Slashdot Mirror


Nicotine Improves Brain Function In Schizophrenics

An anonymous reader suggests a Cosmos Magazine note that nicotine has been shown to enhance attention and memory in schizophrenics. Research is now aimed at developing new treatments that could relieve symptoms and prevent smoking-related deaths. "A strong link between schizophrenia and smoking — with over three times as many schizophrenics smoking (70 to 90%) as the population at large — prompted scientists to investigate the link. Researchers led by Ruth Barr, a psychiatrist at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, set out to find if the nicotine in cigarettes was helping patients to overcome their difficulties with cognitive function, such as planning and memory in social and work settings."

297 comments

  1. Finally, a reason. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll simply start telling folks I'm a schizophrenic to justify my pack a day habit.

    Would you want to see what happens when I try to quit?

    1. Re:Finally, a reason. by QCompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you want to see what happens when I try to quit?

      You'd live longer?

    2. Re:Finally, a reason. by Zantac69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now they need to do a study on those of us who run on caffeine...

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    3. Re:Finally, a reason. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      That would be my second vice. I'll probably quit smoking, but I sincerely doubt I'll ever quit caffeine. Talk about cognitive issues when I can't get my coffee...

    4. Re:Finally, a reason. by Talderas · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you'd live a shorter life.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:Finally, a reason. by Amouth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Required reference:

      Dennis Leary

      "I Love these little facts. "Well you know. Smoking takes ten years off your life." Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair kidney dialysis fucking years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, alright!? And I guarantee if I'm still alive, I'll be smoking then. I'll be in my wheelchair, with my adult diapers on and my twenty-five year old non- smoking born again christian son behind me. I'll be going, "Hey! Make sure you wipe this time. I was itching all week for Christ's sake! And get me some more wippets. I'm almost out, you fucking pussy! Come on!"

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    6. Re:Finally, a reason. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I quit Caffeine.. while smoking.. then realized that i had subconsiously replaced it with more smoking.. so? i quit smoking and picked caffeine back up.. oddly not any more than i had before..

      so while people will say mind over body... Quiting smoking is easier than quitting Caffeine.. (and i do not drink soda's.. hum coffee all the way)

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    7. Re:Finally, a reason. by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I saw news of a study a few weeks ago (here maybe?) That showed the same genes that are associated with schitzophrenia are also linked to creativity, and that the difference between a schitzophrenic and a creative person was intelligence.

      I wonder if niccotine would enhance creativity in non-schitzophrenic creative types?

    8. Re:Finally, a reason. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you wouldn't because he'd probably kill you. Irratibility is one of the withdrawal symptoms of niccotine.

    9. Re:Finally, a reason. by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      That would account for the percentage of musicians that smoke. But then again a lot them are schitzophrenic as well as being creative.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    10. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they need to do a study on those of us who run on caffeine...

      It's already been done. I mean, the studied caffeine. Caffeine is an antioxidant, eliminates free radicals and therefore has anticancer properties. Now you can have a smoke for you memory and a cup of coffee to cancel the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes. Smart isn't it?

    11. Re:Finally, a reason. by CatsupBoy · · Score: 1

      Now they need to do a study on those of us who run on caffeine...

      Dude, they already did: "Drinking coffee cuts alcohol's harmful effects"

      Now all three of my bad habits have a purpose! W00T!!!

    12. Re:Finally, a reason. by WildStreet · · Score: 1, Funny

      They didn't need to do a study on this. The voices in my head could have told them about this years ago. only reason I'm still employed, I think, maybe.

    13. Re:Finally, a reason. by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      I saw news of a study a few weeks ago (here maybe?) That showed the same genes that are associated with schizophrenia are also linked to creativity, and that the difference between a schizophrenic and a creative person was intelligence.

      I have personal proof of this,
      My doctor prescribed me a medication-Risperdal(Risperidone) to help me sleep and when I took it, I lost all creativity for a few days. I did a little research and found that the main use of this drug was as an anti-psychotic. I'd rather not sleep as well and be crazy like a fox than sleep well and be relatively normal. Amusingly, pot has the same effect on me, and to a small degree, anti-histamines.

      The constant sleep-dep may have had a little to do with the creativity, like DaVinci, but not as extreme.

      You know that schizophrenia affects 1% of the population worldwide?

      BTW, I think its its schizo, not schitzo.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    14. Re:Finally, a reason. by Vahokif · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bill Hicks is rolling in his fucking grave.

    15. Re:Finally, a reason. by Dustie · · Score: 1

      I'm a musician and a programmer. I guess that would count as being creative. I'm also schizophrenic so the only way I can see this could be true, at least in my case, is if schizophrenics is creative people with added intelligence and not the other way around. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure I'm no more intelligent than most. Sounds dubious me thinks.

    16. Re:Finally, a reason. by xch13fx · · Score: 1

      that's good to hear. I would eventually like to quit smoking but every time I have a cup of coffee I feel like I NEED a cigarette to go with it. I think I will have to quit both at the same time. OR medicine can fix cancer and I wont have to worry about the ill effects of cigarette smoking.

    17. Re:Finally, a reason. by keeboo · · Score: 1

      FYI:
      schizophrenic != psychopat

    18. Re:Finally, a reason. by MindKata · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately I'm pretty sure I'm no more intelligent than most. "

      Define "most". The intelligence of the average programmer has to be above the average person, its just most programmers (thankfully) don't bother mixing that often with the average people to see just what they are like.

      Here's a summary ;)

      if(person == PROGRAMMER)
      {
      IQ = (averagePerson + rand() & 0x7f) - numberOfSlashdotPostsPerWeek;
      }
      else if(person == SALES_PERSON)
      {
      IQ = (averagePerson - rand() & 0x7f) + numberOfSlashdotPostsPerWeek;
      }
      else if(person == SHOP_ASSISTANT)
      {
      IQ = rand() & 0x3;
      }
      else if(person == BOSS)
      {
      IQ = 0;
      DeligateJob();
      }
      else if(person == POLYMATH)
      {
      IQ = (average_person * 2) + rand() & 0x1ff;
      }
      else if(person == NARCISSISTIC_PERSONALITY_DISORDER)
      {
      IQ = LieFunction();
      }
      else
      {
      IQ = average_person;
      }

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    19. Re:Finally, a reason. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Addictive behaviour and schizophrenia go together. Nicotine, caffeine, or anything similar would probably have the same effect, by satisfying the addiction.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    20. Re:Finally, a reason. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      My schizophrenic mother in law tried to kill me!

      Thats all i needed to know.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    21. Re:Finally, a reason. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you want to see what happens when I try to quit?

      I don't think the voices in your head have a /. account, so how could they answer you?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    22. Re:Finally, a reason. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      to stop the wanting a Cig when i have coffee. i got theses.

      http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Tree-Therapy-TOOTHPICKS-CINNAMON/dp/B000GUHAES

      they Sell them at the Whole foods around here.. they are damn strong.. and more than enough to satisfy that change of flavor in your mouth..

      the Cinnamon are good.. the plain ones are anything but - and taste like cheap menthol..

      not saying this is the answer.. but if you really want to quit.. it can help.. if you let it help.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    23. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its the good years you lose. The adult-diaper, wheelchair years, laying in a bed gasping for breath for 10 years just starts earlier. Smokers die slow (and expensive).

    24. Re:Finally, a reason. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      "Quiting smoking is easier than quitting Caffeine"

      Translation: For me, it appeared that quitting smoking was easier than quitting caffeine.

      I'll be generous, and assume that's what you wanted to say. If not, you'd better show us some better evidence.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    25. Re:Finally, a reason. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Are you sure musicians smoke more than everyone else? And are you sure they are more creative? The professional musicians I know spend too much time practicing to have much time left over for really creative pursuits.

      However, I admit, it seems to me more singers and wind instrument players smoke. Maybe it's just seems that way because it stands out as a particularly stupid thing to do with that choice of career. Then again, it might be self-handicapping: It's awfully nice to have something to blame when you don't get as far you want.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    26. Re:Finally, a reason. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Smoking is more than just nicotine, another big component of smoking is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide of course has a significant impact on respiration as it interferes with the ability of red blood cells and their ability to absorb and release oxygen and carbon dioxide, the red blood cells absorb the carbon monoxide and not longer absorb and release oxygen or carbon dioxide.

      This obviously reduces the flow of oxygen to the brain, slowing down brain the functions of, schizophrenics and of course anyone else that smokes. Stop smoking and you get a real imbalance, as over time the body has produced more red cells to counter act the inefficiencies induced by the carbon monoxide, so you end up with a sustained surge of oxygen to the brain when you stop smoking, after the carbon monoxide slowly leaves the blood and before red blood cells supply rebalances with the revised demand, in affect wiring you up and making the nicotine withdrawals far more noticeable, information overload.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    27. Re:Finally, a reason. by mike260 · · Score: 1

      FYI: In C and most C-like languages, '+' has higher precedence than '&'. You managed to give programmers an average IQ of at most 63.5 (which would explain your pretty awful pseudocode, I suppose)

    28. Re:Finally, a reason. by mollog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Addictive behaviour and schizophrenia go together.

      First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. The nicotine and caffeine help alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia. Schizophrenics have to self-medicate to feel normal. It's about a dopamine deficit and brain receptors, idiot.

      The fact that schizophrenics have to self-medicate is a testament to our health system; it would rather treat conditions than cure illness. The best medication for schizophrenics on the market today is Geodon. Side-effects? Weight gain and diabetes. As if their lives weren't bad enough.

      --
      Best regards.
    29. Re:Finally, a reason. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      your translation is correct.. for me.. i never said or ment to say that it was easier for everyone.. but i wouldn't be supprised if i wasn't the only person in which it was true.. i doubt we will ever see any hard science on it..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    30. Re:Finally, a reason. by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

      All this talk about cigs, yuck. No love for the good ol' Skoal?

    31. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be true that not all schizophrenics are psychotic, but some schizophrenics are definitely psychopaths. Just because all Zots are Yots, and all Yots are Xots, does not make all Xots Zots, but there are probably a few Zottish Xots in the mix.

    32. Re:Finally, a reason. by Reziac · · Score: 0

      Addiction isn't the need for something. It's the inability to feel normal without it.

      That they *have* to self-medicate to feel normal is the very definition of addiction.

      Caffeine and nicotine are relatively benign drugs, with relatively minor side effects; if they help stabilize a schizophrenic's brain chemistry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be used as needed. Better to be functional than not.

      As to cures, when you find a way to rewrite the DNA-RNA-enzyme chain that leads to defective brain chemistry, let us know. Meanwhile, we'll continue to treat the symptoms, because that's what we can do. (Tho I'd agree that the drugs put forth by the pharmaceutical companies are often more about profit than about effectiveness.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    33. Re:Finally, a reason. by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No. She didn't. despite what the voices told ya, she didn't try to kill you.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    34. Re:Finally, a reason. by mollog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who's definition of addiction?

      By your definition, a diabetic is addicted to insulin. Obviously, you don't understand the issue.

      And, rewriting DNA/RNA? It happens with or without our help. Ever heard of a virus? How do you think it replicates?

      But the question of treatment of schizophrenia is not necessarily about 'fixing' DNA or RNA. DNA will predispose a person to schizophrenia, but it won't determine an outcome. Just as ulcers were once misunderstood, schizophrenia is not well understood. How on earth could we not know for so long that ulcers were caused by bacteria? The cause of ulcers is so pedestrian, yet even when a doctor found the cause, the medical community refused to let go of its previously held beliefs about the cause.

      We still don't have the ability to deterministically know whether people have had Lyme Disease, Borna Virus Disease, and other virus and retro-virus diseases. We are still in the dark about much of human health.

      --
      Best regards.
    35. Re:Finally, a reason. by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Hi Tom Cruise. Didn't know you surfed Slashdot.
      Did you got rid of your xenus? I think, those auditing sessions must be a bitch. But of course, it's way better than having to deal with ignorant psychiatrics, isn't it?
      Btw, Nicole still looks hot, doesn't her?

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    36. Re:Finally, a reason. by shawb · · Score: 1

      I may be putting words in his mouth, but I assume GP was referring to modern rock musicians as opposed to orchestral musicians. Much higher ratio of party to practice...

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    37. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine it just makes those ten years occur sooner.

      How do we know this isn't just some modern day eugenics program to rid the world of schizophrenics? Oh let me guess - I'm just a paranoid schizophrenic for thinking these things.

      Don't doubt the evil humans are capable of.

    38. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Once the government is running healthcare, they'll make everyone quit.

    39. Re:Finally, a reason. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Quiting smoking is easier than quitting Caffeine.

      I gave up caffeine about 20 years ago. The day I decided to stop drinking the stuff, I started taking tylenol as per the dosage recommendation on the bottle, and kept that up for the three days I figured the withdrawal headache would last.

      Then I stopped taking the tylenol, and have never had an urge to drink coffee/sodas/anything of the sort since.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate when smokers use this as an excuse to smoke. "I don't want to live to be an old decrepid man". The effects of smoking don't pick and choose when to arrise; more often than not they leave a large gaping hole in families who really needed said smoker.

    41. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i quit nicotine and caffeine at the same time a few weeks ago (was afraid to start smoking again when drinking coffee).

      i found that i can drink coffee without wanting a cigarette, if the coffee is a really tasty strong italian ristretto, or turkish coffee.

      maybe it helps.

    42. Re:Finally, a reason. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The swinging machete and police that came out to arrest her are not "voices" in my head. It really is a true story...

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    43. Re:Finally, a reason. by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Ouch. My bad. I am really fucking sorry.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    44. Re:Finally, a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's the worst 10 years all right--ESPECIALLY IF YOU SMOKE.

      If you don't, it's more like the worst 6 months.

      Nonsmokers have been shown to have a healthier life for a longer period than smokers. So that "last terrible 1/2 hour" is more like that "last terrible 5 minutes."

      They tend to die of less costly diseases too.

      Do you know what it's like to slowly choke to death over 6 years? Or to live on 5-10 years totally debilitated with a stroke? Not pretty or fun or easy on you--or your loved ones.

      As far as this study goes, there may be some benefit to nicotine, but since it constricts blood vessels in the brain, it would need to be specially targeted. As many studies have shown, it contributes to dementia and Alzheimer's.

    45. Re:Finally, a reason. by MindKata · · Score: 1

      Thanks for debugging my code. I wasn't giving it that much thought. I was more interested and focused on the social commentary aspect of it rather than its code integrity. :)

      Then again, as its programmers in control of this kind of code, they can cheat by overloading the operators to bias the results to help boost programmers IQ. ;)

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
  2. Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.

    Haha. So rather than use a cheap natural solution it's better to get the expensive patented synthetic stuff. Riiiiiight... Now I see.

    1. Re:Typical by BubbaDave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We have genetic engineers- it's about time to crossbreed tobacco with coffee so coffee has caffeine and nicotine.

      Dave

    2. Re:Typical by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's because the cheap natural solution isn't profitable and thus it's big pharma's arch enemy.

    3. Re:Typical by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sounds like a terrible idea, caffeine is pretty addictive, but it is mostly a mild stimulant. There is research that suggests that nicotine completely rewires the pleasure centers of the brain (to make them dependent on nicotine):

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hooked-from-the-first-cigarette

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Typical by quantumplacet · · Score: 1

      and this is a terrible idea how?

    5. Re:Typical by Teresita · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is research that suggests that nicotine completely rewires the pleasure centers of the brain (to make them dependent on nicotine)

      Then again, human ingenuity knows no bounds when it comes to pleasure and nicotine. Look what Clinton and Monica managed to do with that cigar.

    6. Re:Typical by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.

      Haha. So rather than use a cheap natural solution it's better to get the expensive patented synthetic stuff. Riiiiiight... Now I see.

      Of course! The pharma interests can't have people just willy-nilly feeling better without paying THEM!! Where would they be if people were just allowed to use naturally-occurring plants and herbs they could grow themselves for next to nothing to cure sickness and disease, and help them lead an enjoyable productive life?

      There's a fellow in Canada that has done some amazing work and has gotten equally amazing results in curing cancer and many other illnesses using hemp oil extract. The pharma interests have completely ignored his work and the government is doing it's best to shut him down and keep it quiet.

      It's no secret to smokers that smoking helps one to relax and improves concentration. I've been in the electronics field for over 30 years. All the very best technicians and engineers I've ever known were smokers.

      Besides, this one is easy since it's already being demonized in the US and other Western countries. Can't have the proles doing anything they might enjoy. Sure, it shortens average lifespans, but if you're poor or lower-middle class, you're life expectancy is already going to be much shorter on average than the rich. Besides, why live so long if one can't enjoy themselves?

      The anti-smoking zealots who always say that smoking costs the rest of us because government programs have to pay for smokers' healthcare won't consider NOT having government providing healthcare. To my thinking, government should not be involved in providing or paying for healthcare or healthcare insurance in the first place. It's yet another area where the government has perverted or totally ignored the Constitution.

      If government didn't restrict the plans that health insurance companies could sell, where they could sell it, for what price, and to whom, then someone who is a non-smoker could buy a plan that would have the cost of others' smoking factored out because they'd be in a risk-pool with other non-smokers while smokers would pay for any extra risk and cost. Governments' only role should be establishing laws and regulations to provide a free and fair market for healthcare and healthcare insurance and prosecute fraud and abuse.

      Now the progressives are proposing universal government-run single-payer healthcare and healthcare insurance, and planning on paying a large part of it with taxes on tobacco. But they're trying to get people to NOT smoke, so either it's a scam and they planned from the start to tax everyone, or they'll have to encourage smoking to pay for their healthcare and healthcare insurance plans.

      Smokers won't be the only ones to be demonized though if universal healthcare comes to pass. It will be a politicians' wet dream come true as they'll have an open license to police lifestyles which will mean ever-more-intrusive government.

      Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

      It's the patriotic thing to do!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no secret to smokers that smoking helps one to relax and improves concentration.

      While to non-smokers, it does the opposite, because of the smell. This especially applies to older smokers, who can smell really ugly, like sticking your nose in an ashtray. That makes me feel sick, which isn't really helping concentration.

      Stick to smokeless tobacco (preferably snus, not American spitting (chewing) tobacco) instead. That won't make you stink, but you'll get your nicotine fix anyway.

    8. Re:Typical by mike260 · · Score: 1

      It's no secret to smokers that smoking helps one to relax and improves concentration.

      Errrr, sort of. Smoking relieves the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, thus (temporarily) restoring your ability to relax and concentrate. It's a bug, not a feature.

      Besides, why live so long if one can't enjoy themselves?

      Presumably you've never watched a loved-one very slowly die of cancer, yes?

      I'm all for your right to do whatever the hell you want with your body, but advocating smoking is fairly retarded.

    9. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And of course we know that everyone who smokes gets cancer right?

      Actually, it's less then 20% of smokers who get cancer from their smoking. Still a high number but we take higher odds and risk our life every day.

    10. Re:Typical by Polumna · · Score: 1

      Stick to smokeless tobacco (preferably snus, not American spitting (chewing) tobacco) instead. That won't make you stink, but you'll get your nicotine fix anyway.

      I'm afraid you just don't understand. The act of smoking is as addictive as the nicotine.

      The most promising thing I have ever seen are personal vaporizers. Unfortunately, the FDA, as well as a few countries, are losing their minds over them. (They do need regulation. They do not need FUD.) Those of my fellow smokers interested, I recommend this forum as the definitive resource.

    11. Re:Typical by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Cheap and natural isn't necessarily better. Aspirin is cheap and natural, but if I'm having serious pain I want something expensive and synthetic.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Typical by gtall · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you should also count the emphasema (sp?), arterial sclerosis, increased blood pressure (and its associated maladies), etc. So your 20% isn't counting the true health cost.

    13. Re:Typical by anotheregomaniac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you for the link to that article. I became addicted to cigarettes at age 11, after just one. Worst mistake of my life. It took me almost twenty years to quit for good (and that was twenty five years ago). Now I have a better understanding of why.

    14. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been in the electronics field for over 30 years. All the very best technicians and engineers I've ever known were smokers.

      I could believe this, I find it very hard to work when I'm nearby someone who reeks of cigarettes. I'm guessing smokers don't have this problem.

    15. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I never tried to count the true health costs. I was responding to the specific point about watching someone die of cancer. Just because you smoke does not mean you will get cancer and not smoking does not mean you will not get cancer.

      It's also the same with the points you brought up. There is a correlation but not a proven causation to date.

    16. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thinks a couple smokes is going to stop the voices obviously has not lived with or spent a lot of time around someone with schizophrenia. My brother chainsmoked nonstop. He turned his cat yellow. He was still nuttier than a Payday.

      This research is good, though, because if they better understand how this disease works, they can better target it.

    17. Re:Typical by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Haha. So rather than use a cheap natural solution it's better to get the expensive patented synthetic stuff. Riiiiiight... Now I see.

      Sure! You see, it's nicotine that's bad for you not the 99.9% of cancer-inducing crap in cigarette smoke, noooo sir!!!!

      No go and buy the "expensive patented synthetic stuff" that we say it's safe, trust us, never mind in a few years we'll figure that it causes kidney failure or cancer of the toes or whatever.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    18. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The swedes are already working on combining the two.

      http://www.northerner.com/en/snus/Northerner_Energy_Portion-305/Northerner%20Energy%20Snus-2653/

      Nicotine: 6 Mg

      Taurine: 50 Mg

      Caffeine: 20 Mg

      Guarana

    19. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to smoke but rather not take it up the habit ever again.

      That said I firmly believe that everyone who chooses to smoke should have that right.

      But non-smokers have the right not to have to inhale their smoke.

      Smokers have as much of a responsbility not to infringe on non-smokers rights as non-smokers do in shutting the hell up and letting people live their lives.

      Most smokers are fairly decent about it. But, like all groups, there is always a few cunts.

    20. Re:Typical by sorak · · Score: 1

      There is research that suggests that nicotine completely rewires the pleasure centers of the brain (to make them dependent on nicotine)

      Then again, human ingenuity knows no bounds when it comes to pleasure and nicotine. Look what Clinton and Monica managed to do with that cigar.

      So did it help with her schizophrenia?

    21. Re:Typical by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      And if you put 5 bullets in a gun and play Russian roulette, it doesn't mean that you'll definitely die of a gunshot wound. It would mean, however, that you have a profound misunderstanding of how to effectively use statistical information.

    22. Re:Typical by mike260 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's less then 20% of smokers who get cancer from their smoking. Still a high number but we take higher odds and risk our life every day.

      You take a 1-in-5 risk of death every day? I think I saw a movie about you, God bless you and the amazing work you guys do over there.

    23. Re:Typical by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      There is research that suggests that nicotine completely rewires the pleasure centers of the brain (to make them dependent on nicotine):

      Oh gawd! Can we stop using war on drugs baby talk? If you knew what an acetylcholine receptor was and the different types of acetylcholine receptors, their agonists and the mechanisms by which they up-regulate and down-regulate then you would know why phrases like "rewires the pleasure centers" makes you sound like that guy on late night tv who wants to teach you how to "operate the computer".

    24. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nicoffeine? Fuckin sign me up

    25. Re:Typical by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      If we're talking about the cheap natural solution called nicotine, then it's very profitable indeed.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    26. Re:Typical by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Switching to smokeless tobacco is effective. The act of smoking may have pleasant sides they can't duplicate, but people can and do get by without these all the time - and it IS easier with some other source of nicotine.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    27. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article?

      Sciam might not be the top of the heap, but it isn't utter crap.

    28. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, getting cancer and death are not the same thing. People risk getting injured and diseased every day to a greater risk of getting cancer from smoking. In fact, You can probably go to any public restroom and watch any number of people leave without washing their hands whether they do either number one or two. And yes, intestinal bowel diseases which can be transmitted from your own crap can be deadly when in a your stomach and not intestines not to mention that you would have touched something that someone else touched.

      Now the interesting thing is that Smoking risks can be negated with quitting by certain ages. For instance, if you quit smoking by age 50, you are 100 times less likely to get cancer as a result of smoking and if you quit by age 30, your increased risks are negligible compared to the risks from normal airborne pollutants we encounter every day.

      Also, there has been reports of studies that suggest moderate smoking can actually be more beneficial then detrimental.

    29. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So your saying that there is a 83% change of getting cancer or some other smoking related disease from smoking smoking? I would like to see the stats on that because they are completely different then anything I have ever seen. And yes, 5 bullets in a 6 shot revolver would be an 83% chance of it discharging and from there, your chances of dieing from it are less but still high.

      I think perhaps it is you that doesn't know how to use statistical information. the risks are simply not that high.

    30. Re:Typical by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      So your saying that there is a 83% change of getting cancer or some other smoking related disease from smoking smoking?

      No. It's called a metaphor. However, the odds of dying from smoking are certainly higher than playing normal Russian roulette, which is already an idiotic activity.

      If you're just going to sidestep every reply with a nitpick about some detail, then it's not worth discussing with you. The fact of the matter is, smoking is very dangerous. You can wave your hands as much as you want, but that doesn't change the truth.

    31. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, it's called a strawman. That's where you attempt to make an analogy that is so ridiculous it stops being an analogy.

      So excuse me if I didn't get your exagerated connections.

      Also, no, the odds of dying from smoking is not greater then playing Russian roulette. Your odds in playing Russian roulette is surprisingly high due to the fact of only a 16% change of getting a cylinder with a bullet modified by the weight of the bullet increasing the odds of the cylinder stopping with the bullet in a lower position.

      And yes, we can agree that playing normal Russian roulette is an idiotic activity.

    32. Re:Typical by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

      Heh, whoever modded this guy down, prepare to eat crow (and besides, ripping on a guy for a Simpsons reference? Shame...).

      Since Tomato plants and tobacco are both members of the nightshade family, you can cross 'em a bit, but the nicotine ends up in the leaves of the tomato plant, not the fruit.

      Dave

    33. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, whoever modded this guy down, prepare to eat crow (and besides, ripping on a guy for a Simpsons reference? Shame...).

      Thank you for your kind concern, but nobody modded me down. My karma is so terrible that it STARTS at -1. (And I must post anonymously now, because I've already reached the allowable two posts for someone with my karma.)

      I am a victim of insensitive clods.

    34. Re:Typical by Dustie · · Score: 1

      For instance, if you quit smoking by age 50, you are 100 times less likely to get cancer as a result of smoking.

      Yes, the chance to get cancer drops after you quit smoking but only in the future so the chance you took while smoking is not any less lethal.

      I was a smoker in ~10 years. I've had cancer twice even though I quit smoking years before. I'm 32.

    35. Re:Typical by Polumna · · Score: 1

      Certainly, switching to smokeless tobacco is effective for some people. Though I don't know numbers, I'd imagine it gets people off smoking more effectively than any current pharmaceutical NRTs, their numbers are dismal, after all. However, many harmful effects for the user are retained, particularly the tobacco-specific nitrosamines. (Though with some reduction in the case of snus.) I'm just arguing that for most smokers, vapor is the best (and almost assuredly among the healthiest) replacement. Bonus, if you're arguing for the sake of non-smokers sensibilities, it's still effectively odorless, so the only way you can reasonably complain is if the sight of someone exhaling visibly is somehow offensive... and that would be just plain whining.

    36. Re:Typical by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in this case, it's a lot better. Cigarette smoke is filled with carcinogens... a regular rogues gallery toxic chemicals. And not all of them are put there by man. I'm sure plenty of folks would want the benefits without the harm.

      It's not like you'd have the option of just smoking your drug the old fashioned way removed. But please, don't do it anywhere near me. Tobacco smells gross and lingers in my clothes forever. Unless you're a hot chick. Then, suddenly, it's not nearly so offensive...

    37. Re:Typical by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      But that is just a risk. There is nothing saying if you smoke you will get cancer. In fact. you are 4 times more likely to not get cancer from smoking then you are likely to get it.

      Now, as for your cancer, how did you determine is was caused by your smoking? I'm interesting to see how that point was made or if your just guessing like most people.

    38. Re:Typical by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      As someone who has plenty of experience with both smokeless tobacco and vaporizers, I must say that there is a world of difference in the strength of the nicotine "fix" between them.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    39. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Western Medicine does not care about or research any safe, natural, not patentable and therefore not profitable medicine. But if you wanted to save a failing health care system that is exactly where I would start.

  3. The Voices Hate Cigarettes by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Funny

    And all this time I thought that the voice in my head telling me not to smoke was common sense.

    1. Re:The Voices Hate Cigarettes by clam666 · · Score: 0

      No no...the real goal here is a multi-phased approach. It's quite brilliant if you think about it.

      First, you associate smoking with being a "cure" for something, such as forms of mental illness, anxiety, depression, etc. You have to do this because in olden times, these people were thrown in rivers or left in the woods for wolves to eat and we don't do that kinda thing anymore apparently.

      You then increase the taxes on smoking to 150% of the price, so the people with the "problem" (and these problems are incurable ones anyway) bear the brunt of the medical cost for dealing with their conditions.

      The "cure" for the problem (cure == not being a bane to the existence of the rest of society) ALSO is used as a cure for their cost (cost == not being as big an expense for the rest of society) by having them all die off earlier (send them to the wolves).

      Of course, the only way to do this would be to have some sort of centralized, nationalized health care system, so that the decision to offer curative care for smoking, mental illness, can be denied since the patients aren't "contributing as much to society" as other taxpaying "normals".

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    2. Re:The Voices Hate Cigarettes by martas · · Score: 1

      the voice in my head tells me to smoke. i'm not sure what to do.

    3. Re:The Voices Hate Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Ukab should get a 6.

  4. Causation or Correlation? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I would have thought smoking would bring on mental problems in the first place rather than be a palliative. Smokers have reduced lung function, less oxygen in the blood, which I think would lead to a more poorly functioning brain (as well as other organs), leading to things like depression and other mental problems.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Causation or Correlation? by blincoln · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would have thought smoking would bring on mental problems in the first place rather than be a palliative.

      Nicotine improves brain function even in non-schizophrenics, because it binds to acetylcholine receptors. Of course, the most common delivery methods have one or two negative side effects.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    2. Re:Causation or Correlation? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Were smoking a cause of mental issues(in any significant number of cases) we almost certainly would have noticed. Smoking rates, and amounts smoked per person, have plummeted since the 40's. We've been able to detect drops in other smoking related conditions; if psychiatric problems are smoking related, that should show up too.

    3. Re:Causation or Correlation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right. and also thats why your body demands for more cigarettes when you're drinking

      your body knows when and what it needs.

    4. Re:Causation or Correlation? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      This may not be true in this particular case, but I really love it when people go on and on about the dangers of smoking while they themselves live in smog filled cities.

      Lung, kettle, black.

    5. Re:Causation or Correlation? by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      This may not be true in this particular case, but I really love it when people go on and on about the dangers of smoking while they themselves live in smog filled cities.

      Unless you're living in Los Angeles, Mexico City or <insert city in China's industrial regions here> you're not getting anything like the amount of nastiness in primary cigarette smoke just by breathing the air.

    6. Re:Causation or Correlation? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile, prescriptions for anti-depressants have skyrocketed....

    7. Re:Causation or Correlation? by Trahloc · · Score: 1

      Being someone who lives in the heart of downtown LA ... It takes a couple hundred feet to even get the barest hint of smog in the air on the *worst* smoggy days, thousands and thousands of feet otherwise. On the other hand I can barely see a smokers face when they exhale, much less trying to see inside their mouth. Now when it comes to stench I'd rather stand next to a bum who hasn't showered in weeks than a smoker ... I get to smell both far too often while waiting for the walk sign to light up so this isn't theory.

      Although I'll give you anyone who preaches to a smoker about the health issues is a tool, those people should just stfu, smokers know.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    8. Re:Causation or Correlation? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Given that they were only invented in the 50's, and most of the early ones had pretty unpleasant side effects, they had nowhere to go but up...(and, it might be argued, they were in many cases displacing tranquilizers).

      On the other hand, it wouldn't be too hard to argue for social changes being a factor...

    9. Re:Causation or Correlation? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      But it appears that smoking rates have not falled amoungst mad people, and people who have a tendancy to find themselves in prison. They are still at around 90% of the the population, whereas for everyone else, it has fallen to around 25%.

    10. Re:Causation or Correlation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicotine improves brain function and is good for studying. The down side is most ways to get nicotine cause cancer and it's highly addictive. If you would be able to avoid nicotine addiction so you would only use it when you really needed it then you'd probably benefit in the long run from its use.

    11. Re:Causation or Correlation? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Point. I would think someone with serious schizophrenia would be less susceptible to the social pressure against smoking, and probably the science-based arguments against it, too.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    12. Re:Causation or Correlation? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do suspect (without proof currently) that social change is a big factor.

      It is notable though that Bupropion (an atypical antidepressant) is frequently prescribed as an aid to quit smoking. Hardly proof of anything, but suggestive that it's worth looking for a link.

  5. Interesting by Dustie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As I suffer from schizophrenia myself I know how bad your memory can get because of it. Maybe there is a connection between I stopped smoking and I (finally) got a diagnose on what was wrong with me. Perhaps it made the symptoms clearer?

    I sure hope it is correct and doesn't get debunked.

    1. Re:Interesting by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suppose a way to test it for yourself would be to get the patch or the gum and see if it helps you. At least that way, you're not getting most of the bad stuff too.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abilify, Seroquel, or Risperdal?

    3. Re:Interesting by mowall · · Score: 1

      I suppose a way to test it for yourself would be to get the patch or the gum and see if it helps you. At least that way, you're not getting most of the bad stuff too.

      Whilst your point is valid, he'd be putting himself in danger of becoming addicted to nicotine again if he did so. Obviously he's managed to give up once, but nicotine is *very* addictive so it's probably not a good suggestion!

    4. Re:Interesting by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But is an addiction to nicotine really all that problematic if you're addicted to the patch or the gum? Does nicotine alone have long-term health effects and would those effects outweigh the possible benefits?

    5. Re:Interesting by mowall · · Score: 1

      But is an addiction to nicotine really all that problematic if you're addicted to the patch or the gum? Does nicotine alone have long-term health effects and would those effects outweigh the possible benefits?

      I really don't know the answer to that but there surely are issues with being addicted to anything. For example; controlling the dosage levels (an addict may take more than recommended), ability to switch to a better alternative in the future, unwanted side-effects (which I'm pretty sure nicotine has). I accept your point though, if the benefits outweigh the current problems the recipient has, it's certainly worth considering.

    6. Re:Interesting by Dustie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly Abilify makes me seriously ill even with half the dose of the smallest pill and Seroquel both made me tired like a walking zombie and also made me put on a lot of weight. As far as I know I have tried all of the "new anti psychotics". Only one that wasn't too bad was Zeldox. Unfortunately it does not look like science is going to understand schizophrenia (or the brain for that matter) anytime soon especially the "negative symptoms".

      Negative symptoms - Wikipedia:

      ...loss or absence of normal traits or abilities, and include features such as flat or blunted affect and emotion, poverty of speech (alogia), inability to experience pleasure (anhedonia), lack of desire to form relationships (asociality), and lack of motivation (avolition).

    7. Re:Interesting by martas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i'd say it's more likely that once you stopped smoking, your doctors stopped assuming that all of your problems are caused by cigarettes.

    8. Re:Interesting by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2, Informative

      Initial research indicated that nicotine is not carcinogenic, but more recent studies are suggesting that may not be so.
      http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/1

    9. Re:Interesting by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Long-term use of the nicotine patch isn't known to cause serious side effects. The most common short-term side effects from the nicotine patch include mild itching, tingling or burning on the skin at the patch site.

      Source: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nicotine-patch/AN01257

      As a personal anecdote, my mom has been chewing Nicorette gum for at least 5 years. The only side effect I've noticed has been that she spends a ton of money on $40 boxes of chewing gum.

    10. Re:Interesting by init100 · · Score: 1

      Does nicotine alone have long-term health effects

      AFAIK, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which means it constricts the blood vessels in the body. This puts increased strain on your heart, and may prevent the extremities (arms and legs) from getting enough blood. If you shook hands with a smoker, you may have noticed that they often have cold hands, which is due to this low blood supply.

    11. Re:Interesting by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Nicotine I believe causes high blood presure and heart problems, but it is the other chemicals in cigarette smoke that cause most of the problems.

    12. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <anecdote>

      I'm bipolar with very mild schizophrenia. I take the mood stabilizer Depakote for bipolar and a low dose of Abilify for schizophrenia and depression. The combo seems to work very well. My shrink tried me on Seroquel first (made me a walking zombie, all I wanted to do was sleep), then Lamictal (I got the rash, which can be fatal if you don't stop taking it immediately). Depakote had a slight sedating effect at first, but I'm acclimated now, and even the low dose of Abilify I'm on works wonders.

      </anecdote>

      Oh, and I'm a 3/4 pack-a-day (down from a pack-a-day) smoker.

    13. Re:Interesting by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Only one that wasn't too bad was Zeldox.

      It makes sense, seeing as it is made with the power of the Triforce of Wisdom.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Interesting by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Meh, so's caffeine. Which is, as it happens, why it's sometimes prescribed when dealing with headaches, and why it's included in drugs like Motrin ('course, no one knows *why* vasoconstriction cures some headaches, but... *shrug*).

      Honestly, as long as you don't already suffer from high blood pressure, vasoconstriction is likely not a big concern.

    15. Re:Interesting by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Initial research indicated that nicotine is not carcinogenic, but more recent studies are suggesting that may not be so.

      http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/1

      I know big-tobacco is evil but the anti-tobacco crowd is also getting MADD...

      Next thing I know they will come out with a research that proves that looking at a pack of cigs causes cancer...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    16. Re:Interesting by oldhack · · Score: 1

      But then life seems to be THE carcinogenic.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    17. Re:Interesting by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      As I suffer from schizophrenia myself I know how bad your memory can get because of it. Maybe there is a connection between I stopped smoking and I (finally) got a diagnose on what was wrong with me. Perhaps it made the symptoms clearer?
      Nicotine, for over 10 years now, has been known to improve memory functioning, especially short term recall. Some of my friends were actually encouraged to start smoking by this study, before finals. I thought it was kind of silly, myself... but if memory problems are an inherent symptom of schizophrenia, then perhaps that's the mechanism it's helping.

      Or I guess it could be something else entirely, since nicotine has a wide ranging impact on brain chemistry.

  6. Old News by grahamsaa · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is old news -- nicotine has long been known to improve cognitive function in schizophrenics. I remember hearing about this in an undergrad abnormal psych class about 5 years ago.

    --
    Facts have a liberal bias.
  7. Not really news by cashman73 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This isn't exactly breaking news. It's long been known that nicotine has had positive cognitive and memory-enhancing benefits in most people. So the fact that it might help someone with schizophrenia to get somewhat "back to normal" doesn't really surprise me. Not sure if I'd recommend that they smoke, though. There are other ways of delivering nicotine to the brain without all the other crap that cigarettes have associated with them,...

    1. Re:Not really news by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's too bad that those safer methods all end up more expensive, banned, or prescription only (and so MUCH more expensive).

      If politicians ACTUALLY wanted people to quit smoking then nicotine gum and patches would be cheaper and easier to get than cigarettes.

    2. Re:Not really news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are assuming that nicotine gum and patches actually help people quit smoking.

      you really think that delivering nicotine to your system (through gum or patches) is the best way to be non-addicted to it?

    3. Re:Not really news by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, I'm assuming that if their excuses for anti-smoking were valid (damages health, bothers others) was really the issue, they'd rather people who can't or won't quit would chew gum or wear a patch. Either of those would reduce the health risks even if they don't ever actually quit and would certainly not bother others.

      There is evidence that they do help people quit though since they replace the spikes and valleys in blood level with a steady state. The idea is that they service the addiction just enough to break the manual/oral habits and avoid cravings without providing the rewarding spike in blood levels.

      Perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't. Either way, the health risks fall dramatically and nobody else has to even know, much less be bothered.

  8. It's not just schizophrenia... by Fished · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nicotine can also be a potent self-medication for other mental health issues. For example, nicotine (as a stimulant) is often used by those with ADHD to self-medicate.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:It's not just schizophrenia... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      For example, nicotine (as a stimulant) is often used by those with ADHD to self-medicate.
      Caffeine, too. My son isn't bad enough to need Ritalin or Adderal, but we'll frequently give him a Mountain Dew (8oz can) while he does his homework.

      I lean more toward mocha at work, but walking a mile or two also does wonders for ADD symptoms the next day.

    2. Re:It's not just schizophrenia... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Try getting him to drink unsweetened coffee. Sugar can lessen the effects of the caffeine.

      Light roasts have a higher caffeine content than dark roasts and would probably be more palatable for someone new to coffee.

    3. Re:It's not just schizophrenia... by Grizzled+Old+Scout · · Score: 1

      Bipolars also have smoking rates over 70%.

    4. Re:It's not just schizophrenia... by G00F · · Score: 1

      Try some of the jackie chan instant green teas. No sugar, has the caffeine your are lookign for plus a healthy dose of ECGC. With out all the bad stuff from sodas/coffee.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  9. Not even remotely new by LabRat007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Schizophrenics have been said to "self medicate" with nicotine for YEARS. When I started in the field in 1998 it was already a conclusion everyone was working under.

    Schizophrenia Bulletin 1998 24(2):189-202;

    A series of human and animal investigations has suggested that altered expression and function of the {alpha}7-nicotinic cholinergic receptor may be responsible for the auditory sensory gating deficit characterized in schizophrenia patients and their relatives as diminished suppression of an auditory-evoked response (P50) to repeated stimuli. This finding, in conjunction with evidence for familial transmission of this sensory gating deficit, suggests a pathogenic role of the gene for the {alpha}7-nicotinic receptor in schizophrenia. This article considers the possible effects of this dysfunction in a broader context. Not only is this dysfunction consistent with difficulties in sensory gating, but it might also pre dispose patients to problems with learning efficiency and accuracy. Such learning problems could underlie schizophrenia patients' delusional thinking, hallucinations, and social dysfunction. In addition, heavy smoking in many schizophrenia patients is consistent with the high concentration of nicotine necessary to activate the receptor and with the receptor's extremely rapid desensitization. Finally, the receptor's possible role in cell growth and differentiation should be considered in connection with developmental deficits and other cellular abnormalities in schizophrenia.

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    1. Re:Not even remotely new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Open any book on schizophrenia and you'll find a section on nicotine.

      I'm not a scientist so I might be missing something, but remember the article on psychopaths and their brain structure from couple of days ago? I saw a documentary on tv about the exact same thing about 2 years ago.
      Also a couple of months ago there was an article here about schizophrenia and some forms of depression and how they were connected. That thing has also been known in the field for ages.

    2. Re:Not even remotely new by Dustie · · Score: 1

      I (as a schizophrenic) have never read or been told about if from physicians so if it is common knowledge maybe they do not recommend it for some reason.

      Anyone know a good link?

    3. Re:Not even remotely new by LabRat007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I (as a schizophrenic) have never read or been told about if from physicians so if it is common knowledge maybe they do not recommend it for some reason.

      Anyone know a good link?

      Dustie,

      Smoking is bad for a multitude of reasons. Additionally, nicotine interacts with some anti-psychotics (clozapine for instance) causing both the nicotine and clozapine to have attenuated effects. No Dr. would ever recommend smoking. I would only recommend it if you lived in world with no other medication options.

      Nicotinic interactions with antipsychotic drugs, models of schizophrenia and impacts on cognitive function

      Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA

      People with schizophrenia often have substantial cognitive impairments, which may be related to nicotinic receptor deficits, (α7 and α4Î2), documented in the brains of people with schizophrenia. The large majority of people with schizophrenia smoke cigarettes. Thus, nicotinic interactions with antipsychotic drugs are widespread. Complementary co-therapies of novel nicotinic ligands are being developed to add to antipsychotic therapy to treat the cognitive impairment of schizophrenia. Thus, it is critical to understand the interaction between nicotinic treatments and antipsychotic drugs. Nicotinic interactions with antipsychotic drugs, are complex since both nicotine and antipsychotics have complex actions. Nicotine stimulates and desensitizes nicotinic receptors of various subtypes and potentiates the release of different neurotransmitters. Antipsychotics also act on a verity of receptor systems. For example, clozapine acts as an antagonist at a variety of neurotransmitter receptors such as those for dopamine, serotonin, norepinepherine and histamine. In a series of studies, we have found that in normally functioning rats, moderate doses of clozapine impair working memory and that clozapine blocks nicotine-induced memory and attentional improvement. Clozapine and nicotine can attenuate each other's beneficial effects in reversing the memory impairment caused by the psychototmimetic drug dizocilpine. A key to the clozapine-induced attenuation of nicotine-induced cognitive improvement appears to be its 5HT2 antagonist properties. The selective 5HT2 antagonist ketanserin has a similar action of blocking nicotine-induced memory and attentional improvements. It is important to consider the interactions between nicotinic and antipsychotic drugs to develop the most efficacious treatment for cognitive improvement in people with schizophrenia.

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    4. Re:Not even remotely new by Dustie · · Score: 1

      I see. Thank you that was most informative :-)

  10. This message brought to you by the NHS by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTFA:

    The participants showed improvement in brain function, including less impulsive behaviour and better levels of attention, which are both unrelated to nicotine withdrawal, said Barr. ...
    Ultimately, the aim of the research is to reduce the number of schizophrenics who smoke cigarettes.

    On average, life expectancy in people with the condition is reduced by 10 years in large part due to cardiovascular disease and smoking-related cancer (see Why nicotine is bad for you, Cosmos Online).

    Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.

    Mohammed Shoaib, a psychopharmacologist from the University of Newcastle, in the north of England, commented that nicotine-based therapies would offer a significant advancement over current treatments, which do little for the cognitive problems seen with the disease.

    Nice to see the anti-smoking lobby contradicting the Paki doctor right there in the middle of the article. When the researching doctor says "hey, we may have found a great new treatment based on X", maybe the government shouldn't use its mouthpieces (cosmos magazine in this case) to tell him to fuck off right in the same article.

    1. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Desler · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except the doctor never endorsed smoking. He even says in the article:

      "Now, the rationale is to provide a more strategic treatment in the form of a skin patch or nasal spray to avoid the toxins in cigarette smoke. This is the way to go," he said.

      I know this is BadAnalogyGuy but that was just sloppy trolling at best.

    2. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the highlighted portions again. I quoted a lot of text, so maybe you didn't see the bolded and italicized text.

      This is clearly not the doctor's words:
      Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential

      This is what the doctor said:
      Mohammed Shoaib, a psychopharmacologist from the University of Newcastle, in the north of England, commented that nicotine-based therapies would offer a significant advancement over current treatments

      The doctor said that nicotine treatment "would offer significant advancement over current treatments". The government mouthpiece at Cosmos contradicts this by saying "nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment".

      That's where all this universal healthcare talk becomes scary. No pro-nicotine article can pass without the preemptive mentioning that nicotine and smoking are bad for you. Goodbye freedom of the press.

    3. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by nedlohs · · Score: 0

      Wow you are dumb.

    4. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Desler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No pro-nicotine article can pass without the preemptive mentioning that nicotine and smoking are bad for you.

      Funny because even the doctor agrees that they shouldn't be smoking in order to treat themselves in the direct quote of his own words that I posted above. Seriously, your trolling is sloppy.

    5. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "And addictive potential."

      I find this part curious. Yes, nicotine is crazy addictive, well up there with the zestiest of the drugs that the state doesn't approve of. However, in this case, does it matter?

      Schizophrenia is, pending significant advances not yet made, incurable. People unlucky enough to develop it will be affected for their entire lives. If a given drug is useful, they aren't going to stop taking it, so being addicted seems like an irrelevant inconvenience. Obviously, cigarettes are a lousy delivery medium because of their numerous other unpleasant effects; but the addictiveness seems unimportant.

    6. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Why curious? The entire anti-nicotine/anti-smoking section has almost nothing to do with the research in the article. It's a message deliberately inserted to discourage tobacco/nicotine use.

    7. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by jtev · · Score: 1

      The doctor is advocating nicotine therapy with other delivery mechanisms. I.E. extracting the nicotine from tobacco and delivering it in a controlled manner, such as a patch or some other means, as is currently used for weaning people off cigarettes. The article says that "Oh, evil nicotine, we can't let that be the treatment." The author is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    8. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by init100 · · Score: 1

      The doctor said that nicotine treatment "would offer significant advancement over current treatments".

      There is a difference between nicotine treatment (your words) and nicotine-based treatment (the doctor's words). The latter can imply that you are not treated with nicotine itself, but with some derivative of nicotine, e.g. with certain properties removed or minimized.

    9. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by value_added · · Score: 1

      I find this part curious. Yes, nicotine is crazy addictive, well up there with the zestiest of the drugs that the state doesn't approve of. However, in this case, does it matter?

      I agree with what you're saying, but I'd suggest it matters, but in a different way. A doctor schooled in the habit of prescribing "meds" for behavioural problems prefers that his patients rely on those meds. As would the pharmaceutical companies. And just about everyone even remotely involved in the care of such patients.

      We can't have people smoking pot to cure nausea, self-medicating their pain with "illegal" drugs, or generally relying on non-traditional forms of medicine. There's huge amounts of money at stake, and the biases and prejudices against any non-mainstream treatment is pervasive.

      I have a brother who's schizophrenic. I'm painfully aware of the limited success offered by the various regimens he's been on for decades just as I'm aware of all the other problems (physical health included) he's developed as a direct result of those regimens. He quit smoking some years ago around the time it became unfashionable to smoke. I wish he'd start again. Hell, I'd even go so far as to suggest if he spent his days chain-smoking and stopped his medications, he'd be better off.

    10. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is amusing when the boogyman turns out to have an upside, isn't it?

      While I'm sure that in a clinical setting, the route of administration would be pills, patch, gum, or nasal spray the anti-smoking crowd STILL can't stand the thought that nicotine might enhance cognition and memory or have fewer and milder side-effects than the drugs already being used.

      The pharmaceutical companies are fully on the bandwagon with them, m,ostly because they can't patent nicotine.

      Together they cry out that surely it will turn out that only some patented expensive drug that works just like nicotine (except it doesn't strangle puppies) will be the answer. It can't possibly be Nicorette or the patch.

    11. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same strange doublethink happens with opoid painkillers for people in chronic pain. They pop liver damaging analgesics like dope fiends because they experience unbearable pain if they stop, but they can't have cheap opiates in appropriate doses because they might pop them like a dope fiend and be unable to stop.

    12. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ...While I'm sure that in a clinical setting, the route of administration would be pills, patch, gum, or nasal spray...

      Don't forget eCigarettes/inhalers! They're currently 1/5 the cost of cigarettes (for an equivalent amount of 'smoking' time and nicotine), and just as safe/not-that-harmful as any of the other 'nicotine-replacement therapies' you mentioned. After 11 years of a pack a day habit, I switched to an eCigarette 4 months ago, and haven't wanted a tobacco cigarette since. Makes sense because I'm not, and never was, addicted to the tobacco... just the nicotine, which I still get.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    13. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      With opiates, they'd get unbearable pain if they stopped, plus withdrawal symptoms from the opiates. Plus, opiates are now attractive to lots of people who don't have chronic pain, on account of drug culture. That opens all sorts of worm-cans, from false prescriptions to people breaking in and robbing ill people.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    14. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      You see some "anti-smoking crowd" which "hates nicotine" and can't stand the thought of it being useful for something. I don't. Where are they?

      On the other hand, I remember a lot of pro-tobacco think tank spreading suggestive generalities like these, before the lawsuits uncovered their funding and the game was up.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    15. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Considering that the unbearable pain will drive them to take more anyway, I doubt the withdrawal symptoms will even have time to show up. I'm not saying they're perfect, but until something better comes along to control unbearable chronic pain, there's little sense in torturing the sufferers with more expensive second rate drugs just because others might abuse them. Not to mention making doctors afraid to prescribe appropriately for adequate pain control.

      Subjecting one person to torturous pain because someone else might misuse a drug is a deeply immoral act, pure and simple.

      Of course, we also know of a drug that can break addictions quickly and effectively in most people with a single dose but it's banned even for prescription use in a hospital setting because it's a hallucinogen. It's schedule I even though the nausea and vomiting it causes make it a very unpopular as a drug of abuse, shows no sign of addictive potential, and appears to be quite safe under medical supervision.

    16. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for one thing, opiates generally decrease mental faculties, making the patient a risk to himself and others.

      It's easy to rationalize the need for increased dosages of opiates, especially since they become less effective as tolerance builds, but the fact is that they are not a long term solution. Even ignoring the functionality of a patient under the influence of heavy narcotics, at some point the required dose for relief WILL cross the threshold into respiratory and/or cardiac failure, no matter how much of a tolerance you build to the pain relief it brings. It's worth noting also that while opiates attenuate pain somewhat, they don't eliminate it by any means, especially after the initial few doses and in cases of severe pain. They mostly either let you sleep through the pain, or else not care about it in any meaningful way. And it's the not caring part, the clouding of judgement as to what's appropriate in terms of both behavior and self-determined dosage, that becomes extremely dangerous.

      None of that really has anything to do with the inclusion of acetaminophen in most prescription opiates, except for the fact that it should be moot, since if you're consuming quantities where you need to worry about liver damage, you really need to stop anyway, and accept the fact that medicine has not yet cured your ailment, just like the sufferers of many other diseases must do.

    17. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Right here in this forum claiming that the one and only drug known and available right now that can treat the negative symptoms of a devastating mental illness is unacceptable for use in spite of being far safer and having far milder side effects than the anti-psychotics patients are already treated with.

      There is absolutely nothing in TFA that hasn't been observed or suspected by mental health professionals for several decades.

      Considering that in a medical setting, the route of administration will NOT be smoking or chewing, the tobacco companies have nothing to gain here. In fact, they lose if it becomes an accepted medical treatment since the majority of schizophrenics who already smoke would end up on the patch.

    18. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Have you EVER been in enough pain to justify the use of an opiate? Believe me, at that point your judgment is already clouded and your mental faculties are practically non-existant. I say that as someone who has actually experienced enough pain to black out repeatedly (thankfully not a chronic condition). When you're blacked out, clouded judgment simply isn't the issue at hand.

      For people whose pain IS chronic, adequate pain control is the difference between functioning in life and probable suicide. Go ahead and tell them they need to stop the pain pills if you like, but don't be surprised if their reaction to you is less than positive.

    19. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I dispute your claim. I'm 100% for people taking nicotine for medical (or recreational, what do I care?) purposes, as long as it doesn't interfere with my breathing. I think there are a large number of other people who would say the same thing.

    20. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, good for you then, but all you have to do is read the discussion here on /., or for that matter the editorial inserted in the middle of the article itself and as a caption to the irrelevant picture (if they did an article on opiate tolerance in cancer patients would they show a dirty needle and rubber tubing?) to know there there are much more militant factions who apparently can't stand any use of nicotine.

      I should have said MANY in the anti-smoking crowd. Of course in your case, you're not exactly anti-smoking since you don't seem to care if I do or not as long as you're not around if I do.

    21. Re:This message brought to you by the NHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Those would work as well. Which one did you get and how do you like it (I'm guessing you must be reasonably satisfied with it)?

  11. So by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Was this study paid for by the tobacco industry?

    From TFA: We would ask patients to go without cigarettes for 12 hours.

    IDIOTS. Anyone who has ever quit smoking will tell you the HELL they go through in the first few days. So they take smokers, ask them to stop smoking, MARVEL at the fact that the patient who is struggling to maintain a grasp on reality anyway - loses it, and then claim that nicotine improves brain function?

    How about a different conclusion: NICOTINE WITHDRAWAL IMPAIRS BRAIN FUNCTION IN SCHIZOPHRENICS. What a shocker. Well I dunno about "Cosmos Online" being a peer reviewed journal (as if even THAT matters nowadays), but this is a classic example of bad science, or incredibly bad reporting.

    A good study would be to get non smoking schizophrenics to start smoking, and see if they improve, but the ethics committee would never approve it...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:So by Desler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Considering that the researcher says that they shouldn't be smoking due to the toxins and instead should be using a nicotine patch or nasal spray in order to stimulate the receptors, I'm going to have to say no.

      "Now, the rationale is to provide a more strategic treatment in the form of a skin patch or nasal spray to avoid the toxins in cigarette smoke. This is the way to go," he said.

    2. Re:So by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Yay for irresponsible reporting and encouraging schizos to clog their lungs with tar and soot. How the F does smoking improve any function, it's a dampener.

    3. Re:So by Desler · · Score: 1

      "Now, the rationale is to provide a more strategic treatment in the form of a skin patch or nasal spray to avoid the toxins in cigarette smoke. This is the way to go," he said.

      Yeah, that's totally encouraging them to smoke!

    4. Re:So by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not only are you 100% correct (too bad you're modded troll for the truth, we have tobacco industry shills now? or is there just a paid slashdot modshilling enterprise?) but your body has also been shown to produce free radicals in the process of breaking down Nicotine. Not only are the additives that they spray on tobacco carcinogenic, but so is the very process of removing Nicotine from your system. You'd have to be a big fucking idiot to think that regular consumption of Nicotine was the answer to any non-life-threatening problem.

      The only thing 100% proven to extend brain function is brain function. Use it, or lose it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:So by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The only thing 100% proven to extend brain function is brain function. Use it, or lose it.

      You. Insensitive. Clod.

      We are discussing Schizophrenics. You know, that disease that reduces your life expectancy by 20% and has a higher than average suicide rate? This isn't some kind of 'smoking makes you thinner' article. This is alluding to smoking allowing sick people to live a life that is CLOSER TO NORMAL. You allude to 'non-life-threatening' without even looking up the prognosis. Besides that, what about the quality of life? Does that even factor in?

      I realize it is fashionable to hate smoking in any form you may find it, but for the love of all that's logical, try and weigh the severity of what we're discussing before you post. Lack of having done so meant you just alluded, in public, that Schizophrenics are sick because they don't think enough.

    6. Re:So by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Not only are you 100% correct (too bad you're modded troll for the truth, we have tobacco industry shills now? or is there just a paid slashdot modshilling enterprise?

      He is a Flamer and an anti-tobacco nut. You and the Troll you allude to should look up some neuro-science text books instead of polishing the brass on the anti-tobacco bandwagon (if nicotine was not in tobacco then I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be so much bullshit commentary on the subject).

    7. Re:So by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Free radicals? Ship them off! Glenn Beck says so.

      Seriously, though, really if a schizophrenic was having trouble and nicotine helped him and there was a possibility of cancer. It's like arguing against any treatment because it might have a side effect...

      Big fucking idiot or no, almost _all_ drugs have side effects; is the possibility that you'll get cancer in 40 years (if you live that long) balanced appropriately with the possibility you'll kill yourself because a voice tells you to? It's about figuring out where that line is, and it's different with everyone.

      --
      Dan
    8. Re:So by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Don't waste your time. You can't have a rational conversation with a fanatic, whether he is anti-tobacco, pro-automobile, or whatever his obsession may be.

    9. Re:So by sjames · · Score: 1

      Compared to the brain damage, liver damage, and induced diabetes from anti-psychotics, the free radicals from nicotine metabolism aren't even an also-ran, especially if they take anti-oxidants.

      People regularly take far more risky pharmaceuticals for much milder non-life-threatening problems.

      Between the undisputed cognitive and memory enhancement, the potential anti-dementia properties, and it's known benefit for ulcerative colitis, if nicotine was a patented recent discovery you'd see "ask your doctor if nicotine is right for you" commercials every 5 minutes plus about a zillion journal articles. It would be a bigger blockbuster than prozac and they'd be passing it out to "ADHD" kids like candy.

      Since the preferred route of administration will not be smoking or chewing, I doubt very much the tobacco industry will even benefit (unless people are forced to take up smoking because they can't afford a prescription).

      BTW, free radicals are a byproduct of all aerobic metabolism. Anti-oxidants can help.

    10. Re:So by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      I sometimes double-check on Fanatics; this one just got his Karma back. Believe me there are far more anti-nicotine and tobacco shills and Trolls out there than anybody with an objective sense of Logic or honesty.

      Stupid people will continue, like history has shown us, continue to rule the world.

    11. Re:So by LionMage · · Score: 1

      From TFA: We would ask patients to go without cigarettes for 12 hours.

      IDIOTS. Anyone who has ever quit smoking will tell you the HELL they go through in the first few days. So they take smokers, ask them to stop smoking, MARVEL at the fact that the patient who is struggling to maintain a grasp on reality anyway - loses it, and then claim that nicotine improves brain function?

      I can't tell if you're deliberately distorting the article, or if you're honestly clueless about what the article was saying.

      Here, let me add some context back:

      Prior to this study, any benefits seen with nicotine in people with schizophrenia were thought to be related to overcoming the effects of smoking withdrawal, said Barr, rather than the beneficial effects of nicotine on disease symptoms themselves.

      Previously, "we would ask participants to go without a cigarette for 12 hours and then provide a single dose of nicotine and measure cognitive function," she said.

      Emphasis added by me.

      Yes, it's funny how the meaning of a phrase or sentence can be radically altered by the omission of one word, which you did. The paragraph prior explains that old thinking on this subject was that the "beneficial effect" for schizophrenics had more to do with the withdrawal symptoms than the nicotine itself. The current study actually debunks that theory, and demonstrates it's the nicotine itself that is beneficial.

    12. Re:So by Starlon · · Score: 1

      Being a schizoaffective myself, I'm simply adoring the love we mentally ill are getting in this thread. (Although it started out with a lot of stigma in the guise of humor)

      The risks of nicotine pale in comparison to my anti-psychotic. That doesn't mean I'm going to pick up smoking (e-cigs) though. I wouldn't be able to afford it. Maybe if I could get it on my insurance -- like that would ever happen.

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    13. Re:So by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Didn't mean any offense, I just wanted to say pretty much what you did...the risks of the side effects vs risks of no (or alternate) treatment need to be determined.

      --
      Dan
  12. Old News by cffrost · · Score: 5, Informative

    Smoking Away Schizophrenia? Scientific American Mind, 2007-11-27.

    Scientific American also published an article in 2003 suggesting that a by-product of nicotine can slow the onset of Alzheimer's disease. It does not take a nicotine-addict to see that CNS stimulants can have beneficial effects on brain function.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  13. Also Helps With... by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ulcerative colitis (warning, gross picture of internals). I've been a sufferer since I was in my early teens, and was in a state of active flare ups for nearly five years, even going to the hospital now and then. I've been on dozens of medications for it, from immunosuppressants to steroids to everything doctors could come up with.

    When I was 19, a doctor mentioned smoking, off the record. He didn't want to actively advise me to smoke, but I was 19 and in danger of needing my colon surgically removed already. I, like a good geek, read everything about it I could find. I hated my first pack of cigs, but by the time I was through it--nearly a week--my symptoms were subsiding. Since then, one flare up in six years that lasted for two weeks. Trade-offs, eh?

    1. Re:Also Helps With... by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sir,

          I sympathize with your problem and I am glad that smoking helps you out. However, is it necessary for you to smoke to obtain nicotine or could you obtain it through a less harmful means than smoking such as a nicotine patch, for example?

          I wonder if there is a way you could medicate yourself with fewer risk of downsides such as lung cancer by getting nicotine in some other way.

      Regards,

      --PeterM

    2. Re:Also Helps With... by zacronos · · Score: 1

      Just some idle curiosity here:

      Is it some effect of smoking, or just of the nicotine? If the nicotine, is some other vector (gum, patch, etc) equally effective with less health risks? I assume there must be some reason a doctor would choose to specifically recommend smoking rather than some other form of nicotine. Or perhaps it is just cost -- do you get more nicotine per dollar from cigarettes? The summary above seems to focus on nicotine for schizophrenia, which is why I am curious as to whether it is the nicotine or the smoking that is the key for you.

    3. Re:Also Helps With... by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 5, Informative

      In reply to the question on smoking:

      At 19, I was stupid and didn't think of anything aside from smoking as a solution. After a few years and not being able to run like I used to, I started looking for another option. The gum made my mouth feel rotten, and something about the delivery mechanism of the patch (the steady delivery, perhaps?) didn't give me the "kick" I was, frankly, addicted to.

      Technology, though, is a hell of a thing. These days, I use a cigarette-sized atomizer. It delivers nicotine, water vapor, propelyne glycol, and optional flavoring on inhales. Nothing else--no burning, no other carcinogens. Charges by USB, one cartridge has 16mg nicotine and lasts 150 puffs, so it's trivial to determine dosage. I still call it "smoking" though it's not Sure, start up cost is high, but my health prefers as few carcinogens as possible. Also, it's less obnoxious to people around me. Anyone in the same boat should seriously look at them--handles the fixation as well as delivering nicotine.

      Have to admit, now and then I do enjoy a good cigar, though.

    4. Re:Also Helps With... by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 1

      See my reply to PeterM above. I ditched the tobacco source a while ago.

      I have to say, every now and then, /. surprises me in a good way. People actually give a damn here.

    5. Re:Also Helps With... by allawalla · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have to say, every now and then, /. surprises me in a good way. People actually give a damn here.

      I am sure that is just a side-effect of the nicotine

    6. Re:Also Helps With... by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      You might want to look at getting an electronic cigarette. Nobody knows the long term consequences, but short term they're a fairly clean nic delivery method that give a pretty solid sort of smoking experience.

    7. Re:Also Helps With... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Technology, though, is a hell of a thing. These days, I use a cigarette-sized atomizer. It delivers nicotine, water vapor, propelyne glycol, and optional flavoring on inhales. Nothing else--no burning, no other carcinogens. Charges by USB, one cartridge has 16mg nicotine and lasts 150 puffs, so it's trivial to determine dosage. I still call it "smoking" though it's not Sure, start up cost is high, but my health prefers as few carcinogens as possible. Also, it's less obnoxious to people around me. Anyone in the same boat should seriously look at them--handles the fixation as well as delivering nicotine.

      Cheers to that! I switched to my eCigarette 4 months ago, and it's fantastic! Haven't wanted/needed a tobacco cigarette since then! Much cheaper per day (buying liquid to refills), tastes better, no lingering odor, no known carcinogens... I'm glad to see a fellow geek ex-smoker (although you obviously had a much better reason to start smoking than I did).

      I don't have any association with these guys (besides buying my, and my friends, kits from them) but cigdealer.com is a chinese manufacturer that sells my favorite model (with the disposable atomizer) for $31(USD) after shipping. I get my cartridge/atomizers from them as well (at $1.25/ea), but their flavors are mostly crap, so I try other places for my 'juice'. I used to buy from Johnson Creek, but they changed their recipes, and their flavors just aren't as good anymore. I tried a batch of flavors from Wet Your Stick, but they were hit-and-miss. But all the juice suppliers are priced at 1/8 to 1/3 the price of cigarettes (when you calculate how long the juice lasts).

      Where do you go for your refill juice? Or do you just buy the prefilled cartridges?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:Also Helps With... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I've personally been using the Commit lozenges for quite some time. A 72-pack lasts me about a week, and at $40, it's roughly the same price as a carton of cigarettes, depending on brand and geographical location. The mint flavors tend to make my mouth numb and desensitize my taste buds, but much less so with the cherry flavor. There is a noticeable "kick" when you pop one, although it may take 2-7 days to lose the craving for an inhaled delivery system.

      I have quit nicotine altogether several times in the past, but even after the withdraw period, I still feel like I'm not fully functional, especially when it comes to memory and concentration. (Maybe I'm schizophrenic? I've been using nicotine since my late teens, which is the time frame for the onset of schizophrenia if I'm not mistaken, so who knows..) My kids always used to ask what the candy was that I was eating, and I'd tell them it was my medicine.. Ha. Maybe not so far from the truth.

    9. Re:Also Helps With... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that nicotine can be used to treat inflammatory bowel was actually a plot point in a House M.D. episode.

  14. Derrrr by BigBlueOx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nicotine sharpens the mind while simultaneously relaxing the muscles. That's why it's so addictive. Duh.

    In fact, personally, I blame the lack of smoking by people for the general dumbing-down of everyone and everything including Slashdot. Oh? You doubt me? Ha! Just go read some of the threads on Slashdot from back in the 40s and 50s and compare it to the drivel of today. Notice, in particular, the civility of discourse and the lack of Linux/Apple/Microsoft fanbois. You'll see.

    1. Re:Derrrr by martas · · Score: 1

      you'll also notice smoke rising from your computer. don't worry, it was a feature, not a bug.

    2. Re:Derrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No thanks! I don't want to back to the days of Univac, Eniac, and AS400 fanbois! Punch cards rule! And Multics sucks!

    3. Re:Derrrr by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      I figured that back in the good old days, most slashdot posters were engineers, computer scientists, and other smart people. Nowadays, every newbie with a Associate degree in IT (or less) thinks he belongs here. Once upon a time, professional technologists were smart.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  15. I don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I recently quit smoking, and I haven't had any issues.....and neither have I.

    1. Re:I don't believe it. by sadness203 · · Score: 0

      Is it the voice telling you that ?

    2. Re:I don't believe it. by russotto · · Score: 1

      *sigh*. I thought confusion of schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder was pretty much done with.

      Here, try this:

      "I recently quit smoking, and the voices in my head say they're fine with it."

  16. Cartilage by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the less known bad effects of nicotine is destruction of cartilage. This can show up as lower back pain or knee pain.

  17. inject nicotine into bloodstream? by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    If nicotine is quite useful yet may cause higher incident of lung cancer, isn't it better to just inject nicotine into bloodstream? Or is there something I'm missing here?

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
    1. Re:inject nicotine into bloodstream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicotine doesn't cause lung cancer. It's all the other burned stuff in cigarettes that causes cancer. You can inhale nicotine or apply patches or inject it or even eat it with no ill effects (besides the risk of an overdose).

    2. Re:inject nicotine into bloodstream? by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

      so why don't cigarette makers just create cigarette that doesn't have the lung cancer causing stuff?

      --
      If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  18. Cheap? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. I don't know where you live, but around here with all the taxes the cigarettes are probably the most expensive imaginable way to get your nicotine fix.

    If you're smoking R1, as an extreme example, you're paying 4.4 euro for 1.7mg nicotine total. Or about 2.6 euro per milligram. For other brands of cigarettes, ok, you can get up to 10 times cheaper per mg, but it's still bloody expensive.

    I'd think that the expensive patented stuff could gouge you like the medieval tax collectors -- or like HP for ink as a modern day equivalent -- and still be a lot cheaper.

    2. You obviously skipped past half the sentence you answer to. The problem with just using the (not so) cheap natural stuff is:

    A) it's extremely addictive stuff. And actually the real problem with that isn't the obvious "OMG, it's getting people addicted." It's that, like all physiological addictions:

    - you're building resistance to it

    - it's moving the baseline state to worse

    So soon you'll either need more and more nicotine to actually fix that schizophrenia, or you'll need your regular fixes just to keep yourself at the point where you'd be if you never started with it in the first place. And you'll actually be worse off when you can't get your fix.

    B) it creates a bunch of other problems. E.g., that it's a vasoconstrictor (which is actually the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs), or that it inhibits osteoblasts (so if you treat someone post-menopause generously enough with it, they'll get fractures), etc.

    C) nicotine is a poison. It's only safe to use because there's very little in a cigarette, and most of it burns. You're actually getting very little of it in your system. But there just isn't that much margin between that and when things start to get uglier. So especially in view of problem A, you don't want a treatment which will over time escalate dangerously close to the toxic dosage to do anything.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      - you're building resistance to it

      - it's moving the baseline state to worse

      So soon you'll either need more and more nicotine to actually fix that schizophrenia, or you'll need your regular fixes just to keep yourself at the point where you'd be if you never started with it in the first place.

      I take it you're opposed to supplying opioids to people with debilitating chronic pain, then?

      That's also quite a set of assumptions you're making. Unless you know what mechanism in a schizophrenic's brain responds to nicotine, there's simply no way to know whether sensitization to it occurs in that context. Yes, schizophrenics do get addicted, and in my experience tend to ramp up their cigarette intakes far, far higher than people in the general population ever do. But that might just mean they're addicted over and above whatever ameliorative effects nicotine provides; they may need increasing doses to keep nicotine craving away, but they may not to maintain a pharmacologically useful dose.

      Don't conflate the mechanics of addiction with the mechanics of medicinal usefulness.

    2. Re:Cheap? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      _If_ a non-addictive synthetic painkiller existed that worked just as well, then they wouldn't get the addictive opioids either.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously haven't done any research on the drugs currently used to treat schizophrenia!

      1. I don't know where you live, but around here with all the taxes the cigarettes are probably the most expensive imaginable way to get your nicotine fix.

      Shouldn't socialized medicine cover that?

      A) it's extremely addictive stuff. And actually the real problem with that isn't the obvious "OMG, it's getting people addicted." It's that, like all physiological addictions: - you're building resistance to it - it's moving the baseline state to worse

      That is true of the current treatments as well. All have tolerance effects.

      B) it creates a bunch of other problems. E.g., that it's a vasoconstrictor (which is actually the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs), or that it inhibits osteoblasts (so if you treat someone post-menopause generously enough with it, they'll get fractures), etc.

      Meanwhile, the anti-psychotics are extremely hard on the liver. With chronic use they often cause irreversible tardive dyskinesia or worse, akathisia (which makes sitting still literally unbearable). The other unpleasant side effects such as sedation, slowness of thought, anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure), etc are what drive so many patients to discontinue their meds (dangerous without medical supervision BTW) in spite of the near certainty that they will relapse if they do.

      The harmful effects of nicotine are benign in comparison even if you smoke it rather than using a patch or pill.

      C) nicotine is a poison.

      Literally ALL drugs are poisons. The only thing that makes a poison a drug is that it's effect may be medically useful and that it's dose can be controlled adequately in a medical setting such that the positive effects will outweigh the negative.

      Take too much Tylenol (for example) and you will die the same way as if you ate poisonous mushrooms. Take too much of an anti-psychotic and you will die. Take too much nicotine and you will die.

    4. Re:Cheap? by huckamania · · Score: 1

      As opposed to all the drugs they advertise on TV that cause anal leakage and severe risk of stroke?

      We are all different and some people can handle a cigarette every now and then and some people have to have a pack a day. Just like not everyone that takes the TV drug will get anal leakage or suffer a stroke.

    5. Re:Cheap? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, if they think they can manufacture a synthetic substitute which is less toxic or addictive, I see no problem with it. Do you?

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:Cheap? by Fict · · Score: 1

      Nicotine isn't all that toxic, and nearly all drugs that modify brain chemistry are in some manner addicting, insofar as the brain has to readjust when you get off 'em. If there's no intention of nicotine cessestion, withdrawl should be of little concern.

      But sure, let's make new drugs and see if we can do better. More science never hurts.

    7. Re:Cheap? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Take too much Tylenol (for example) and you will die the same way as if you ate poisonous mushrooms. Take too much of an anti-psychotic and you will die. Take too much nicotine and you will die.

      Smoke too much marijuana and you will.... fall into a deep, peaceful sleep.

      Not ALL medicines are poison.

    8. Re:Cheap? by value_added · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know where you live, but around here with all the taxes the cigarettes are probably the most expensive imaginable way to get your nicotine fix.

      Probably true if nicotine is what you're after. Seems to me that there's more to smoking than just nicotine just as there's more to brewing a fresh cup of great coffee and sitting down to drink it hot than what's offered in a caffeine pill. On any number of different levels.

      I'm impressed at the advances of science in recent years, but I'm old enough to know that an advance here or there combined with a recommendation du jour doesn't necessarily mean much more than saying "Hey, we figured this much out!" You take what's complex and assert it's simple, then talk about poison without recognising that most anything in sufficient quantities can be lethal. And that what's called poison in small enough doses is often given the term "medicine" and sold by prescription.

      Quite frankly, I find the reductio ad absurdum approach toward food and other substances an unfortunate trend. We have people spending their lives standing in aisles reading labels, believing that meat and fish are nothing more than protein, taking an iron pill is the equivalent of eating green leafy vegetables, drinking red wine equivalent of an intake of retrovil and alcohol, and the chocolate is just a bunch of calories.

      Sorry, but I'm going to insist on going the less efficient and more expensive route. I'll buy my fruits and vegetables based on looks, taste and freshness, and I'll consume meat because my body tells me it's yummy and it's good for me. If I read a label, it'll be on the bottle of wine I'm drinking. When done, I'll drink my coffee and smoke a cigarette because I enjoy both of them (and their effects) too much to care what the latest scientific studies purport to tell me they do or don't do.

    9. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correct me if I'm wrong, as IANAneuroscientist, (neuroscience is a recently acquired hobby)....

      If you want to have a drug which acts in the same way as an opiate, it will have to activate the opioid receptors (k-opioid receptors being the main ones for pain relief, IIRC) - and thus will act in the same way as these "addictive opioids". Yes, perhaps you can get it to be somewhat less addictive than some other opioid agonist by, say, selecting a molecule or compounding the medicine such that it has some agonism at the d-opioid (?) receptors to slow the growth of tolerance, or antagonizes the dopamine system, or has some activity on the adrenaline system, but it is still fundamentally an opiate.

      In that same light, if you have a drug which behaves in a manner identical to nicotine - activating all the same receptors - it will have the same addiction potential as nicotine, because there is no way for the body to differentiate it from nicotine.

      Now, I would be surprised if most of the benefit from nicotine in this use didn't come from some agonism at some specific receptor, and so the benefit could be duplicated without most of the "side effects", but I'm not familiar with the pharmacology of nicotine.
      Someone else under me suggested that, perhaps, this is primarily due to being an acetylcholine agonist.

    10. Re:Cheap? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 0.5-1.0 mg/kg can be a lethal dosage for adult humans.[2][3] Nicotine therefore has a high toxicity in comparison to many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which in mice has an LD50 of 95.1 mg/kg. It is impossible however to overdose on nicotine through smoking alone (though a person can overdose on nicotine through a combination of nicotine patches, nicotine gum, and/or tobacco smoking at the same time.) [4] [5] Spilling an extremely high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can result in intoxication or even death since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream from dermal contact.Nicotine poisoning

      I'd call that pretty toxic.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I certainly don't object to an attempt to do better. I do object to avoiding a perfectly reasonable treatment that is available NOW. I particularly object to avoiding it just because it is inconvenient to dogma.

      I would also object if the synthetic substitute costs people 10 or 100 times as much for barely noticeable benefits (worse if it also includes downplayed significant extra risks), particularly if the anti-smoking lobby is used by whoever holds the inevitable patent on the new drug to kill off the cheap competition.

    12. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, making any form of relative benefit comparison between nicotine and other anti-psychotics is utterly retarded based on the information here (and presented in this discussion), because there's no relevant scale(s) on which to score each of the wanted or unwanted effects of each or the utility associated with it.

    13. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So are many drugs. Nicotine has a fairly decent thereputic index though. The effective dose meanwhile is < 0.04mg/kg. 50/0.04 = 1250

      Many drugs in common use have a lower index than that. Digoxin has a thereputic index of 3. valium is 100

      50mg/kg = smoke ~1200 cigarettes in an instant.

    14. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend.

    15. Re:Cheap? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Smoke too much marijuana and you will.... fall into a deep, peaceful sleep.

      That's mainly because smoked marijuana kicks in so fast that people generally pass out before they can OD. If you eat too many hash brownies (which take more like 20 minutes to absorb), you can overdose on THC.

    16. Re:Cheap? by shiftless · · Score: 2, Informative

      No you can't. This is totally false. YOU CANNOT OVERDOSE ON THC. The LD50 of marijuana is off the scale. It is estimated that a human would have to consume the equivalent of 15 lbs of marijuana in 15 minutes in order to overdose, a feat which is clearly impossible. Nobody has EVER died or been rendered seriously ill from consuming marijuana in any form; smoked OR eaten.

    17. Re:Cheap? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      B) it creates a bunch of other problems. E.g., that it's a vasoconstrictor (which is actually the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs)

      [Citation Needed]
      And not that it's a vasoconstrictor, but that it is the vasoconstriction that is the root of more smoking-related health problems than the smoke in the lungs - which is where the carcinogens go to hang out and talk about starting themselves a lung cancer. I've read a lot of the studies of smoking and nicotine related health risks (smoked a pack a day for 11 years), and from everything I've read, nicotine-replacement therapies (patch, gum, inhalers) remove the FAR majority of health risks, even when their not used to quit the addiction, but just to change the delivery system for the nicotine. I am always interested in gathering more information, though, to compare and contrast with what I have already gathered.
      Thank you for any references you can provide in this matter.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    18. Re:Cheap? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, all I'm saying is: let then try. If they think they can make a less addictive one that binds to the right receptors, let them try. Worst case scenario: we're back to nicotine.

      The point about opioids was basically just that we don't have any other alternative, so we give them opioids. _If_ a better alternative was available, then people would get that.

      In this case, someone thinks they can create a better alternative to nicotine. _If_ they succeed (and that's a big if), then I see no point in using the old toxic one. There is no point in causing more harm than necessary, just as some kind of act of resistance against big pharma. (Which wasn't your point, but how this talk started.)

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    19. Re:Cheap? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      For comparison purposes, Sodium Fluoride, which we put in drinking water, has an Rat LD50 of 35mg/kg. That's more than twice as deadly as cocaine.

    20. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is impossible however to overdose on nicotine through smoking alone..."

      I'd call that pretty toxic.

      I'd call that pretty fucking benign.

    21. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do find it comical that the anti-tobacco zealots will fight this into the ground, as they have been. Studies have shown nicotine also helps Alzheimer's, but heavens forbid someone dying of a rotting brain take something "dangerous". Yet, somehow its ok to blow your liver or other organ with medications, so long as it isn't associated with alcohol or tobacco.
      Also, for the record, no study has shown that even long time smokers have vastly increased nicotine resistance. Yes, they're better off than non-smokers, but not in the "got to have 10 grams a day" it seemed (to me) Moraelin was indicating.

      I'll sit down with a pack of smokes and have at them in one go. The zealots can sit down with a bottle of tylenol, or something with it mixed in such as most hydrocodone pills, and we'll see who's standing after. Now, which one's dangerous again?

    22. Re:Cheap? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      Edit Above Message: 52mg/kg.

    23. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicotine treats the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and possibly counteracts some of the side-effects of antipsychotics (truly a horrible class of drugs). It does not treat the positive symptoms as APs do.

      Nicotine is also relatively free of serious risks in pure form. Most of the cancer risk is from nitrosamines in tobacco being metabolized the potent carcinogen NNK.

      Pure nicotine is also far less addictive. Tobacco contains the MAO inhibitors harmon and nonharmon. Studies show they are responsible for much of "nicotine's" addictive potential. Also an issue is speed of delivery -- transdermal and sublingual forms produce a less dramatic effect on the firing rate of neural cells vs. smoking.

      Nicotine is a very safe, useful, and therapeutic drug, which will unfortunately never get the recognition it is due because of public stigma against tobacco being falsely applied to it. Negative symptoms of schizophrenia, ADHD, chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia, anxiety disorders, obesity (it's a better long-term appetite suppressant than amphetamine, even)... so much potential for so many.

      On a sidenote, chewing tobacco is much, much safer than smoking tobacco, but still has risks above purified forms.

    24. Re:Cheap? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Smoke too much marijuana and you will... die of lung cancer just like you would smoking anything.

      Smoke in your lungs is not medicine. THC may be medicine - but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to have much therapeutic effect unless it's taken with the proper rituals, the one they use in drug culture (in other words, smoking it).

      I wonder if red wine would have any measurable health benefit for people drinking it from disposable paper cups.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    25. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the point-by-point rebuttal style reflects very poorly on the author. Do you need to arbitrarily pick portions of text and pretend they were written in a vacuum, without any context? This seems like a popular debate method on /., but I've always found it repulsive. To me it's just a beacon for the author's educational shortcomings. Maybe you could show a little self-respect and write an actual response, so the rest of us won't mistake you for a college dropout.

    26. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nicotine treats the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and possibly counteracts some of the side-effects of antipsychotics (truly a horrible class of drugs). It does not treat the positive symptoms as APs do.

      True, so far it's the only thing that looks effective against the negative symptoms. The vasoconstriction might neatly balance the severe postural hypotension anti-psychotics can cause.

    27. Re:Cheap? by shiftless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Smoke too much marijuana and you will... die of lung cancer just like you would smoking anything.

      Yeah, that's what Dr. Donald Tashkin of the University of California was sure of too when he started studying marijuana 30 years ago. Then after conducting the largest study of its kind, involving more than 2,200 cancer patients, his results showed that there was no association at all between marijuana smoking and an increased risk of cancer. None at all, even amongst the heaviest smokers. Actually, their findings showed that smoking marijuana seemed to actually *reduce* the risk of cancer.

      THC may be medicine - but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to have much therapeutic effect unless it's taken with the proper rituals, the one they use in drug culture (in other words, smoking it).

      The Institute of Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, AIDS Action Council, British Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Legislative Council for Older Americans, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Pharmacists Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, Colorado Nurses Association, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network, National Association of People with AIDS, National Nurses Society on Addictions, New Mexico Nurses Association, New York State Nurses Association, New England Journal of Medicine, Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, Florida Medical Association, and Virginia Nurses Association would all disagree with your statement.

    28. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you believe that rather than acknowledging and addressing each and every one of his specific points I should have just talked (written) at him?

      Perhaps you prefer the political styled rambling on with a few keywords dropped in so the reader doesn't realize that no point was actually refuted or answered in any way?

      Since he chose to make his point in outline form, I chose to do him the courtesy of answering similarly, point by point.

    29. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i call bull-poop on you, lady. despite your use of caps, you're quite wrong.

      from wiki:

      "THC has a LD50 (dose killing half of the research subjects) value of 1270 mg/kg (male rats) and 730 mg/kg (female rats) administered orally dissolved in sesame oil. The LD50 value for rats by inhalation of THC is 42 mg/kg of body weight."

      "off the scale"? nope. right there on the mg/kg scale

      THC is a component of marijuana, so please stop mixing your ALL CAPS statements with unrelated "proof".

      just because it hasn't been done or won't likely be done doesn't mean that it is impossible, dummy.

    30. Re:Cheap? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      So Anonymous Dumbass knows how to read Wikipedia, and so he learned the LD50 of THC in rats. Too bad he didn't do some basic math to figure out that he didn't debunk my argument at all. The LD50 for humans is thought to be much higher, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's the same. This would mean that a typical 80kg human would have to consume 3,340 milligrams of THC to have a 50% chance of dying. Let's do the math: a typical "hit" is around 50 mg (1/20 gram), and let's assume the user is smoking some high grade hashish containing 20% THC, thus yielding 10mg of THC per hit. It would take 334 hits from that pipe for the user to kill himself. This is laughable. Even a heavy marijuana smoker with a high tolerance would not be able to take more than 10-15, MAYBE 20 hits from that pipe without getting stoned as fuck and passing the fuck out. 334 hits would be fucking impossible.

      Marijuana has been smoked by humankind for literally thousands of years, yet we don't have a single documented case of ANYONE ever dying from it. Why do you think that is, genius? Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die from alcohol and tobacco every year. Shit, plenty of people die from caffeine, aspirin, tylenol, even water overdoses every year. Marijuana is literally one of the safest substances on the planet, and this is a scientific fact. Even the wikipedia article you cherry picked your quotes from acknowledges that there are NO documented deaths from cannabis use.

    31. Re:Cheap? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's the giggle fit while driving 35 mph on the expressway that gets you killed.

    32. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe that rather than acknowledging and addressing each and every one of his specific points I should have just talked (written) at him?

      Perhaps you prefer the political styled rambling on with a few keywords dropped in so the reader doesn't realize that no point was actually refuted or answered in any way?

      Since he chose to make his point in outline form, I chose to do him the courtesy of answering similarly, point by point.

      Honestly, the point-by-point rebuttal style reflects very poorly on the author. Do you need to arbitrarily pick portions of text and pretend they were written in a vacuum, without any context? This seems like a popular debate method on /., but I've always found it repulsive. To me it's just a beacon for the author's educational shortcomings. Maybe you could show a little self-respect and write an actual response, so the rest of us won't mistake you for a college dropout.

    33. Re:Cheap? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Literally ALL drugs are poisons.

      Not quite true. Many hallucinogens ( indole-ring alkaloids, IIRC ) have a level of toxicity so great that you reasonably couldn't consume enough to actually die from the physiological effects. I think this may also be true for THC. R
      That being said, you might have a negative mental health effects from consuming too much hallucinogens.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    34. Re:Cheap? by sjames · · Score: 1

      We don't know for sure if there is no fatal dose of LSD, but since 10 micrograms is an effective dose and as far as I know the record dose was 4g eaten by a 5 year old, it must have an incredible therapeutic index.

    35. Re:Cheap? by srussia · · Score: 1

      It is estimated that a human would have to consume the equivalent of 15 lbs of marijuana in 15 minutes in order to overdose, a feat which is clearly impossible.

      Two words: Joey Chestnut

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
  19. Not Surprising by Annwvyn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nicotine's affects on the mind and body have been known for quite some time, but that it can CLINICALLY help schizophrenics is a step forward for them (drugs tend to be testy with psych patients). Quite a few of our medicines come from plants, and nicotine in itself is not very harmful (I administer more dangerous drugs on the back of the ambulance). Just remember, it is the SMOKE AND ADDITIVES that cause the cancer and COPD... not the nicotine itself. Because it is tied to smoking nicotine has a bad stigma, but we have already refined it for medicinal purposes.

  20. Aha... by operagost · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now I know why President Obama smokes!

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Smoking by MrKaos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Also has vitamin C in it and is known to protect the little teddy bears from the bogey man at night.

    Plus, it's such an attractive look.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Smoking by Heed00 · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse smoking with nicotine -- the former is a delivery mechanism for the latter. One need not smoke to take nicotine -- they are not inextricably linked.

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    2. Re:Smoking by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse smoking with nicotine -- the former is a delivery mechanism for the latter. One need not smoke to take nicotine -- they are not inextricably linked.

      I know, you're right. My brother smokes - a lot - and he is schizophrenic now I know why he smokes so much - it sucks. Thing is he wants to stop (we all want him to stop) and so he tried using the nicotine patches.

      Now he smokes *and* wears nicotine patches.

      Did I say it sucks.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Smoking by Heed00 · · Score: 1

      An electronic cigarette http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ might be the solution for your brother. It mimics almost all of the actions of smoking -- it produces a vapour which is inhaled instead of smoke. I've used one since Jan. and dropped cigarettes completely the day I got it. I smoked about 20 a day for 20 years previous to Jan. Seriously, I got the e-cig and literally have not smoked any tobacco from the day it arrived.

      Might be something to look at for your brother if he wants/needs to stay on nicotine, but would like to avoid the inherent risks of inhaling smoke. They are not without controversy as we are talking about a product which threatens big tobacco as well as big pharma. I won't go into that here as you can research it yourself, but if you got to the forum I linked to you can find pretty much all the information there and judge for yourself. All I can say is that I dropped tobacco in a day and feel much better for it.

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    4. Re:Smoking by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear!! Have your brother try a couple different models of ecigarette to find the one he likes. My favorite model is the one with the disposable atomizer, as it delivers a thick/substantial cloud of vapor. They're sold in the U.S. at vapor4life.com or you can get them cheaper, directly from the chinese manufacturer at cigdealer.com. $31, shipped, for the starter kit. $6 for 5 cartridges that each hold about 1/2 packs worth of nicotine, but can be refilled many times using liquid refills from a supplier like Johnson Creek or Wet Your Stick. In the end, though, different smokers like different models of eCigarette, and different recipes of 'juice', so a little experimentation (although it can be kinda pricey for the starter kits) is worth it to find the model/supplier he likes.

      DISCLAIMER: I do not work for, and have no relationship (besides a customer) with any of the above businesses. I am very enthusiastic about this though because of how enjoyable, and cheap, it was for me to cut the tobacco out of my nicotine habit.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:Smoking by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      An electronic cigarette

      Ok thanks, I'll check it out!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Smoking by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, gotta say though I've seen your sig a couple of times it's hilarious.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  22. ATTENTION: Schizophrenics! by SeNtM · · Score: 1

    The government is not controlling your mind by adding flouride to your water, its the cigarettes!

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
  23. Sin tax? by scorp1us · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So now the government is heavily taxing a medication for a specific condition. Do you think they'll repeal these taxes, or just continue to tax wht is now medication? From what I know medications are tax-free. So now I have to get a prescription to smoke? Where do I get my cigarettes tax free?

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  24. as far as cheap delivery methods go by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i wonder why there's never been a tobacco tea?

    i know tobacco is a stew of horrible glycosides, alkaloids, and other plant poisons (which of course, is all nicotine really is: its just the plant saying "stop eating me!"), and boiling tobacco in water might deliver far less nicotine and far more bitter tasting horrible for you glycoalkaloids

    but still, there's got to be a cheap natural way to get nicotine without getting lung cancer and without forking over lots of money to pharmaceutical companies

    lots of other nightshades have nicotine:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae

    but nightshade has uh... other "slightly" more hardcore chemicals, heh

    what a poisonous aggressive plant family, damn these guys are deadly

    tobacco even naturally concentrates polonium and lead... seriously, i think this plant is trying to kill us folks

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Radioactive_carcinogens

    Radioactive carcinogens
    In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263-0.036 pCi (0.97-1.33 mBq),[35] which is equivalent to about 0.1 pCi per milligram of smoke (4 mBq/mg); or about 0.81 pCi of lead 210 per gram of dry condensed smoke (30 Bq/kg).
    Research by NCAR radiochemist Ed Martell determined that radioactive compounds in cigarette smoke are deposited in "hot spots" where bronchial tubes branch. Since tar from cigarette smoke is resistant to dissolving in lung fluid, the radioactive compounds have a great deal of time to undergo radioactive decay before being cleared by natural processes. Indoors, these radioactive compounds linger in secondhand smoke, and therefore greater exposure occurs when these radioactive compounds are inhaled during normal breathing, which is deeper and longer than when inhaling cigarettes. Damage to the protective epithelial tissue from smoking only increases the prolonged retention of insoluble polonium 210 compounds produced from burning tobacco. Martell estimated that a carcinogenic radiation dose of 80-100 rads is delivered the lung tissue of most smokers who die of lung cancer.[36]
    The view that polonium 210 is responsible for many cases of cancer in tobacco smokers is disputed by at least one researcher.[37][38]

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:as far as cheap delivery methods go by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is a powerful poison. It is pretty difficult to poison yourself (acutely) with cigs because you'd start puking and be unable to continue smoking fast enough. A tea, on the other hand, would allow the user to brew two or three or four bags at once, drink it, and die.

      Also, tobacco is a terrible thing to swallow. Ask anyone who uses chew about their first time using it- I can almost guarantee that they swallowed, and then puked.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    2. Re:as far as cheap delivery methods go by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      That magic way for smokers to get their nic without most of the nasties is Electronic Cigs. It's still a bit ugly, but we expect pure chemically synthesized nicotine mixed with pure propylene glycol to be an easy to find option soon, as suppliers wise up the the tetchyness of being caught between small Chinese suppliers and the FDA.

    3. Re:as far as cheap delivery methods go by istartedi · · Score: 1

      wonder why there's never been a tobacco tea?

      Because it would taste like an ashtray? OK, maybe not like an ahstray; but if it was any good I think it would have been done by now. People have smoked tea believe it or not, and it's said to give a "nasty caffeine buzz" if done properly; but since caffeine isn't known for its rush, smoking doesn't make sense for that drug. Come to think of it, there are a few herbs that are smoked, but most are made into a tea of some kind.

      I guess the bottom line is, if quick delivery enhances the expeience, and if its practical, people will smoke it.

      Thus, cocaine has smokeable forms, but LSD doesn't... at least not as far as I'm aware.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:as far as cheap delivery methods go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever accidentally swallowed dip spit or chaw spit? Ever accidentally vomited from it?
      Yeah...tobacco juice causes nausea, is the problem.

  25. Yeah, but did they smoke it afterwards? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    And if they did, did he inhale?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Yeah, but did they smoke it afterwards? by Dustie · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if they did, did he inhale?

      I'm pretty sure it was her that 'inhaled' but you never know!

  26. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was this research conducted by Marlboro by chance?

  27. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was told years ago that smoking helps relieve schizophrenic symptoms (and schizophrenic affect), reduces incidence of hallucinations, etc. I've definitely noticed my "normal" pack-a-day skyrocket to near constant chainsmoking when i haven't had insurance and been off my meds. Shrinks have been aware of this for some time.

  28. Schizophrenics patients need to smoke now? by BillFixer · · Score: 1

    Does this means, patients suffer from Schizophrenics need to spoke, or intake doses of Nicotine? haha interesting!

  29. dont need smokers tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are many countries with universally available health care that do not rely on the taxes collected from smokers to cover. generally the health costs of covering smokers while they die slowly from emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with expensive medications exceeds that obtained from the sale of tobacco.

    almost nobody at the many universities ive encountered studying mathematics at a phd level smokes cigarettes. a smaller proportion of professional mathematicians smoke than the incidence of smoking in the general population.

  30. I thought this was old news by goffster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many schizophrenics are chain smokers, because for many of them,
    the demons hold their tongue for the duration of the cig, and a few minutes after

  31. FWIW by mindbrane · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Schizophrenia isn't very well defined and, to further complicate things, there are diagnoses that couple schizophrenia with other disorders that, in turn, aren't well defined. Two current, prevalent theories, not necessarily at odds, suggest on one hand that schizophrenia is tied directly into the dopamine system, and, OTOH, that schizophrenia is a disorder arising from the brain's architecture. The first theory usually involves medications that dampen the dopamine system but that have, literally, potentially killer, side effects. The idea that schizophrenia is tied to the brain's architecture is broad and incorporates ideas that there are genetic, congenial causes for schizophrenia that can be exacerbated by environmental factors, such as physical, or, emotional insult or forms of neglect. Concurrent with the second view is that the small, inter neurons that connect long range disparate neural pathways don't function up to par in schizophrenics. Smoking cigarettes is prevalent among schizophrenics but given the lack of consensus as to what constitutes schizophrenia it's unlikely that a link between the effects of nicotine and schizophrenic symptoms is rigorous or robust. Nicotine and caffeine both seem to be disproportionatley favoured by certain types of uni students. I doubt there's any significant representation of schizophrenia among said population of students.

    The positive symptoms of schizophrenia are those the public is most likely to bring to mind when envisioning schizophrenics, these include auditory hallucinations and paranoid behaviour. It's these symptoms that seem to be most amenable to treatment with drugs that act on the dopamine system. The second set of the disease's symptoms are termed negative symptoms and include social isolation and degrees of depression. These secondary symptoms currently have few effective treatments. My best guess would be that nicotine and smoking, (the ritual and anachronistic, Freudian, oral pleasure) treat the secondary symptoms.

    FWIW I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic with a uni education and a plus 160 IQ. I've been diagnosed as schizophrenic, schizo-affective, and, possibly not schizophrenic at all; but my favourite diagnosis came from a neuropsychiatrist, who, upon learning that I had begun studies of epistemology at age 17, said: "People who study epistemology... (long pause)... I don't know... (head shaking)... I just don't know." My case seems to be the more interesting because I recognized my symptoms and sought medical attention, and, while suffering the full range of symptoms, was able to deal with them as symptoms of a disease and not as in any way defining who I am or considering them as causes of action. John Nash, he of "A Beautiful Mind" escaped the symptoms of his schizophrenia when he learned not to argue with his voices. The most debilitating aspect of schizophrenia is that people seem not to understand that it's a brain based disease and that the mind, as put by a neuroscientist, is just the brain doing it's job. More high functioning schizophrenics are able to get on with their lives because schizophrenia is now known to be a a disease no different than any other and the symptoms can be detected, marked, treated, minimized, and, over time, all but disregarded in day to day life.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  32. Let's get the hate on!!! by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    If you want something to hate, then I will refer you to my journal about how sugar should be outlawed. I do suspect most people to be hypocrites on the subject however; the people who want tobacco banned or heavily taxed probably don't want the same for sugar because they are sugar abusers.

  33. Is this correct in fact? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I've been told, and I have no proof, that in fact nicotine withdrawal reduces brain function, and getting the fix just restores normality. Nicotine causes permanent changes in the brain.

    This is an argument against Intelligent Design: for God to design a plant to do that, he would have to be malicious. That, or work for the tobacco industry.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Is this correct in fact? by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure I follow the logic. God also designed rocks, and they can inhibit brain function when applied to the brain in certain ways also. Is the fact that humans aren't indestructible proof that God doesn't exist?

    2. Re:Is this correct in fact? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Point. Whether it's God or just Dumb Ol' Mother Nature who did it, it looks like nicotine was intended to be a pesticide.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    3. Re:Is this correct in fact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing proves God exists.

      Nothing proves God doesn't exist.

      At least until we find the Babel Fish in which case we'll disprove God by proving God.

  34. Cosmo covers neuroscience? by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    Cool! Do they have an article called "The top 10 moves to make your mice scream in ecstasy", or "Things your lab rats don't want you to know (but secretly wish you did)"?

  35. mod parent up by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    as is the problem with most potent drugs in difficult to manage delivery forms, its hard to calibrate the right dose that exists somewhere between intended effect, and death

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  36. Snus by Spit · · Score: 1

    If you like tobacco and nicotene, but don't like smoking or spitting, I recommend snus. Get the real deal from Sweden.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  37. Family history of nicotine intake? by DeadboltX · · Score: 0, Troll

    It would be interesting if they could draw a link between schizophrenia and long-term family history of smoking. If ones ancestors were physically addicted to nicotine then perhaps it could manifest in children after a few generations.

  38. Nicotine benefits without the harmful smoke by ami.one · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Electronic Cigarettes (more accurately -Personal Vaporizer or PV) simply vaporize a nicotine solution to avoid the harmful effects of smoke and its 8000 chemicals.

    I was on a pack a day for 15 years and in a month of starting 'vaping' i have gone to zero analog cigarettes without missing my nic kick.

    Checkout Wikipedia for basic info or ecig-forum for detailed info.

    These look like normal cigarettes, have rechargeable batteries with convenient cartridges or refilling BUT it does takes a week or two to get everything right,so be careful of which model etc you choose. Ask me for advise if in doubt.

    Incidentally, FDA is trying to ban them for some of the most stupid reasons

    AND - I am not associated with any seller etc. so its not a plug. Just trying to help !

    1. Re:Nicotine benefits without the harmful smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Nicotine is ritalin for adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been clear for many years -- nicotine improves cognitive function in a lot of people.

    So, the FDA must be charged with the 10s of millions of deaths due to smoking, as they have prevented use of nicotine as a medicine.

  40. Caffeine Anyone? by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a cousin diagnosed as schizophrenic. He's 33 and lives at home with no ability to maintain a simple job.

    Now, prior to being diagnosed a few years back, he self-medicated with both cigarettes and alcohol. I wonder - if nicotene is a stimulant - wouldn't a few Red Bull cans or even Ritalin do the same job? I figure I'm ADAD, and I love my caffeine. I don't really care for smoking though I can see its benefits. (It has its drawbacks also, as my two-pack/day father passed away at the early age of 67.)

  41. I am on the patch. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    I have been for almost 5 weeks. Where I live (British Columbia, Canada) buying the patch costs me just slightly less that half what my pack a day habit cost me. So I am saving $ and feeling better. Any schizophrenics out there, just head to your local drug store and pick up the patch.
    One unexpected bonus is that I have never been able to remember dreams. But since I started on the patch I have had some of the most amazing dreams, and I remember them when I wake up.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  42. Using Nicotine as Medication by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

    I use on and off - Nicotine gums, to improve my alertness and fatigue at times.

    I discovered that as long you don't cross a certain threshold - I will not get addicted, and spiral out of control.

    This comes from someone who used to be incredibly addicted to Nicotine gum / patches - it was living hell.

    Now for about 1 year, I've been chew nicotine gums on and off - in very small amounts (maximum 4mg in one day) as needed.

    If by any chance I feel it is getting out of control, then I just go cold-turkey for about 2 weeks.

    I do not know how harmful this is - or if it is any worse than caffeine, or my medically prescribed amphetamine and Ritalin.

  43. A Vaporizer... by benow · · Score: 1

    ... works great for tobacco. Especially pipe tobacco, nutty, vanilla, etc.

  44. Research? by interploy · · Score: 1

    So... They want to find a non-addictive treatment for a condition the patient will have to treat for the rest of his life? Am I the only one who sees that as ridiculous? Why not just get a prescription for a nicotine patch and be done with it?

    1. Re:Research? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      +1 Raw Truth

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  45. L-dopa /Schizophrenia/smoking by teleny · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What I'd heard (some years ago) was that cigarettes helped to soften the blow of phenothiazine-based drugs (Thorazine, Stelazine, etc.) that are commonly given to schizophrenics. These drugs work by removing L-dopa from the brain, and depressing the forebrain, thus making the subject more tractable and easy to deal with in institutional situations (the so-called chemical straitjacket, lobotomy in a pill, etc.) Marketed to doctors as "insulin for schizophrenics", they, indeed seem to work for a while: the subject becomes peaceful, and nearly unemotional, easily suggestible, and with few thoughts of their own. Higher cognition becomes more difficult: it's not unusual for someone on these drugs to go from, say, playing classical piano to watching, with interest, "Dancing with the Stars".

    However, a few months later, side effects usually begin to occur: tics and twitches, a ravenous appetite, which coupled with the disinclination to move, quickly produces extreme obesity (and ironically Type 2 diabetes), and a pernicious apathy that slowly extends itself to jobs, appearance, other people and life itself. Worse, trying to get off these drugs means that psychotic symptoms reoccur, even worse than before, as the body's L-dopa production often has increased to unnatural levels. While it's true that some patients can function, and sometimes quite well, under these circumstances, the truth is that most of them do not, and the simple equation Psychotic - (L-dopa) = Normal simply does not hold up.

    What nicotine, and to some extent, alcohol does is to increase L-dopa to a slight degree, but not as much as simply going without the drugs, and it does so fairly quickly. Part of the problem with the neuroleptics is that brain hormone production and consumption varies from moment to moment -- what would be "too much", say, waiting for a bus, would be "not enough" dancing at a lively party, brainstorming a new product, or trying to organize housework.

    Without getting all Tom Cruise on you, I don't think that they're using the right angle.

    --
    teleny, friend of cats.
  46. Except they can't really kill it, can they? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Except that lobby can't really kill it, short of forbidding tobacco, can they? And we both know that outright forbidding nicotine won't happen any time soon.

    So realistically, whoever objects to the patented cure, will always still have the option to light a cigarette instead. Or just to get a nicotine patch. I mean, it's not like an anti-smoking lobby will be that easy to use to forbid patches marketed as means to stop smoking.

    I would imagine that would put an upper limit on the patented version's cost. Precisely because there'll always be the real nicotine as competition out there.

    But even if it doesn't cap the price, the important fact still remains: the real nicotine isn't going anywhere.

    Ditto for the "available now" part. It's not like anyone's stopping you from going to the pharmacy and getting a box of nicotine patches, or nicotine chewing gum, or whatever, if you want to self-medicate right away.

    The only thing that's going to happen is that someone will research an alternative that does less harm. Maybe they'll succeed and make a profit. Maybe not. But it's not going to mean the end of life as we know it or anything.

    Really, I don't see a "big evil pharma is going to kill nicotine" threat there. That jack is already out of the box. They're going to research an alternative. And if you don't like their alternative, you'll still be able to medicate yourself the old fashioned way until you lose a leg or a lung or whatever.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Except they can't really kill it, can they? by sjames · · Score: 1

      They may not kill it, but they and the mothers of prevention will do their damndest to make it as expensive and difficult as they can. The tax already runs well over 300% and there's active lobbying to raise it!

      Meanwhile, in the U.S. the FDA wants to kill any form of tobacco that's not grandfathered in already by calling various attempts to make a safe alternative to cigarettes a 'medical device'

  47. That so? by Desiderius · · Score: 1

    Nicotine Improves Brain Function In Schizophrenics

    We're glad to hear it!

  48. Interesting by stuntpope · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Years ago I had a girlfriend who rarely smoked. She started having episodes of severe depression with hospitalization, with diagnoses including personality disorder and I believe schizophrenia. During these times she would smoke nearly non-stop. Self-medicating?

  49. smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    many schizophrenics smoke cannabis as well... cannabis is extremely varied in effect.... but by the logic used by many 'doctors' nicotine might increase the risk of developing schizophrenia !!

  50. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one said smoking didnt have some benefits, but it doesn't outway the negatives. X and LSD increase some people ability to function sexually and for longer periods of time, doesn't mean you should take them. Drinking helps some people focus and be more creative, doesn't mean you should take them. Like all drugs the human body gets a higher benefit in the beginning, but over time and use the benefit drops, so do the advanges and the negitives began to rise up.

  51. This certainly explains a lot... by RonMcMahon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My sister has schizophrenia and her smoking has increased dramatically since the onset of the disease a decade ago. She is pretty much a chain-smoker now...this effect of nicotine helps to explain why she would be dedicating so much time, effort and the majority of her money to this gross practice (yellow fingers and all). With this knowledge I'm going to see what can be prescribed for her (such as a patch or nicotine gum) to help get her the aid of the drug without the cost or health risks of a cigarette-based delivery mechanism. Thanks to the poster for sharing this news!

  52. Mental hospital culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who think there's some mystery to why schizophrenics smoke clearly have not spent any time in mental hospitals. You get allowed outside into a dingy yard for a smoke break every two hours. It's one of the few pleasures and there is damn little else to do. I didn't pick up smoking, but if I was there on a regular basis, I probably would have.

  53. overheard from the back seat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suck, honey, suck...blow is just a figure of speech

  54. Nicotine cigaretes by BBird · · Score: 1

    I quit smoking cigarettes years ago. I smoke a small cigar after dinner and 2-3 snus tobacco during the day. Thats all the nicotine i need.

  55. Great Idea Einstein!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Yeah, lets ban Cigarette smoking and Smokeless tobacco in the millitary. Yeah so all the schizophrenics in the millitary who were normalized because of it can go all ape shit insane when they no longer have their smokes....... Well done Hero....

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  56. may have had an early pint; don't tear me down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imo, schizophrenia is more of a description of the product of (prolonged) social circumstance than it is of any predetermined mental condition. imo, most psychological categorizations follow this rule.

    i can't rule out, however, that i'm a psycho in denial. harmless tho.

  57. Could be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the only thing to do in a ward, save for walking around in a circle, is to smoke. The only time you are allowed outside is to smoke. The only other time you can really socialize with people who are not strapped down? Smoking. The only time you can muster up enough will to think through the medication clouding your thoughts like a wet blanket wrapped around your mind? Smoking.

    My ex went into the hospital for suicidal depression and left with two habbits: Smoking and Benzos... And lost her ability to do therapy, as she only believed in "quick fixes"... Which led into her drug habbit. Ironically, they keep the rehab patients in with the normal patients, so when she is dumped by the drug dealer she left me for, she might end up going back to get sober...

  58. The Robert Downey Jr. Game by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

    You should watch those Comedy Central roasts. The truth does come out. Apparently Denis Leary went to a gay college in high school. Mr. Tough Crowd Colin Quinn knows what's up. The two of them were roommates.

    We worshipped Denis Leary as kids. Why not, he was a badass. Dice Clay too, sad to say. Hey, is that a pink shirt on Weird Al Yankovic? Yeah, we liked him too.

    Oh my God, is that Weird Al Yankovic with Jack Black? He's not gay at all.

    Which is good, cuz I think I've seen Jack Black with Robert Morton Downey Jr. Robert Jr. is a great actor, one of the best. But you ever wonder why he had so much difficulty with coke and strippers a few years back?

    He had difficulty liking it.

    1. Re:The Robert Downey Jr. Game by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about?

    2. Re:The Robert Downey Jr. Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, where are my mod points today???! +1 insightful...

  59. Numbers, and Not (Just) Nicotine by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    This is the subject that started my research career. Got some good references below (full references are available in the mentioned PDF).

    Anything that has an effect on living organisms has the potential for incurring both positive and negative effects. We just have to find the way to make things happen the way we want them to. That's been the basis of pharmacology since its origin of trying to systematically determine what it is about material from one organism that has effects on another.

    There's 5,000 chemical components in a cigarette, another 10,000 in the smoke from one. We understand about 1% of those 15,000. I was fortunate enough to do my dissertation examining the effects of some of those. It was part of the project that got its results mentioned in "Thank You For Smoking" ('We just found that smoking can offset Parkinson's Disease.')

    Here's some words and numbers relevant to (and predating) TFA. The whole thing can be downloaded as a PDF from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05062002-134953/unrestricted/McClainFurmanskiAmend.pdf

    =====

    Some clinical populations use tobacco significantly more than non-clinical
    populations. Whereas 24% of the general population smokes, 70% of schizophrenics
    smoke (Adler et al., 1998), as do 42% of persons with attention deficit disorder (Lambert
    & Hartsough, 1998). Both of these disorders are frequently associated with deficiencies
    in ignoring or gating extraneous information. These persons, as well as many smokers
    (Edwards et al., 1985; Gilbert, 1994; Kassel, 1997), report that smoking improves their
    ability to concentrate and focus their attention. Nicotine may serve as an ameliorative for
    cognitive decline in Alzheimerâ(TM)s (for review, see Rezvani & Levin, 2001). Thus, tobacco
    smoking may serve a neurotherapeutic role in some groups or individuals.

    Several epidemiological studies suggest that tobacco smokers contract
    Parkinsonâ(TM)s disease at a rate of only 25% of that of non-smokers (e.g., Morens et al.,
    1995). This may be due to the chronically inhibited monoamine oxidase (MAO) levels in
    smokers (Fowler et al., 1996; Fowler et al., 1998). Despite negative connotations due to
    harmful effects of smoking, tobacco remains a potentially important source of beneficial
    pharmaceuticals.

    [And a bit later...]

    The majority of studies which have investigated sensory gating deficits in
    schizophrenics, who often report accompanying difficulty in attentional processing and
    the blocking out of extraneous information or stimuli, use ratio or subtraction scores to
    determine degree of sensory gating and assume that differences are due to gating out
    mechanisms. Smoking normalizes the deficit in P50 reduction in these patients and
    decreases their negative symptoms (Adler et al., 1993). It is theorized that this is due to
    dopaminergic activity (Lyon, 1999). After reviewing this literature, DeBruin et al. (2001)
    point out that these sensory gating deficits observed in schizophrenics may be due to
    decreased S1 (gating in) rather than decreased S2 (gating out) amplitudes.

    =====

    The 'gating' referred to is an EEG measure similar to the startle response. Both are inhibited more or less according to an individual's make up, by a stimulus that preceeds the startling one by half a second or so. The effect is very pronounced in schizophrenics. It is also pronounced in about half the non-symptomatic first degree relatives of schizophrenics. While TFA is correct regarding nicotinic/cholonergic effects (as noted in my dissertation) it is not the only chemical at work, and the results may be better explained as an interaction of the effects of nicotine and other psychoactive substances.

    The substance of our interest wasn't nicotine, it was trimethyl naphthoquinone. It was up to me to show that something other than tobacco was activ

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  60. eating it too is bad by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Eat a dozen cigs and you will die.

    So , dont start cooking a pack of cigs into that banana cake as a gift to that person you dont like.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  61. Not alone anymore by bobvious · · Score: 1
    Ahh, this explains those voices since I quit smoking.

    (no it doesn't!)