New Nicotine Vaccine May Succeed Where Others Have Failed

Zothecula writes: If you're a smoker who's trying to quit, you may recall hearing about vaccines designed to cause the body's immune system to treat nicotine like a foreign invader, producing antibodies that trap and remove it before it's able to reach receptors in the brain. It's a fascinating idea, but according to scientists at California's Scripps Research Institute, a recent high-profile attempt had a major flaw. They claim to have overcome that problem (abstract), and are now developing a vaccine of their own that they believe should be more effective.

Comments

Why would you want this?

[russotto]

You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings. This sounds more like some sort of torture that an aid to quitting.

Re:Why would you want this?

[ColdWetDog]

Sounds like Neuromancer .....

More importantly, this should really get the anti vaccers in a major huffy.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually your body would adapt and you wouldn't have the cravings anymore. Then you would be back to normal, but if you ever pick up the habit again you won't get any benefit, so you will not get re-addicted.

Personally, I think that using this to quit, once you are already addicted, would be horrible. Eventually you would be ok, but it is effectively a cold-turkey approach, and the withdrawal symptoms will be terrible. It would be better to use this only after you have quit, or after you have managed to get your nicotine intake to an acceptable low, so that the withdrawal symptoms don't wreck you.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings. This sounds more like some sort of torture that an aid to quitting.

You will always be an addict. I quit smoking over 3 years ago, and I'm still addicted.
After trying various ways of quitting, I ended up talking to a doctor and got Champix prescribed to be, which ended up helping a lot and making it possible for me to quit. When I did quit, the days I suffered the most were when my body was flushing the nicotine out. For this part, a vaccine like this would have been wonderful. Instead of having cramps and throwing up for 2 days (yes, this kind of abstinence syndrome can happen even with nicotine), and still suffering for several days afterwards, it would have made it much easier.

So yeah, I do wish this vaccine existed when I quit, 3 years ago, after smoking 2 packs/day for 20 years.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

Is that vaccine sponsored by the tobacco industry?

People would continue to smoke (if they can't stop on their own), they would just not get their "kick" out of it. The logical consequence of this would probably be that they will smoke more rather than less, to overpower the "cleaning" ability of the vaccine.

In the end, expect some deaths from nicotine overdose.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

Odd. I was a heavy smoker for about a decade (the equivalent of 30-60 cigs a day), until one day I suddenly noticed that I don't like the "taste" anymore. So I put it out. A few hours later I lighted another one, more out of habit than out of craving, only to get the same feeling again.

That's when I decided to put it down and see when I really WANT another one.

Didn't happen yet. The pack with the 2 remaining ones is still on my desk, though I guess after 2 years they'd probably taste a wee bit stale.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

There is nothing wrong about it. Different people will have different levels of addiction. My case, when you get opioid-like withdraw syndrome (cramps and throwing up) is on the opposite end of the spectrum. My case is certainly not the rule, but neither is yours. I don't doubt for a second what you are describing, because it is known to happen. However, it is far from the norm.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling. I don't have those numbers at hand, but they are so widespread that you shouldn't have trouble finding them, if they interest you.

But yeah, it seems that, regarding nicotine addiction, I've got the short end of the stick, and you've were extremely lucky.

Re:Why would you want this?

[pjbgravely]

I am still addicted but the thought of going back to being a 3rd class citizen keeps me from going back. I only have slight cravings when stress or needing to think clearer happens.

I was addicted to more than nicotine in cigarettes as nicotine replacement products only helped 1/2 my withdraw symptoms. Chantix got rid of my nausea, dizziness, and shaking. I only needed candy to get rid of the horrible taste in my mouth which only lasted 2 weeks. The memory problems took much longer but was worth it to not have to stand in the road.

Re:Why would you want this?

[quantumghost]

You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings. This sounds more like some sort of torture that an aid to quitting.

You will always be an addict. I quit smoking over 3 years ago, and I'm still addicted. After trying various ways of quitting, I ended up talking to a doctor and got Champix prescribed to be, which ended up helping a lot and making it possible for me to quit. When I did quit, the days I suffered the most were when my body was flushing the nicotine out. For this part, a vaccine like this would have been wonderful. Instead of having cramps and throwing up for 2 days (yes, this kind of abstinence syndrome can happen even with nicotine), and still suffering for several days afterwards, it would have made it much easier.

So yeah, I do wish this vaccine existed when I quit, 3 years ago, after smoking 2 packs/day for 20 years.

Some of what you say is very true, but you are wrong the withdraw will be bad, and I mean BAD with all capitals. I also foresee some more subtleties to this treatment....The idea is to uncouple the reward mechanism from the stimulus (nicotine hits receptors and triggers a dopamine surge which is perceived as a reward) - no reward, you stop associating smoking with pleasure. Straightforward. The immune system should be capable of removing most of the nicotine and preventing any large response. So what can go wrong....well you're dealing with humans. So....

1. The withdraw will be swift and the worse possible cold-turkey (which, short of using medication is the best way to quit). You will not get relief with patch, gum, smoking, snuff, hanging out with other smokers to get a second hand hit, or chewing on a raw tobacco plant, etc. You might get some relief with buproprione (considered a mild dopamine re-uptake inhibitor, but some controversy there) and probably more relief with varenicline(Chantix(tm)) (which is a weak nicotine agonist). This withdraw may feed into #2. It is also conceivable that some people could hurt themselves by trying to smoke so much to get even a little relief, that they could wind up in the hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning or acute exacerbation of underlying pulmonary disease. The vaccine will reduce the reward, but will do nothing for the craving.

2. The effects of the vaccine may require boosters. So you would be required to go back to get them, otherwise you would likely loose the immune response and would again get a "reward" for smoking. This could lead to avoidance of the vaccine and relapse.

3. The tobacco industry will probably fight this tooth and nail. It won't be overt....no, they'll buy a few select individuals who will tank it via the FDA.

Re:Why would you want this?

[ArmoredDragon]

The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling.

What I find even more strange is how many people I've known who knew full well that it was bad prior to even starting, and then started anyways. I've asked them why they did that, and the answers range from "it's so that you have something to do when you're with your friends" to "well I figured it would be good for me so long as I used a natural brand." (By natural, they mean those packs you can buy on the Indian reservations that are supposedly grown and made locally by the natives.)

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

Some of what you say is very true, but you are wrong the withdraw will be bad, and I mean BAD with all capitals.

While I do grant that the withdraw will rarely be that BAD, it can be. Not only it happened to me, but there are other documented cases around, including some sort of scale for the level of addiction a given person has (mine was the highest).

But yeah, most cases won't be this bad, just like most cases won't be as simple as what happens to some people, that just quit and no big deal.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling.

What I find even more strange is how many people I've known who knew full well that it was bad prior to even starting, and then started anyways. I've asked them why they did that, and the answers range from "it's so that you have something to do when you're with your friends" to "well I figured it would be good for me so long as I used a natural brand." (By natural, they mean those packs you can buy on the Indian reservations that are supposedly grown and made locally by the natives.)

You are absolutely correct. Even when I started smoking (1991-92), it was already a stupid decision. I knew all the problems. In my case, I was depressed at the time, and maybe (not sure) in a self destructive mood. I knew how stupid I was acting, but did it anyway.

It is scary how many people still make apologies for smoking, or say that this or that isn't "that bad" or "bad at all".

Re:Why would you want this?

[ArmoredDragon]

By the time they smoked that much nicotine, they'd have long since died from an acute but sudden onset of emphysema like symptoms.

The immune system is going to be rendering the nicotine inert, so the first step would be having so much of it that you somehow managed to overcome the immune system entirely.

Re: Why would you want this?

[GWBasic]

Just switch to e-cigarettes or snus

Re:Why would you want this?

[CohibaVancouver]

You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings.

Yes, but eventually the cravings would be greatly reduced.

If I dropped a chain-smoker on a desert island for a year with everything they needed, but without any cigarettes, their first month would be hellish, but by the end of the year most of the nicotine cravings would be gone.

Re:Why would you want this?

[bluefoxlucid]

Nicotine isn't very addictive. Non-nicotine cigarettes create heavy cravings. The solution to smoking is cognitive behavioral therapy targeting the oral fixation; restricted environment sensation therapy helps a bunch, too.

Re:Why would you want this?

[jeffmflanagan]

>You will always be an addict. I quit smoking over 3 years ago, and I'm still addicted.

No you won't. It just seems that way because it's only been 3 years. I broke my 1-2 pack a day addiction about 15 years ago, and have been at the point where I can have one or two without getting out of control for about a decade. I don't anymore, since smoking is disgusting and makes you reek.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

Then it turns out that nicotine use was self-medication and now you can't use any of a new class of drugs being developed that are all based on nicotine. OOPS

Nicotine has been far too politicized. It is practically impossible to find proper research. Most of it conflates smoking and nicotine use. Most of the really nasty effects of smoking are from the many other things in cigarettes, not the nicotine. There is evidence that that includes much of the the addiction. Practically everyone who has switched to e-cigarettes has noticed this. Even though the e-cig is giving you as much or even more nicotine than the cigarette, it somehow doesn't get rid of all the craving at first. There is a definite 3 day to two week period before the user is comfortably on the e-cig. A while after that, most users find that they want the e-cig but not in the urgent way they used to crave a smoke break. Many, if not most, choose to reduce the nicotine level in their ecig even if their intent was never to quit nicotine.

A leading theory is that the harmaline (an MAO inhibitor) found in cigarette smoke is responsible. It potentiates the addictive effect.

Once the tar, particulates, carbon monoxide, and most of the nitrosamines are eliminated from the delivery mechanism, nicotine use is much more benign and for some people, even beneficial.

All of this would be much better known if nicotine wasn't such a political bogeyman.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Z00L00K]

Better would be a vaccine that makes you feel really like shit when encountering nicotine.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

I do not doubt you either, I know people how have a hard time quitting. But I just can't let that "nicotine is as addictive as heroin" statement stand there. For two reasons. One, because there's people like me who can get very easily off it. And two, there are people like me who might think "hey, if heroin is just as easy to shake off, why not try it?"

I'm too old to fall for that, but... if I was like 25 years younger, maybe I'd be stupid enough.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the impression these press releases give of medical research. They paint a picture as if the only problems are overcoming known technical issues, and incremental advances are being made.

The reality couldn't be further from that. In reality there is a major crisis with only 1%-25% of findings being reproducible, no one can come up with a priori predictions regarding anything, and most people doing the research think a p-value is the 1 minus the probability their theory is false. The truth is that future generations are going to have to redo everything from at least 1980 onwards, as it's totally unreliable.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

People always know that drugs are bad for them. Do you think there is still one single heroin junkie who didn't know that heroin is going to kill them when they started taking it?

People don't care about this when they start reaching for drugs. If we really wanted to prevent drug abuse we should first and foremost ask why people reach for them. It sure as hell ain't that they don't know what they're doing. They know what they're doing. They know full well what they're doing. A friend of mine is working in Russia with addicts (as a nurse) and you don't even WANT to know what kind of shit they pump into their body. It literally rots them from the inside. And I mean literally. And they DO know that this WILL happen. Not that there is the danger, or there is a chance. They KNOW that it WILL happen and still they do it.

If you want to fight drugs, start at the reason instead of the drug.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

Actually, I didn't make that statement. I made a statement saying that the withdraw can be opioid-like, and another saying that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in existence. Let me clarify both, then.

The addictive level of a substance is not measured about how easy it is to quit, but about how easy it is to get addicted. I have no doubts quitting heroin is much harder.

Also, when I talk about withdraw being opioid-like, I'm speaking about it being possible (not mandatory or even the rule) to present with symptoms associated with opioid withdraw. Specifically crams and throwing up. However, while those symptoms are frequent and stronger with opioid, they still can happen, even if more rarely and in a milder form, for nicotine.

Another important thing to notice, in a more general way, is that "easier" is a very relative term. It is easier to survive being shot in the chest than being shot in the head. Doesn't mean you should feel safe in either case, or that either case is EASY.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Penguinisto]

Dude - this is nicotine, not heroin or meth.

Going cold-turkey on cigarettes is nothing more than an annoyance for most folks who do so. This vaccine only means that once your body is rid of the cravings (anywhere from 3 days to a month), you won't want to return to it, since doing so wouldn't give you what you were seeking when you did fall off the wagon, so to speak. After a year, you don't want to bother anyway - at worst you'll occasionally dream of lighting one up, but then feel perhaps a little guilty about the dream in the morning.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Princeofcups]

All of this would be much better known if nicotine wasn't such a political bogeyman.

Denial does not change reality. Nicotine is in the top three most addictive substance we know. It effects dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, and nor-epenphrine. It is well studied, and not politicised, except for people and corporations denying the scientific evidence.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

You seem to be in denial yourself. You have conflated the effect of nicotine delivered as cigarette smoke with the MAOI for the effects of just nicotine.

All of those claims for nicotine having devastating cardiovascular effects are actually the other components of cigarette smoke having devastating effects.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Sable Drakon]

You've never smoked in your life, have you? Or if you did, the doseage was so long and spaced out enough that it didn't wreck you personally. For many others out there it's a debilitating experience. It's why I've encouraged any of the people I know that want to quit to take up vaping as substitute. At least from there, they've got more control over the process and can step down gradually without taking the excessively barbaric cold-turkey approach.

Re:Why would you want this?

[dj245]

Then it turns out that nicotine use was self-medication and now you can't use any of a new class of drugs being developed that are all based on nicotine. OOPS

Nicotine has been far too politicized. It is practically impossible to find proper research. Most of it conflates smoking and nicotine use. Most of the really nasty effects of smoking are from the many other things in cigarettes, not the nicotine. There is evidence that that includes much of the the addiction. Practically everyone who has switched to e-cigarettes has noticed this. Even though the e-cig is giving you as much or even more nicotine than the cigarette, it somehow doesn't get rid of all the craving at first. There is a definite 3 day to two week period before the user is comfortably on the e-cig. A while after that, most users find that they want the e-cig but not in the urgent way they used to crave a smoke break. Many, if not most, choose to reduce the nicotine level in their ecig even if their intent was never to quit nicotine.

A leading theory is that the harmaline (an MAO inhibitor) found in cigarette smoke is responsible. It potentiates the addictive effect.

Once the tar, particulates, carbon monoxide, and most of the nitrosamines are eliminated from the delivery mechanism, nicotine use is much more benign and for some people, even beneficial.

All of this would be much better known if nicotine wasn't such a political bogeyman.

Some of the nasty products of combustion may be contributing also. Vaporizing marijuana has a very different compared to smoking (burning) it. When marijuana is burned, Carbon dioxide, Carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene and naphthalene are produced. Some of these (or a combination thereof) contribute highly to the "couch lock" effect, which different users either prefer or dislike. When you vaporize marijuana, these compounds are not produced- a "couch lock" state is substantially more difficult to achieve with vaporizing marijuana, and therefore the effects of vaporizing/smoking marijuana are markedly different.

I am not a tobacco user myself but it could be that many of the tobacco combustion products contribute to the pleasure of smoking tobacco.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

Yes. And I HIGHLY advise not clicking on any links that relates to this. Goatse links are tasteful compared to the crap you get to see.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

That varies a lot. Some people go with crazy strong ejuice with a PV that resembles a fog machine and still have that initial transition difficulty.

But certainly, over time people generally settle on significantly less nicotine than they were comfortable with when they smoked. Often to the point where withdrawal effects become minimal to unnoticed.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

The CDC is a very political organization. Google is your friend here. First look up "schizophrenia nicotine" There are far too many hits to post here.

Next up, search on "nicotine MAOI". Again, far too many hits to post here.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

In general, nicotine probably isn't all sunshine and lolipops. Smoking is much worse. But it seems that the vaccine approach is probably not a good way to stop smoking. It may or may not affect a great many valuable drugs coming down the pipe. It certainly won't be pleasant for the patient (all that craving, no way to answer it).

Nicotine replacement isn't ideal, but it has the advantage of working without introducing new risks. It seems that in many cases, a less structured long term approach causes eventual reduction or cessation while short programmed steps result in a return to cigarettes. It also allows those who are unknowingly self-medicating to continue doing so.

The tumor enhancing effect of angiogenesis is troubling but at the same time, that would benefit a coronary artery blockage.

It may be that nicotine in the absence of smoking is worth it.

Re:Why would you want this?

[ClintJaysiyel]

Physical nicotine withdrawl ends after 72 hours. You won't be an addict any more than Bill Clinton is a sex "addict". That is, it's only the post-political-conscription definition of addict. The original medical definition of addict would not apply after 72 hours.

Re:Why would you want this?

[pjbgravely]

Nicotine is considered more addicting than cocaine.

Re:Why would you want this?

[ArmoredDragon]

Drugs I can see on some level because they make you feel really good when you use them.

Cigarettes however don't really have that going for them. In fact from what I understand, the first time somebody smokes is rather painful.

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

I also feel that nicotine actually helps me clear my head and refocus, however that can be just part of an old habit.

Actually, there is evidence that you are right on that point.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

Yes, like many psychoactive substances that are not immediately harmful if you take them in moderate doses and in a pure, unspoiled form.

But since it seems to be more interesting for our governments to make such a thing a wet dream all you get is badly adulterated crap, usually either made in a less than sane way because it is impossible to get the necessary chemicals (and I'm not even talking about "controlled" stuff. Try, just TRY to get LAH, I dare you!) or blended with some toxic crap.

Re:Why would you want this?

[AK Marc]

Smoking is considered more addicting than cocaine. there is a difference.

Heroine vaccine?

[monkeyzoo]

Is this applicable to other drugs as well?
I'm intrigued by the idea, but doesn't this sound like a way to just make an addicted person have an insatiable craving? I mean, it doesn't get rid of the root causes and the urge to take the drug. It just prevents the drug from working, leading to no reduction in the withdrawal symptoms.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[Opportunist]

This is fine until you get terminal cancer and are in a REAL lot of pain, and then you find out that morphine won't do jack for you...

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[Firethorn]

Is this applicable to other drugs as well?

Well, there's Naltrexone, which prevents you from getting 'high' from alcohol or opioids. But you have to go in for a monthly shot for that.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[omnichad]

That's horribly sexist.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[bluefoxlucid]

We already have opium antagonists.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[sjames]

A person who got a heroine vaccine would be in for a world of suffering if they ever needed pain medication.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[Gilgaron]

I don't know the details of the various sizes of the active components of these drugs, but if they are too small to cross link the arms of an antibody then you can't make a vaccine against them. At least, not unless they commonly crosslink with something in the body that you don't mind nuking alongside them.

Re:Heroine vaccine?

[omnichad]

heroine vaccine

Or needed a special woman to come save the day.

Required vaccine?

[crow]

Assuming this is effective, should it be added to the required list of vaccines for attending school? Imagine if it were impossible for anyone to become addicted to nicotine in the first place. The smoking rate would drop to essentially zero.

What if China required it for everyone?

This has the possibility to completely destroy the tobacco industry.

Re:Required vaccine?

[gatfirls]

Your thought process is scary at a minimum. It does give some insight into how horrible ideas take root once you demonize something/someone though.

Re:Required vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody who enjoys smoking is an addict, believe it or not. Some people just enjoy an occasional smoke. I'm one of them.

That said, I might agree that a "vaccine" for nicotine could get enough people to quit to kill "big tobacco". I'd argue that this would be a good thing for those of us who enjoy smoking, not a bad thing.

Re:Required vaccine?

[corychristison]

Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.

Won't somebody please think of the children!

Re:Required vaccine?

[dugancent]

But hey dont listen to me...

Will do.

Re:Required vaccine?

[StikyPad]

Yeah! I wish people would stop demonizing things like the measels!

Re:Required vaccine?

[crow]

That's the problem with becoming dependant on a behavior that you want to prevent.

The same issue comes up with self-driving cars. What do you do about all the lost ticket revenue when you stop having traffic violations? How do police react when they lose the ability to use a traffic stop as an excuse to find drugs in cars?

How do you fund roads with a gas tax when cars become more fuel efficient and eventually switch to electricity (often generated at home with solar panels)?

Changes happen. Policies will adapt to reflect them.

Re:Required vaccine?

[gatfirls]

Well there's an angle I haven't seen before. What is alcohol then, like polio?

Re:Required vaccine?

[Firethorn]

Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.

The economics become complicated, doesn't it? The taxes from the industry pay for so much, even in the USA, to the point that I've heard of state budget crises as anti-smoking campaigns made serious headway. It became a vicious circle - they raised taxes to 'discourage smoking', enjoyed and became dependent upon the money coming in, then as total cigarettes sold dropped, they increased the taxes more to maintain revenue, which dropped cigarettes sold even more...

  In addition I remember reading that many tobacco smokers actually cost the government less. Because while dying from lung cancer isn't cheap, neither is most other deaths. About the cheapest is dropping from a heart attack or massive stroke, but smoking even increases that! They tend to happen at the end of a person's career, so you avoid having to pay out decades of pension benefits and healthcare expenses. It 'saves' a lot of money if the median case is you retire and drop dead a year later.

On the other hand, highly educated intellectual types tend to work even later in life, so if you're past a Bachelor's degree it might make sense for them to encourage you to not smoke...

Re:Required vaccine?

[ericloewe]

Not everybody who enjoys smoking is an addict, believe it or not. Some people just enjoy an occasional smoke. I'm one of them..

That what they all say. Doesn't make it true, though.

Re:Required vaccine?

[thegarbz]

We don't demonise things that people do to themselves providing you don't affect others (the war on drugs being the obvious and arguably wrong exception). The problem is that these actions tend to leak out from the private life and have a negative effect on the public.

Alcohol? Great as long as you don't drive, don't urinate in public or start a drunken brawl.
Drugs? Great as long as you don't end up sitting in the ER on public dollars, or don't go on a lunatic stabbing rampage.
Smoke is probably the worst of the lot in terms of the number of people it affects. It smells foul (opinion) and it's bad for your health just being in the same room or general vicinity as someone who's doing it (fact).

Someone said the other day "Your rights end where my rights start" and while they were stupidly enough talking about someone's legally protected right of free speech which requires things like proof of slander, in this case there really is a clean line. Why should my health and ability to breath nice smelling air be affected by someone else's self destructive habit?

Note that I'm not proposing mandatory vaccines, just legal safeguards to those people who don't want to put up with other people's second hand smoke. There's other ways to reduce smoking without affecting the consumer and in Australia in the past 10 years the smoking rate of 18 year olds has gone from 40% down to 15%.

We are already destroying the tabaco industry here to the point where they all banded together and tried to sue the government. No one shedded a tear.

Re:Required vaccine?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yeah! I wish people would stop demonizing things like the measels!

So do I. 50-odd cases in a year do not a massive healthcare crisis make.

Re:Required vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

How has that worked out for 'the war on drugs'?

I personally do not smoke. I do not care for it. Either for or against. What I do care for is the hostile attitude most people take upon themselves to regulate others around them. I do not tolerate bullies. That is not freedom. That is being a jackass.

The mental gymnastics some people will go thru to make it look like they 'are saving the world' is quite a sight to behold.

Why not just admit the *real* reason. You do not like the smoke smell. So you will do/say *anything* to get it away from you. A smoker will usually be quite nice about it too. "dude can you put that out I do not like the smell". If they dont you just found another jackass (they are not hard to find). You enjoy the power trip it gives you that you control the actions of someone else.

Re:Required vaccine?

[Z00L00K]

That's a pure myth - the health costs caused by the Tobacco and Alcohol exceeds the profit.

Re:Required vaccine?

[bluefoxlucid]

That's the problem with becoming dependant on a behavior that you want to prevent.

I keep arguing for a flat tax to fund a Citizen's Dividend; while the Universal Basic Income guys largely want carbon taxes or wealth taxes, so as to not tax the poor. I tell them, what do you do when there is no longer an enormous gap between rich and poor? Tax the rich even more? What do you do when we switch to nuclear solar power? Let the poor starve? My system fails if and only if the entire economy fails: it skims a bit off the top of all income, and it doesn't matter who is receiving that income or for what.

What do you do about all the lost ticket revenue when you stop having traffic violations? How do police react when they lose the ability to use a traffic stop as an excuse to find drugs in cars?

You stop doing those things and start being honest. I just went to a hearing to argue for the elimination of fines for wrong-way parking on one-lane, two-way, residential side streets. These are those roads with parking on both sides, where you pull off the road if another car approaches from the opposite direction. You do not cross oncoming traffic to park on the left; you are always driving in the lane which carries oncoming traffic. I outlined all of the safety issues caused by right-side parking, all of the legal-but-unsafe maneuvers encouraged by right-side-only parking, and all of the reasons why the safety issue of parking on the left side of the street does not apply to one-lane street; but, most of all, I pointed out that many families in these areas cannot afford a $32 fine (literally: I've had people indebted to me for $20 because they could not survive without it, scraping for months to get it back to me), and that this just gives imperative to learn to shoplift, deal drugs, or engage in prostitution.

Fines terrify poor people. Fines create poverty. Fines encourage crime. You instill fines in poor neighborhoods where you want to control severely-detrimental behaviors; imprisonment works on the upper classes, since fines are cheap. I still advocate beatings for petty crime, because I don't believe someone shoplifting a few cans of Campbell's Soup warrants 30-90 days in jail--which is practically a death sentence, since they come out thousands of dollars behind, fired from their job, evicted from their home, and with no hope of getting back on their feet. Cane them a few times and send them home. If they're desperately hungry, they're going to steal food no matter what you do, so lowering or raising the punishment bar isn't going to change anything; most college frat jackasses, however, will quickly realize they dislike ass whoopings more than they dislike not having DVDs, so there's no reason to go straight to destroying their lives over a $15 copy of Avengers and two cans of Pringles.

How do you fund roads with a gas tax when cars become more fuel efficient and eventually switch to electricity (often generated at home with solar panels)?

The electricity needed to power your car is nearly your home's entire electricity usage. You'd spend more on the charging array than you would on the car itself. I estimated $3.16 to charge a full 300 miles (my car runs 300 miles on a tank and gets filled 2-3 times per month), but some old man with a Tesla told me he pays about $4-$4.15 per full charge. (I use about 300-500kWh of electricity, and usually pay more in customer fees and transmission fees than I do for actual usage: $15/mo each for Electricity and Gas customer fee, plus as much for transmission as the cost of the actual electricity.)

It makes much more sense to take transit tax as income tax, really.

Re:Required vaccine?

[sjames]

Some of the most interesting new research in psychiatry is the positive effects of nicotine on sufferers of schizophrenia. It is one of the few thinghs that can treat the negative symptoms of the disease and it is the only one that has no nasty side effects (as long as the delivery mechanism isn't smoking).

The vaccine sounds like a really bad idea.

Re:Required vaccine?

[gatfirls]

Alcohol? Great as long as you don't drive, don't urinate in public or start a drunken brawl.
Drugs? Great as long as you don't end up sitting in the ER on public dollars, or don't go on a lunatic stabbing rampage.
Smoke is probably the worst of the lot in terms of the number of people it affects. It smells foul (opinion) and it's bad for your health just being in the same room or general vicinity as someone who's doing it (fact).

Did you type that with a straight face? The sociological and economic impact from alcohol and drug abuse is so massive and ubiquitous it's pretty much impossible to be quantified.

What you are saying is: "I'm ok with these things when I remove the horrific aspects of them, but not with smoking."

There's like a million arrests per year for DUI (just the people who get caught), but let's focus on that terrible smoker doing things that you don't like.

Re:Required vaccine?

[king neckbeard]

It doesn't make it false, either.

Re:Required vaccine?

[king neckbeard]

Except moderate alcohol use is better for your health (at least as an adult) than being a teetotaler, and we've got a pretty big body of evidence to support it.

Re:Required vaccine?

[king neckbeard]

What do you do about all the lost ticket revenue when you stop having traffic violations?

Downsize the department and let the cops that are let go do something productive.

How do police react when they lose the ability to use a traffic stop as an excuse to find drugs in cars?

Not harass as many people.

How do you fund roads with a gas tax when cars become more fuel efficient and eventually switch to electricity (often generated at home with solar panels)?

Use other taxes. Granted, all of these solutions may be poorly received by some people, but they are very clearly the correct answer to all of these questions.

Re:Required vaccine?

[dj245]

Your thought process is scary at a minimum. It does give some insight into how horrible ideas take root once you demonize something/someone though.

Like countries? Cuba, Iran, and the DPRK (North Korea) have been demonized a lot. None of those countries are going to fly away to another planet and conquering them militarily is just as unlikely. Waiting for them to change is just as pointless as waiting for a spouse to change. Diplomacy is the only option, but when it comes time to open up a dialog and fix relations, there is a never-ending parade of assholes who do everything they can to sabatoge the process. It isn't their fault though, they have been indoctrinated since birth by the media to hate XYZ country, and they lack the capacity to accept any solution less than "bombing the motherfuckers".

Re:Required vaccine?

[cas2000]

no, but 10000 cases because of all the fuckwit anti-vaxers would be.

because vaccines have been so successful, people have forgotten how deadly and devastating diseases like mumps, measles, rubella, polio, smallpox and many others *were* - note that past tense, they were major killers now they're almost non-existant. however, they'd make a comeback if people stopped vaccinating against them.

the idiot population focuses on self-serving fake research like Wakefield's "vaccination leads to autism" bullshit and on the one in a million that has a bad reaction to vaccines, whilst completely ignoring the millions who are prevented from being killed or cripppled or born deformed because of easily preventable diseases.

vaccinating against diseases serves a useful, life-saving, purpose. it works for those who are immunised and it also works for those who, for whatever reason, can't be vaccinated (or the vaccination didn't work - e.g. vaccines often don't work for transplant patients because of the drugs they have to take to suppress their immune systems to prevent rejection) because it reduces their risk of exposure.

otoh, vaccinating against drugs is just inflicting someone else's "morality" on people.

Re:Required vaccine?

[monkeyzoo]

Yes Yes Yes! =)

Don't forget flu vaccine though! People think of the flu as like a cold, but influenza is the eighth leading cause of death among all Americans!!!
It mostly kills older people (7th leading cause among them) and young people, who often are at high risk from the vaccine and can't take the vaccine!
The flu vaccine is a huge example of the need for herd immunity to protect these people. But no one thinks about their choice not to get a flu vaccine as literally being a matter of life and death for others in their community.

Yes, yes, yes... the vaccine's not perfect at prevention, doesn't always match the strains, some people don't think it works, some people say they "get the flu" from the vaccine (which is not accurate). But the fact is, it saves lives the more people get the flu vaccine every year.

And THAT'S, one to grow on. =)

References: http://freakonomics.com/2015/0...

Re:Required vaccine?

[ericloewe]

Since there isn't enough evidence to disprove H0: A.C. is deluded and is actually addicted, I won't reject it.

Re:Required vaccine?

[thegarbz]

You clearly didn't understand what I said.

People should be free to do what they want and we typically don't demonise them.
UNTIL they do something which has an effect on others in society. e.g. DUI.

If you want to drink yourself into misery, gamble away your life savings, and smoke yourself into a cancerous death then more power to you.

Just don't affect the people around you. That's the problem most smokers don't seem to get. Just because you like smoking doesn't mean everyone else in the restaurant should be subjected to it. Much like DUI. If you like being in a drunken stupor do it where no one else is affected by it.

I'm not focusing on a terrible smoker doing things I don't like. I'm focusing on a terrible smoker negatively affecting my health by being in their vicinity.

Re:Required vaccine?

[gatfirls]

You may be the stupidest registered user I have had to deal with.

Those headlights coming at you at 11PM might be a smoker, drunk person, or drug addict. Pick one.

Fight your tobacco cause you idiot, BTW a lot of really hardcore smokers are ex drug and alcohol users, tell those horrific people they should go back to alcohol and/or drugs because "ewww it stinks".

And someone modded you up? WTF?

Re:Required vaccine?

[thegarbz]

And someone modded you up? WTF?

Yeah because those other people understand English.

It's a tough gig calling someone stupid and then comparing 2 social adjectives to a physical impairment.

Go troll someone else asshat.

Nicotine is great!

[mveloso]

Nicotine is just like caffeine, except better. Why would you want a vaccine for it?

The only problem with nicotine is that the easiest way to get it is smoking. But now with vaping or gum it should be safer.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's addictive and raises BP via vasocontriction. No thanks.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's so terribly addictive. Why would anyone want to be addicted to something?
Nicotine withdrawals are some of the worst I've observed.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Zeromous]

Water is a pretty healthy addiction.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Opportunist]

Same for caffeine, you don't see people picketing Starbucks.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Opportunist]

I guess I'm one damn lucky SOB then. I didn't quit, I simply stopped smoking when it didn't "taste well" anymore. After over a decade of HEAVY smoking. No withdrawal, no craving, no nothing. The pack with the remaining sticks is still on the desk, ready to light them, though I'll probably throw them out soon, they sure ain't good anymore.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is just like caffeine, except better.

Yeah, that's also true of cocaine.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[dugancent]

I call them vapists.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[gothzilla]

It's not nearly as addicitive as it's been made out to be, and the chemical addiction only lasts a few days. A number of the other chemicals and toxins in cigarettes pile on top with additional addictions, so when someone tries to quit smoking they're fighting multiple battles. After the short chemical addition there is a psychological addiction though too because it is actually somewhat beneficial to your mind and you'll miss those benefits. It's used to help treat schitzophrenia and bi-polar disorders since it helps the person calm down, be more alert, and it helps with memory. Just do a search for "bi-polar nicotine" and you'll find a lot of sources of info.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[sjames]

Much of that addiction is due to MAO inhibitors you get along with the nicotine when you smoke.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[sjames]

Only if they are well trained little monkeys. The vapor doesn't tend to persist in the air like cigarette smoke does. It has none of the bad smell of cigarettes and very little nicotine is left on the exhale.

You sound like one of those people I used to use for my own amusement by holding an unlit cigarette just so I could watch you start coughing obnoxiously as a Pavlovian response.

Re:Nicotine is great!

[lister king of smeg]

coffee doesn't lead to impotence errectile disfunction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nicotine is great!

[Opportunist]

That's odd too. I do smell it now of course, but it's not revolting. I do enjoy the scent of a good cigar and I don't mind if someone is smoking next to me. I do want to wash my clothing soon, though, stale smoke is not really something I enjoy. But then again, it wasn't really something I enjoyed before either.

I did not turn into one of those fanatic anti-tobacco ex-smokers. My guess is this is due to me not wanting to smoke. IMO the main reason why so many of those that quit smoking become so vehemently anti-tobacco and anti-smoking is that they secretly (or not so secretly) do want to smoke and miss it, something that certainly gets stronger when they get to see and especially smell someone lighting a smoke.

I don't miss it. And hence I don't mind it when someone smokes.

Why not an antabuse style one?

[jpellino]

Rather than messing with your immune system?

Re:Why not an antabuse style one?

[ColdWetDog]

You like nausea, vomiting, cold chills and sweats?

Why not just go visit /b/?

Here's my problem with this

[popo]

For one, Nicotine (when smoked) passes the blood-brain barrier within seconds.

The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).

However, the half-life of nicotine is 1-2 hours, and the metabolites have a half life of up to 20 hours. So let's assume for a minute that the vaccine does have an effect on systemic nicotine 'at some point' over the course of it's metabolization. Okay, fine. But the nicotine still went 'straight upstairs' after that first puff. Which means the only effect I can conceive of here is that the smoker will need another cigarette more quickly.

Is that a good thing?

Of course, IANAD so please correct me if I've got something wrong.

Re:Here's my problem with this

[Firethorn]

The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).

Matter of fact, that's one of the 'problems' with developing the vaccine - ensuring the response is fast enough.

Still, think of nicotine like a bunch of runners on a football field. Unopposed most should be crossing the 100 yard field in just over 10 seconds. If that's not fast enough, we can put them at the 50.

Think of a vaccinated person as the football field is no longer empty, but has the defensive line on it. How many are going to be crossing the finish line?

Plus, the body will tend to take the antibodies(tacklers) all being 'busy' tackling as a sign it needs more tacklers, so next thing you know somebody who has been vaccinated but tries to keep smoking will have TWO defensive lines on it.

The fact that it moves fast doesn't mean that the antibodies, located in the bloodstream and brain themselves, wouldn't be busily reducing the amount of active chemical, and you need a certain amount to get the buzz.

Re:Here's my problem with this

[amicusNYCL]

The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).

Are you suggesting that their test results are incorrect?

Re:Here's my problem with this

[Gilgaron]

Antibodies bind pretty quickly, if the titer was strong enough it'd work. You'd only have to get some percent of it to be effective, anyhow.

what the vaccine actually do?

[slackoon]

from the article "Though a vaccine wouldn’t be a silver bullet—there would still be withdrawal symptoms—a person may be less motivated to relapse because the brain’s reward system could no longer react to nicotine"

so for all those being critical of this vaccine please keep in mind it's not supposed to "make you quit". It's more like it takes away your reason for doing it. Smokers will no longer get the good feelings from a cigarette so they will be more inclined to quit. If used as a vaccine they will be less likely to start again or start in the first place.

Re:what the vaccine actually do?

[gstoddart]

Well, if you walked up to a smoker and vaccinated them like this ... they would still be addicted, and have no way of alleviating that.

As an ex-smoker, had someone done that to me, I might have had to kill them

Quitting smoking is hard, is sucks, and it takes months if not years for the craving to go away. The smallest thing can make you go back to wanting one.

The ability to get nicotine from an alternate source than smoking is not something to be underestimated, and for many of us is the only way we can really quit.

I rank this about as good as locking someone in a room and waiting for the screaming to stop. It's simply doing nothing at all about the fact that your brain and body are still going "where is it? how about now? can we have some? what about now? Why isn't there any? How do we get some? WHY can't we have any?"

A smoker on forced cold turkey quitting is NOT a person you want to be around.

Re:what the vaccine actually do?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I've sometimes wondered whether the techniques used to produce vaccines against exogenous drugs could be modified to produce vaccines that suppress endogenous ones. If enforced nicotine withdrawl is unpleasant, I can only imagine that, say, losing the effect of endorphins might really ruin your day...

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[Anonymous Coward]

While were at it, we shouldn't support programs like weight watchers, or help people get started on exercise routines. Everyone should figure everything out for themselves without any outside aid whatsoever. Accepting help from other people or tools is a sign of weakness.

Can somebody clarify?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It is my (layman's) understanding that nicotine is not entirely harmless; but can also have some positive effects, and overall is considered a fairly low risk compound at suitable doses(it'll kill you good and proper in quantity).

Given that, why so much work trying relatively esoteric techniques for nicotine vaccines, or low-success behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, when the only real problem that is actually killing smokers right and left is the fact that they get their nicotine by huffing a grab bag of unpleasant incomplete combustion products?

Is it that there is something particularly compelling about cigarettes, such that even people with access to nicotine by other means still seek them out? Is it just an echo of drug warrior concern that somebody, somewhere, might be employing a psychoactive without suitable risk of death or imprisonment?

I don't get it.

Re:Can somebody clarify?

[bluefoxlucid]

Nicotine is one of the most toxic substances available to the average person. It makes you much more susceptible to various cancers, organ damage, neurological damage, and so on. Alcohol does the same when consumed in high quantities, but has almost no negative effects in moderate consumption.

Cigarettes also make you stink like shit.

Re:Can somebody clarify?

[sjames]

I think it's the latter.

In spite of evidence that ecigs and snus eliminate most if not all of the harmful effects of smoking, the American Lung Association has been strongly against them.

Re:Can somebody clarify?

[omnichad]

It makes you much more susceptible to various cancers, organ damage, neurological damage, and so on.

Everything but the nicotine in the delivery method does that.

Re:Can somebody clarify?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Makes more sense to target tars in the tobacco, than the nicotine.

Re:Can somebody clarify?

[bluefoxlucid]

No, the nicotine does that. Everything else just causes cancer.

Nicotine in cigarettes is the equivalent of flaying open your skin when you're sitting in raw sewage: there's all kinds of nasty shit in the sewage, but removing your biggest layer of defense is kind of a bad thing.

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[ljw1004]

Is there something wrong with me that I find this offensive?

Yes there is something wrong with you. You lack empathy and compassion.

(I'm not sure if you "chose" to lack these things or if they're a product of your upbringing, and so I don't know whether your logic would blame you for lacking them or not).

Spontaneous Quitting

[dorpus]

Substance addicts will often spontaneously quite their habit when the pain of continuing the habit becomes greater than the pain of quitting. A year ago, I had severe stomach pains and was hospitalized for 3 days. I figured the chewing tobacco was upsetting my stomach, so I went cold turkey. As it turned out, it had nothing to do with the tobacco -- it was intestinal colitis. Anyway, I'm off of nicotine permanently now.

Thorny issue

[Okian Warrior]

I find this offensive?

We're spending science mind power, money and time researching a way to make a drug that replaces a persons weakness of character and lack of willpower.

That is an excellent statement of the moral issues involved. Here are some more issues to consider:

Measles: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine that replaces a person's physical weakness.

(Is character and lack of willpower a learned trait, or conditioned by physical attributes? Should we force people into weight-watchers and exercise programs?)

Guns: Guns have a protection effect similar to vaccines. Even though the probability of being self-injured by a gun goes up if you own one(*), the aggregate total chance of death from all causes goes down for the neighborhood. It's a sort of "herd immunity" for crime.

(Is restricting guns better or worse for society in general, as measured by the mortality rate?)

Flu: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine who's purpose is largely to increase manufacturing productivity; ie - to keep you at work for an extra 5 days during the winter (**).

(Is it worth millions of people each spending $35 for a vaccine that's only partially effective?)

And note that everything mentioned is a probability, and that there is a probability of having a bad reaction to any individual shot. The probability is very low, but it's not zero.

(If the probability that the child will get the disease is lower than the probability that they will get a bad reaction, should we still force them to get vaccinated?)

What we have is a spectrum of efficacy weighed against the morality of forcing someone to do (or not do) something. The measles (and smallpox and polio) vaccine is on one end, while the Lyme vaccination is probably on the other.

Where do we draw the line with forcing people to do things? Is "living in society" a strong enough reason to go against someone's religious beliefs? Do the beliefs have to be religious to qualify for an exception?

Are we ready to ditch the doctrine of individual dissent, or must everyone bow to the wishes of society?

Where do we draw that line?

(*) Mostly due to suicide, and as has been pointed out, suicides will happen whether guns are available or not.

(**) Yes, the flu can kill and it's miserable to have, but the marketing is all about not losing work due to sick days. Go online and try to determine whether getting the flu shot is *effective* - you won't find studies, all you'll find is people saying "of course it is!". Science by authority, and all that.

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I find this offensive?

We're spending science mind power, money and time researching a way to make a drug that replaces a persons weakness of character and lack of willpower. If you want to stop smoking, just stop. Don't buy cigarettes.

I feel that our culture is sliding away from any concept of holding people personally responsible for their own choices. If a person smokes, overeats, under-exercises - those are their choices. They must be held accountable.

Aside from the crass pragmatists' "Well, I bet I can develop a drug that compensates for weakness of character and lack of willpower faster than most of the population can develop strength of character and lots of willpower..." Why does this bother you?

Is there evidence that people actually develop more willpower(rather than just smoking more) when these 'replacements' are available? If there isn't, surely reduction in smoking related mortality is a win regardless of willpower, and even if there is; exactly how many people of weak character are on the acceptable losses list?

On the more theoretical side, would you condemn a drug that was actually a general-purpose willpower simulant? That actually gave the person taking it all the changes associated with 'strong will' while it is in their system? Or would you consider that to be a great breakthrough, a drug that produces a highly valuable personality trait?

Stupid names

[Curunir_wolf]

Nicotine is not a disease, and this is not a vaccine. The only reason I can think of for calling a drug a "vaccine" is to be able to use the blanket immunitiy from law suits and prosecution that pharmaceutical companies get for vaccines.

Re:Stupid names

[choke]

You're correct. They are in fact innoculating against it. Vaccination is the introduction of virus with the hopeful consequence of innoculation.

Basically they are creating an allergy to nicotine. Why they aren't saying it that way is what is curious to me.

Re:Stupid names

[Curunir_wolf]

They're activating the immune system to attack nicotine. Sounds pretty vaccine-like to me.

It does (what, you expected me to read the summary before posting?). But there is nothing like a natural immunity to nicotine - in fact it works because it matches brain receptors that normally bind naturally to acetylcholine. It seems like a dangerous idea to mess around with a person's immune system that way. Autoimmune diseases are nasty, and many of them are deadly.

Re:Stupid names

[Gilgaron]

I only read the journal abstract but it appears you're using personal definitions for those terms if you don't think it fits.

Re:Stupid names

[Curunir_wolf]

I only read the journal abstract but it appears you're using personal definitions for those terms if you don't think it fits.

Well according to Wikipedia:

A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.

So this is not a vaccine, unless you use a really lose (personal) interpretation of that definition to make it fit.

Re:Stupid names

[Gilgaron]

Eh, I suppose I'm thinking more of a technical than layperson's definition. It isn't really a stretch to consider nicotine a toxin for the layperson's definition you cite, though.

You are at the other end of the spectrum.

[Anonymous Coward]

One important social problem that arises is that people with your physiological response (no or weak symptoms, no or weak cravings) cannot empathize with people at the other end of the spectrum. Many people in your group go around denying the reality of addiction, saying it is just a choice, as easy as choosing soup over salad for lunch, and that people who struggle with addiction are just whiny sops. This perception is factually false, unfair, and socially harmful. It can lead to the passing of laws, or making of policies, that do more harm than good.

Re:You are at the other end of the spectrum.

[Opportunist]

It's very easy to say that. And of course you are correct that nobody forces them to smoke, snort or shoot (well, provided nobody really forces them to).

But few people do it because life's so great. We're living in a world that puts an incredible lot of pressure on people, and a lot of them cannot handle that. One can now of course take the position of "endure it or perish", but this attitude got us where we're now.

Why do we have drug addicts? Why do we have alcohol addicts? Because people think it's awesome to be dependent on a substance? I mean, how finished with your life do you have to be to trade it for the brief kick of heroin and accept all those insane drawbacks just for the few minutes of bliss? Can you even imagine how fucked up someone's life has to be for him or her to consider this a good idea?

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[bluefoxlucid]

Abortion?

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[Anonymous Coward]

First, why are you asking me if you find it offensive?

Secondly, you obviously never had to deal with quitting something that's both addictive and became a habit (mentally and physically).

I have. Quitting is hard, and harder when people around you smoke. It's hard after a day at work and you're on your drive home and you always had a cigarette or three (depending on length of drive). I've tried to quit a couple times.. my longest had been 2 weeks until I went out with some friends and after quite a few drinks I needed one (I'd say want, but it was wayyyyy more than a want).

I've quit again. Sometime around Christmas this time... so I'm at about a month now. The desire to have one has now started to die down (it would come on fairly strong until just past 2 weeks of having quit).

So it's one of those, if you haven't been there you have no room to talk.

Recovering from the definition of addiction

[tjamme]

It seems that our views on addiction need to change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

That's great, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is in the top three most addictive substance we know.

You're still skimping out on the meat of the matter.

If nicotine, in itself, was so goddamned addictive... Nobody would smoke. We'd all slap on a patch, chew some gum, and that'd be that.

Except the patch fails for the majority of people who use it. Same with gum. Shit, vaping doesn't work for a great many people.

Nicotine, at the levels contained in cigarettes, ain't got nothing on the bajillion other chemicals contained in those little delicious sticks of death.

Denial

[uolamer]

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances, but as far as the damage caused from just nicotine vs smoking a cigarette there is a vast difference. While amazingly addictive the effects of the drug are not too different than caffeine in some aspects. I believe the bogeyman reference was to how many people assume nicotine causes cancer and all the things that cigarettes cause, where people who have done a little research know that is the tar, smoke and other chemicals not the nicotine. I am not saying nicotine is good for people by any means, but there isn't much of a comparison between it and smoking is all.

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Snakebites are a bit of an edge case: the production of antivenoms essentially involves inducing an immune response (in a convenient, usually large, animal) and then extracting and purifying the neutralizing protein produced. So, it is very much the case that you can prime an immune system to recognize and respond to venom.

The trouble is that snakes tend to (in the case of actually dangerous snakebites, a dry strike is just a couple of puncture wounds) introduce a substantial amount of venom into the wound, and the venoms frequently kill (or cause nasty localized tissue destruction, there are lots and lots of neat variations) substantially faster than the human immune system can synthesize the necessary counteragent, even if the person has prior exposure.

An antivenom has the advantage of being a relatively massive amount of the correct counteragent, ready to be injected into the bloodstream faster than you could synthesize it yourself.

For the less dangerous venoms, and the lower-volume strikes, acquired immunity is more useful.

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[Livius]

Accepting help from other people or tools

Tools like computers and websites and the Internet.

I don't like any of it. I don't smoke.

[jpellino]

But if you are trying to be cured of a habit, it might help, as it seems to for alcohol. Even someone willing to smoke is probably less willing to be in lots of pain.

Political Organization

[neoshroom]

"schizophrenia nicotine" 485,000 results

"schizophrenia government" 14,900,000 results

Google is your friend here.

This is probably a waste

[MagickalMyst]

The only way to defeat the "Nicodemon" is to starve it.

Vaccines, patches, e-cigs, etc. all feed the addiction. Sure, some people end up successfully quitting after using some of these products, but most people don't. I think that a big part of the problem is that people look for something outside of themselves to "make them quit", rather than accepting the responsibility to do it themselves.

If you want to quit, then simply quit. It is that easy. :)

Yes, you have to suffer through about 15-30 days of hell, but lots of cardiovascular exercise helps get it out of your system quicker.

In the end it is absolutely worth it 100%.

And quitting during a time of change - new house, new job, new school, etc. really helps, as a major change in life is an excellent opportunity to form new habits.

Do not let anyone tell you that it's too hard to quit. You can do it if you persist and understand that you need to starve the demon in order to succeed.

I am speaking from personal experience as a former heavy smoker. A puff off a cigarette now and I would likely end up violently puking my guts out.