they are doing is looking at drugs which are derivatives of nicotine. Thus they can patent them and charge you $5/pill.
I remember doing an essay on a chemical derived from amazonian frogbacks when I was a sophomore in high school...1998...nine years ago.
ABT-594 was ten times more effective than morphine for pain relief. I know that opiates are much better understood due to their thousands of years of use, but isn't it about time that someone like Roche or Lilly focus on an effective painkiller with the mere side effect of a tobacco addiction in lieu of opium? Or have dope fiends become more socially accepted than smokers?
Spending Resources on Defense leaves Less to defend.
In other words:
Don't confuse us with your facts and scientific studies. We're trying to demonize people here.
I'm a drinker, a smoker, a midnight toker. There are much more deadly things in our world than the little pleasures we afford ourselves, so what if they are addictive, what isn't? I'm addicted to many ideas and concepts that I don't consider a hinderance, what's a cone or cigar or whiskey every night?
He's really quick to realize that. Paracelsus said that some time in the 16th century
We're going to replace a $2.50 pack of cigarettes with a $400 bottle of pills, and declare victory! I would be more than willing to bet that even if you factor in the eventual risk cost of cancer and other smoking related diseases, it might still come in cheaper than the cost of exotic drugs based on nicotine. The moral of the story is, smoke up to avoid depression, and hope science comes up with a cheaper pill to cure cancer.
This is my sig.
Packaged in a 20 dose per container. New fashionable "inhaler" delivery system. Regular, 100 and 120 mg sizes. To take the new drugs you light the end of the inhaler tube and inhale the refreshing vapor. The dose burns with a pleasing aroma and relaxing patterns of vapor. 20 doses, take as needed 20 times per day or more. Packed in soft of hard pack box and cartons. Available at most gas stations. Menthol and other flavors available. NOW over the counter!
Welcome to a healthy new you.
Yes, I understand you, its like having finished recompiling Gentoo the day they have a new release.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
... and was convincing myself that the cigarette companies are actually trying to kill as many of us as possible. My largest argument for this was "if they weren't trying to kill us, they surely would have come up with a reasonably good delivery method by now...". ... at least I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend that I didn't read this article.
After struggling with the initial few days of withdrawal, dreaming of various methods to destroy those who wish to destroy me, letting the hatred build up, Slashdot posts this article up. Fuck - I hate having my understanding of the world challenged like this,
Certainly works for my bowels. I take a lot of codeine-based medication following a serious motorcycle-related back injury sustained a few years ago, and said medication is notorious for causing constipation. I smoke a nice strong cigarette when I get up in the morning, and I'm busting for a dump in less than 5 minutes, guaranteed.
I've noticed most of the comments here have centered around tobacco as a delivery system. There are many other ways to get nicotine into your system, the easiest being nicotine gum. Patches and nasal sprays are also available.
Actually, as one of those people who developed Ulcerative Colitis shortly after giving up smoking this comes as no surprise.
Colitis (the better known Crohns disease is a colitis) is a horribly crippling condition, not just physically but mentally too as you never know when you're next going to end up in hospital or on horrible body destroying anti inflammatory steroids.
I welcome ANY development in linking nicotine to a suppression of colitis symptoms.
1) Clever Sig 2) ????? 3) Profit!
What are you talking about? The primary assett of a tobacco companies is hundreds of thousands of acres of farms. They could grow anything on them.
This is my sig.
I've been using Nicotine as a treatment for Tourettes syndrome for a few months now, and can quite honestly say It's saved my life. The only other treatments are incredibly severe drugs with worse side effects than the illness itself, and I was damn near suicidal for a while contemplating life with an untreatable movement disorder.
Then on some forum advice I tried a nicotine patch. Within an hour it had a noticeable affect, and within 3 hours there was an almost complete reduction in symptoms. I also found it had a similar affect with OCD and ADD (Although I'm not formally diagnosed with the latter, I found I could concentrate far better with a nicotine patch)
MOTHERFUCKER! And it has not cured MY FUCKING GOD DAMNED TOURETTE'S SYNDROME! SHIT! Stupid fucking lameness filter is forcing me to NOT FUCKING CAPS all of my FUCKING TICKS!
"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy." Paracelsus (1493-1541)
You have some evidence, I assume, to back up your claim that nicotine gum makes people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks? ...
Looks like some advice I got from my grandmother's doctor years ago was wrong. Even though chewing tobacco doubles the risk of heart disease, apparently nicotine patches and gum have not been shown to significantly raise the risk of heart disease. I always assumed that was the fault of stimulant abuse, but it seems that patch-delivered nicotine does not raise the risk in spite of causing blood vessel constriction.
Her doctor may have not been grossly misinformed -- studies in the early 90s pointed to a link, but follow-up studies has disproved it. However, all "direct from the tobacco" methods of delivery still do raise the risk, so my main point about the development of nicotine-derived drugs not making smoking safe still holds.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The idea is that nicotine releases happy chemicals in your brain.
Happy chemicals?
*pictures bunch of molecules cheering and smiling* wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!
Hmmm... I think that's not right...
it wont be.
:)
I actually signed up for a drug trial for an experimental ADD treatment, and the drug was one of these nicotine based drugs. So yes, I can say, it would be a pill. The same researcher was also askinging me if i was a smoker (I am not) because they have another study for people looking to quit smoking.
The researchers doing some of this research work NOT for a tobacco company, but for one of the worlds most well renowned research hospitals.
It turns out I was not a good candidate for the study, so I can't speak to how well it works, but since then I did smoke a couple of cloves out of curiosity and yah, I can see it. Though its been known for a long time that tobacco was one of the things people with ADD often use to self medicate.
Too bad regular smoking is so bad for you. Maybe I should get on the gum or patch
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Sounds like 'medicinal compound' to me.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The separate story referred to on the lead article is not about nicotine, it's about smoking. My dissertation was based on showing that at least one substance that prevented Parkinson's was active in the brains of smokers despite 8+ hours of abstinence (reduction of plasma nicotine levels to less than 1% of usual). I tested smokers abstaining and after smoking either a normal cigarette or one made from denicotinized tobacco and found no difference between conditions or groups. Nicotine or lack thereof had nothing to do with the EEG signature of chronic increased dopamine levels compared to non-smokers (which was the study I did prior to my diss). This work, and that of the folks in the chemistry department that isolated and synthesized the hypothesized active component, was what was referred to in "Thank You For Smoking". And to preempt any conclusion jumping, this doesn't mean you should smoke. Knowing what the substance is (trimethyl naphthoquinone) and how it works (dopamine releaser and reuptake blocker as well as MAO inhibitor) means it or something that does the same thing can be developed and used without needing tobacco in the process.
The carbon monoxide effect has some merit too. CO in the blood scavenges excess hyperoxides, a source of oxidative stress which is a known cause of Parkinson's and other apparent autoimmune problems. As above, you don't need to smoke to get the effect and can obviously find other things to do the same job. They're called anti-oxidants.
Nicotine may well also have some other protective effect, but it doesn't prevent mitochondrial MPTP from turning into MPP+, a very potent neurotoxin that causes Parkinsonian apoptosis. To read up on the mechanism, look up the "frozen addicts". As an interesting aside, at least one of them was all but completely cured in weeks using injected stem cells before the fundies got ahold of the concept and strangled it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Arecoline, the active ingredient in Betel nuts has been found to be an excellent antidepressant. Why aren't they studying that? Is it because there is no such entity as "BIG BETEL"?
Here. You smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.
I don't smoke. It's tobacco.
It's one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead.
You need all the strength you can get.
- "Sleeper" by Woody Allen
Most of the research in the past was funded, I believe, to prove the opposite. Take the Parkinsons & Alzeimers results, the scientists actually tested it several different times because they got results that they didn't expect.
Lesson learned? To be a scientist you have to truly keep your minds open and not get your talking points from anywhere. Secondly let the data talk for itself.
Finally, stop blaming everything on 'Big Tobacco' or 'Big Oil', this song and dance is getting old.
One correlation I do know about is that a very high percentage of Schizophrenics smoke. Some people suspect they might be self medicating (and I think if you schizophrenics they say they are).
Does that mean nicotine, or some nicotine like substance might be useful in treating schizophrenia? Maybe. It also might mean that nicotine causes or contributes to schizophrenia, or that schizophrenics are just more likely to get addicted.
It's interesting though, and I'm not sure if anyone has more evidence as to the link between the two.
AccountKiller
As the article says, nicotine has been used for years as an off-label treatment for UC following the observation that UC sufferers are very likely to be nonsmokers.
In my own case I've often wondered if the reason why I didn't develop UC until my early 20s was due to both my parents being very heavy smokers. They both quit around that time and I came down with my first UC symptoms within a year. I was lucky as these things go - my UC was never all that severe.
The situation for a friend of mine was even more dramatic. He had been trying for years to quit smoking. Eventually he made it, but after about six months as a nonsmoker he started having fairly severe UC - the onset of which is very uncommon at age 45 - that could not be controlled with sulfasalazine, the drug of choice. Steroidal treatment was required to control his UC, but the effects of heavy steroid use forced him to have a total colectomy within a couple of years.
UC is no joke and I hope this work on nicotine leads to some better treatment options. The big problem for long term UC sufferers is that even if the drugs keep the disease in remission there's an ongoing dysplastic process that inexorably leads to colon cancer. Regular colonoscopies are required to take samples and look for dysplasia. Interestingly, the dysplasia and eventual cancer typically strike in healthy colon adjacent to the region affected by the UC and removing the part with UC has no effect on the development of cancer. This means that a total colectomy is required to deal with the problem. I had mine after 20 years of UC, 15 of those years with the disease under fairly good control.
Aren't they all just so useful and cigars are so enjoyable, especially those from that island next to G'tmo. American white Marlboro's are so tasty too that when I returned to the UK in 1996 and tasted those disgusting Euro-Cigs - I quit. White US Marlboro's are always appreciated in the UK. Personally I would rather have some snus to deliver my nicotine - just like those health-conscious Swedish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
One of my neuroscience profs used to tell us before exams that if we smoke, we should smoke more. Apparently nicotine's cholinergic effects considerably boost memory, although for me the nausea and jitteriness probably undermine any positive effects (and then there's the cancer...)
... or eggplants or potatoes. I knew that french fries with ketchup are healthy, this study just proves me right!
That's 'serotonin' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin
Privacy begins with
...and Bill Gates is the new Superman!
Of course its not going to be administered through cigarettes,
Pills and regular medical ways will almost certainly be used..
If soda pop leads to Parkinson's and cirrhosis, then smoking tobacco with your Sprite should ease the Parkinson's threat. Even better - switch from soft drinks to hard drinks - your liver is at risk either way, but now your Parkinson's risk is much lower.
Of course, if it's cancer risk you're concerned with, you might smoke pot instead. Those who smoke only pot have less lung cancer than those who never smoke anything (although not that much less), apparently because THC itself prevents cancer. Will genetic engineering give us a smoke in the future that's high in both THC and nicotine, while minimizing the cancer promoters in tobacco? Or would nicotine's blood-vessel-promoting nature, which helps cancers, overcome THC's protective effect and outweigh nicotine's many positive health effects?
In any case, isn't it nice to know that when people like something, there's a good, healthy reason for it - even if there can be unintended consequences. Our instincts, at root, are good. That's how we've gotten so far.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I hate cigarettes and smoke. Dispise, loathe, pick your synonym.
I am interested in nicotine though, (in addition to IT work I am also a Truck driver) because of the calming effect and other 'side-effects' that smoking offers. So I have been thinking of trying "The Patch" (lowest dosage patch first).
Anybody ever try anything similar?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Hi Tom! How is Katie doing? Got any new films in the works?
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Smoke 'em if you got 'em, kids!
just a ghost in the machine.
also a trucker? BWAHAHAHAHA
Here's your problem right here! Your running lights aint running!
Here's your problem right here! You gotta stop at the weigh station, you overloaded your server!
Watch out, this server rack makes W I D E right turns!
HAHAHA too easy.
They're using their grammar skills there.
In other news from the past, I hear that Sir Walter Rayleigh expects great things from his proposed Colony of Virginia, if he can only figure out how to solve his labor problems.
That movie quote is the first thing that popped into my head when I read the article title. I'm glad to see that I am not the only one to remember it!
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
"The company is also in Phase I trials for a compound that treats pain from molar extractions. The drugs both resemble nicotine in their molecular makeup, but are missing nicotine's addictive properties and toxicity"
Anyone else a little concerned that they are in Phase I, but have drawn the conclusion that their drug is neither addictive nor toxic?
Also, for those that didn't read the full article, they are talking about creating synthetics based off of nicotine, not using nicotine itself. Straight nicotine is rather toxic, 40-60mg is considered a lethal dose, they are trying to create something with similar properties without this toxicity. I'm wary of any research performed by a drug company, but I wouldn't say it's an impossible feat.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
"There will be great progress when the nicotine sister drugs come to market," he says. "About half the cigarettes in this country are bought by people with psychiatric problems -- high percentages of people with depression and schizophrenia smoke, for example."
"When we can give people their medicine in a form that doesn't kill them, it will be real progress."
so, nicotine is used by people with mental problems and they just need this "medicine" in a less harmful way? Gee... that doesn't sound like Marijuana AT ALL (sarcasm) damn their hypocrisy (not sarcasm) because there are *tens of thousands* of mentally ill patients who are being incarcerated RIGHT NOW because of a lack of "real progress" -- and pharma companies that know they'll not be able to control the supply.
Way to illustrate the idiocy of Marijuana Prohibition, while addictive, deadly, ostracized nicotine is really... you know... helping our mentally ill legally, state-sanctioned, everyday.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Noone seems to have brought up nicotine gum. Would that be beneficial. Could one control one's mood using that?
He said we should wait until our mental acuity started going down, then take up smoking. We'd get all the advantages of the nicotine, but we'd die of old age before we got the cancer.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
So did you try a nicotine patch or gum? Smoking is about the dumbest way you can do nicotine these days.
I don't think it's a coincidence that we have this run on mental illness (and associated pharma) just as everybody's quitting smoking. Sure, smoking kills, but people were also self-medicating.
Also a good reason not to elect a smoker to office, if you ask me.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Now the states will have to give back all that money to RJ Reynolds. Cigarettes are theraputic, just like they always claimed!
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
It has lately been discovered that although nicotine is (probably) not a carcinogen in itself, it does promote tumor growth by stimulating nicotine acetylcholine receptors in tumor cells. here's one paper specific to lung cancer. Go search PubMed for "nicotine cancer" for some examples. It's all in the dose used, I suppose.
a box of Cigars!
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to swallow. Most drugs that have such an obvious and strong effect on people and have been tested on millions with few adverse effects (all the bad effects of smoking come mostly from the smoke + chronic use—the nicotine merely makes it addictive) usually yield other valuable research output.
I don't see any reason to let emotional value judgments get in the way of potentially valuable medical applications. Let's turn that frown upside down and make a negative into a positive!
Disclaimer: No I'm not a drug company representative nor a smoking advocate.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
I can't help but wonder whether the increased incidence of most of these diseases over the last decade or so is a result of the war on smokers.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Your going to lose your minds, nya nya nya nya nya.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
By scientific literature, LSD is one of the SAFEST drugs known to man and completely non-addictive. Seriously (it stunned me too, I've been trying to find any valid finding of dangers for a while.) Flashbacks appear to be a psychological effect and rare, more like Viet Nam vet's flashbacks.
Here's some perspective in people averaging over 3 drinks of alcohol per day, PERMANENT deficiencies in problem solving, concentration and memory begin to appear. (This is a statistic, so it is probably people who binge drink on weekends that have the damage, not those who have a few every day. I'm sure you remember mornings when you had brain damage.)
The relapse rates for quitting smokers are on par with heroin addicts.
There's also a solid statistical correlation between smoking and heart disease. One source for such data is the multi-generation Framingham Study. For example, see this from 2006 or this from 2005. You don't like the Framingham Study? Try ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). See this and then read abstracts from some of the many articles that cite it. Here's a nice one from 2006.
Now, it's also clear that using nicotine replacement therapy as a way to quit smoking is good for your life expectancy. what's not so well studied is what happens to people who've never smoked and who start to use nicotine. In other words, in the published literature, the dangers of nicotine may be masked by the benefits of smoking cessation. This remains to be seen.
The evidence against nicotine is that it causes arterial damage. The statistical correlations from Framingham & ARIC are between smoking and coronary heart disease (not to mention cancer,but I'm focusing on CHD). The guy I worked for was all about studying arterial damage to predict odds of heart attack and stroke. You see, the damaged artery tends to become sclerotic and develop plaques. Vulnerable plaques can break off, enter the blood stream, and then get stuck in a small blood vessel, blocking it and starving some region of tissue for blood. If that tissue is in the heart, you have a miocardial infarction. If it's in the brain, you have one form of stroke. Nicotine also raises blood pressure, increasing the risk of the other form of stroke (the two kinds of stroke are blockage and bleed).
In other words, there is good reason to believe that nicotine has some harmful effects. The real question is in which cases its benefits outweigh its harm.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Does endogenous acetylcholine "screw around" with the same chemical receptors?
Nicotine has an analogous shape to acetylcholine. It fits into a receptor. In response, an ion is allowed to pass across a cell membrane.
Nicotine may have a greater affinity for the receptor and be delivered in unnatural quantities, but does not "screw around" with the receptors. And the endogenous acetylcholine also feeds into the dopamine and glutamate systems that are implicated in addiction.
It is not like there is a gatekeeper that says this molecule is moral and this one is immoral.
In fact, Im sure that dopamine and glutamate systems will be implicated in ALL the habits like eating and sex that a hunter-gatherer animal would have needed to be reminded of to survive before culture or language. What is called an addiction will be more in the eyes of the beholder as EVERYTHING could be classified as an addiction.
2. Additives. --In looking at the toxicity issue with regard to tobacco, I have noted that it is incredibly common for people to ignore the fact that cigarette companies use an assortment of 500 additives into their products, many of which are known carcinogens. When studies are done on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, this detail is often left unmentioned. Are they testing tobacco per se, or are they testing corporate tobacco?
3. Radioactive tobacco leaves. --Your basic cigarette probably came from a farm which used phosphate fertilizer, known to contain radioactive metals. After years of use, these radioactive metals build up in the soil to high concentrations. Many foods are similarly affected, but you don't smoke most foods. This element of tobacco is considered by those who have studied the issue to be one of the leading reasons smoking can cause cancer.
You can buy organic tobacco, and you can smoke it in a pipe. No filter, no deliberately added poisons and no radioactive particles. I wonder if they've ever done health tests on this kind of tobacco smoke.
Probably not.
Here are some more points. .
1. Pavlovian Responses to stress indicate that when you raise the anxiety level in a subject to the breaking point, you can then easily insert a new set of behaviors which become locked into place. .
2. Tobacco smoke quickly lowers stress and anxiety and feelings of anger. It is one of the only two commonly used drugs on the market which while increasing clarity of thinking does not affect judgment. (Caffeine is the other). Old native bands meeting to discuss problems would all first smoke before opening their meeting, (hence, the "peace pipe"). Tobacco lent itself well to averting unnecessary anger and anxiety. In a world like ours today when fear is regularly promoted in such a way which guides the decisions and acceptance of the public with regard to international policy, knowledge
According to a PBS special, the dangerous carcinogens are creating in two places in the current smoking cycle: curing the tobacco and burning it in a cigarette. Safer ways of curing are known, but not as efficient or fragrant. And if you "steam" tobacco rather than burn it you get all the nicotine and flaver and much fewer carcinogens. Cigarette companies experimented with such devices, but they are awkward.
So if drug research produces a bunch of pharmaceutical agents that are nicotine based, then all of a sudden the whole tobacco production market changes. Drugs are expensive due to high R&D costs, so that cost gets passed on to consumers *and* suppliers of the raw materials. The value (and therefore price) of tobacco rises, smokes get more expensive, and tobacco companies shift their production to drugs, not smokes.
So who gives a rat's ass who funds the research? The end result ought to be applauded as good by anti-smoking advocates!
The only way to make this out to be a bad thing is if you happen to consider the people who work for tobacco companies as "evil" in some cosmic sense, and therefore demonize anything that could possibly benefit them (regardless of the benefits to everyone else - less smoking, more effective drugs, less debilitating disease).
That sort of interpretation of this article would just be plain nonsense.
SLITTING YOUR FUCKING WRISTS FUCKTARD.
COMMIT SUICIDE FUCKTARD
DO IT ANYWAY POSSIBLE!
aglksgjal;wr wqht
is kagsjflghasFgjklaSfg
jsr hgtklsghwarkthj wusrtywqruy
kjasghaslkdghkljshdg
There are a great many different subtypes of nicotine (more than 8 IIRC) with very different effects. There are also different kinds of nicotinic receptors in different areas of the body, etc.
Most of the nicotine drugs in development that I've read about target receptor subtypes different from those affected when you smoke.
lots of brilliant people would be called "mentally ill". do you want to eliminate them all from positions of leadership?
In fact, brilliant people may be being driven crazy dealing with the rest of us dumbasses, and need to smoke to stay calm, so they... can... explain... it... one...more....time.....you...asshole!!
Perhaps we should ONLY elect smokers, and let them do their geniusy goodness.
From the article: ...and they're inspired by tobacco's deadly active ingredient: nicotine.
Nicotine is one of the least dangerous ingredients of tobacco smoke. People think nicotine is this horrible thing. Granted, it is somewhat addictive, but not terribly addictive. I say that as someone who's smoked for over 20 years and has tried to quit a number of times. I can easily break the "nicotine addiction" aspect of it. That only takes a couple days. It's the habit of smoking that's a bitch. I can go without nicotine for weeks or months (well beyond the time it takes to break the addiction), but it's the psychological habit I can't seem to kick.
Nicotine has a number of pharmacological properties that can be beneficial, however, so it's no surprise that nicotine derivatives might be found that can also have positive effects.
There are of course a lot of bad things about smoking tobacco like tar and other stuff. I'm just wondering if maybe eating tobacco leaves are better?
The "family company" is S.E. Johnson & Son, formerly S.E. Johnson Wax.
(Phillip Morris, now named Altria Group, doesn't have a slogan.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So now I can't get cigarettes without prescription plus the already exorbitant taxes.
But even with all these benefits, I wouldn't call it a wonder drug. In the drug industry, we'd probably call it a, "Lead compound," ... something that, if improved chemically, could lead to a better drug. And that's what the so-called excitement that this article is talking about is referring to. Better drugs that could be used as treatments for a variety of other diseases. Sorry! Nicotine itself won't cure Parkinson's or Schizophrenia.
You know, I quit smoking about 6 months ago. Ever since then I have been really unhappy. I have been largely dysfunctional as a human being. I just can't find equilibrium.
About a month ago I stopped going to work. The checks stopped arriving last week.
I am completely miserable. I remember I was a very unhappy and unstable teen (before discovering cigarettes). I then learned to smoke when I was 22 (late in life, I know) and it changed my life. I was able to finish college and hold down a job and function in society.
I think I get my poor mental health from my mother.
My mother has been diagnosed as a borderline personality and has been in and out of mental hospitals and I think I also have some of her mood disorders now that I am 30.
I think I may go back to smoking -- it was form of self-medication for me. I am psychologically not normal, but nicotine really helped me to cope and to become almost normal.
It sucks man. It really does. I have to choose between possible cancer and impotence with smoking or poor mental health without it. I feel by smoking I am buying normalcy now and I will pay for it in old age. I am fucked either way. It fucking sucks.
I tried nicotine gum, or patches, or whatever. But all of those things just make it easier to pick up a cigarette.
I have been nicotine free for 6 months and am really really unhappy. I can't function in society without nicotine. My poor mood and lack of motivation keep me just in my own shell -- I stay home all day and play computer games.
I am miserable! Really smoking helped me and I think now I know what to tell people when they bitch to me and tell me to stop smoking -- when I go back to smoking I will tell them how I am mentally unhealthy and they can shove it.
lots of brilliant people would be called "mentally ill". do you want to eliminate them all from positions of leadership?
Yes. Mentally unstable people shouldn't be in positions of military power. They can still make fine contributions to society.
If you can't deal with difficult people without becoming crazy and angry you're not going to be a very good negotiator. We can't just (-1, Troll) Ahmedinejhad.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I can buy that, but consider the alternative. What we have is a nation of middle managers elected to power by not being too controversial. Doesn't seem to really be doing all that well for us. Our founding fathers, for example, were not "mentally stable". They were visionaries. Many were idealists even. Certainly they all had character defects. But, they were effective leaders, were they not?
;) I am much less productive now. Though that may just be summer... we'll see in the fall.
What are the chances of true leadership coming from "stable" people? Of any real vision?
Sure, you get crazies too. Certainly we need to be discriminating in our instability selection. But I would suspect the only person would who run for president would be considered mentally unstable by the rest of us, by definition. No one "stable" needs that much power nor would be willing to sacrifice to wager on getting it.
"mentally unstable" does not mean any particular illness, after all. Just because someone has some issue doesn't mean the rest of us cannot benefit from it. It certainly doesn't mean they are unable to be diplomatic when they need to be. In fact, some of the most unstable people in the world... true sociopaths... are master manipulators. You could even argue that we WANT sociopathic diplomats. Don't let them make decisions... no no.. but definitely let them negotiate.
For leaders, different brands of insanity are warranted. If their mind is so loud with ideas they need to smoke to quiet it down... so be it. dumb reason to judge anyone.
and I quit, by the way
Our founding fathers, for example, were not "mentally stable". They were visionaries. Many were idealists even. Certainly they all had character defects. But, they were effective leaders, were they not?
'Mentally stable' and 'visionaries/leaders' are different dimensions. You don't need to be dependent on chemicals to maintain a rational mind in order to be a visionary or a leader. You can be a great leader and not be on any meds/drugs. Why do you conflate the two?
Certainly you don't want dull people as leaders, but that's a topic I wasn't discussing. Unless you're suggesting that everybody who's not on drugs is dull. Sorry, I'm not sure that I follow.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Most people I think smoke because they enjoy it and it is fun. If they came out with a harmless cigarette....I'd start smoking again immediately.
Biochemical dependence has a remarkable effect on the brain's perception of pleasure. I wonder if you'd find it at all fun if they made a nicotine-free cigarette. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure most nonsmokers (who do not have a baseline level of nicotine in their blood) would suddenly find nicotine patches to be "fun" if they used them for a week straight.
My point is, I'm not sure "fun" is the best word for the experience you had.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
If you want some real insight into just how hit-or-miss and unscientific is the alleged research that leads to new pharmaceutical drugs, read the history of the development of Strattera. Here's a drug that Eli Lilly originally tried to develop as an anti-depressant. Sadly, during trials they discovered that it didn't have much "anti" effect at all. So did they just drop it and move on? Nope: they convinced the FCC to instead approve it as a treatment for ADD.
These people have no f***ing idea what they're doing, have virtually no Big Picture of neurochemistry, and have no idea what effect and side effects a compound will have until they actually test it on guinea pigs. They're slinging paint on the cerebral canvas while blindfolded, and charging criminal prices for the (patented) end-result.
Nicotine is a biological poison. Tobacco and other plants produce it as a chemical defense against both insects and other competing plants (it leaches into surrounding soil through roots and decomposing leaves). In fact, most modern drugs are poisons in anything but tiny amounts that the kidneys can neutralize.
What would inspire them to think a poison was a good candidate for a psychiatric drug? Could it possibly be the absence of any patented nicotine derivatives, and thus another potential source for obscene profits?
Honestly, after all of those studies of monkeys punching away at typewriters while dragging on cigarettes, this is the best they could come up with? Not even a "Monkeys are able to produce Shakespeare work?"
Mine doesn't, but I'm running linux so probably not susceptible to the interfering measures that other OS may cause...
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Original post:
I've been using Nicotine FUCK as a treatment for Tourettes syndrome SHIT for a few months now, and can quite honestly CUNT say It's saved my life. The only other treatments are GODDAMN incredibly severe drugs with worse side effects than the illness itself, MOTHERFUCKER and I was damn near suicidal FUCK DAMN SHIT for a while contemplating life with an untreatable movement disorder.
Then on some forum advice I tried a nicotine SHIT patch. Within an hour it had a noticeable affect, CUNT and within 3 hours there was an almost complete FUCK reduction in symptoms. I also found it had a similar affect GODDAMNIT with OCD and ADD (Although I'm not formally diagnosed with the latter, I found I could SHIT concentrate far better with a nicotine patch)
Good for the bowels, eh? No wonder I gotta take a crap when I smoke a cig, which is good 'cuz these damned percocets stop me up!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It may also hold the key to curing 'Lung Fever'.
And just when I was thinking of quitting smoking!
fyi, the tobacco industry isn't as evil as they (the tobacco companies) want you to think.
Truth is owned by the same company as Marlboro.
lol
There are a lot of medicines out today that cure or help cure several things. My mom takes an anti-depressant for menopause sweats and it also works as a pain reliever. Some arthritis drugs also work on other diseases in the rheumatic family and there are some that help with psoriasis. The real question here is what are the side effects? Every drug has them and with enough research with test subjects, they will be found. What's interesting is how many side effects have to be found before the drug goes out on the market. I know many drugs go out before all the side effects are found. Perhaps the remaining side effects are not so bad and not likely that type of person would be taking the drug. (There are many drugs out there that haven't been tested on pregnant women or babies but then again, who would want to do that?)
I'm not saying if someone smokes, they would make a good leader. I AM saying that you are wrong to make the opposite link: just because someone smokes, does not mean that they are unfit to lead. I am using history as an example of how brilliance often means other aspects of a personality are a bit odd... and many great minds, and many great leaders, would fit that mold. Some of them have even smoked.
I am further saying that a truly "stable" personality is not, generally, attracted to politics in the first place. The cost-benefit is not there for anyone with a "normal" value system. So I would not agree that smoking in particular is a sign of a personality any more or less stable than others running for office.
this hammer I was using as a paper shredder, might actually be good for driving nails into wood? Amazing!
Why would I need them any more than you? --I've never heard of kidney damage resulting from nicotine. Or from coffee and hot sauce, for that matter.
Your body is an amazing tool; designed to adventure through the world and feed your spirit experiences from which to grow and learn. Use it or miss out on the world through over-caution.
All ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for. . .
-FL
>"Nicotine acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating
>and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including
> [sic] seratonin,
No shit. Marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, acid, ecstacy, tobacco, and caffeine ALL support serotonin production. In fact, serotonin production is a major underpinning of recreational drugs in general.
The exceptions are alcohol and opiates. Ever wondered why cigarettes feel so good when you're drunk? Because cigarettes keep you awake.
FL seems to have discovered that nicotine keeps you awake. Please mod him up, nobody has ever noticed this before.
Those "truth"-hippies aren't against smoking. They're against corporations. Especially successful corporations that have a big, soft, exposed underbelly. The biggest blow to the legalize marijuana cause would be legalizing it because the first companies to get involved in the distribution, sale, and profit would be...you guessed it, Philip Morris et al.
So long as no one's profiting, marijuana is totally different, duuuuude!
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.