Negatine effects of Nicotine

[Kate]

You might find some research links in this Kaston:

Estimating the health consequences of replacing cigarettes with nicotine inhalers - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1747720&blobtype=pdf

 

[Kaston]

You might find some research links in this Kaston:

Estimating the health consequences of replacing cigarettes with nicotine inhalers - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1747720&blobtype=pdf

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you Kate! This was exactly what I was looking for!

 

[Kate]

I had a quick look at it and it is a projection rather than fact but there may be applicable research links there that I didn't see.

 

[keys]

Excellent article. Its conclusion is right on. The benefits outweigh ecig restriction, hands down.

 

[Kaston]

Quotes from a scientific study

• nicotine itself seems to be relatively safe
• habitual medicinal nicotine use might expose the user to a lifetime mortal risk of only 1 in 10,000 (very low compared to smoking)
• delivering nicotine without other smoke constituents should significantly reduce harms to current smokers
• nicotine probably accounts for much less than a third of smokers’ risk
• On average, eight nicotine users may be healthier than one smoker and seven non-smokers
• The benefits of a clean nicotine inhaler that displaces cigarettes might be larger than this analysis predicts
• consumers should know of nicotine’s potential immunosuppressive
  effects
• high probability that nicotine permanently affects fetal brain development
• Nicotine might impair quality of life or productivity by altering growth and function of the nervous system, with consequences potentially including depression, anxiety or addiction
• Although a number of animal studies suggest negative health consequences for nicotine consumption, others seem to exonerate nicotine as a major cause of cardiopulmonary and other diseases.

 

[Kaston]

I read the whole study and those where the highlights that I pulled out. Good stuff Kate!

 

[Kate]

That's a projection, a guess, not a study, be careful about giving it too much credibility.

What does that mean anyway, 'eight nicotine users may be healthier than one smoker and seven non-smokers'?

 

[Frankie]

What does that mean anyway, 'eight nicotine users may be healthier than one smoker and seven non-smokers'?

It means we should pick our friends very carefully to fall in the right group

 

[Kate]

Those seven non-smokers won't be too happy with the smoker in their midst.

 

[Kaston]

That's a projection, a guess, not a study, be careful about giving it too much credibility.

What does that mean anyway, 'eight nicotine users may be healthier than one smoker and seven non-smokers'?

I only know this from my many many psychology & stats classes in college.

Basically if you have 2 groups of 8 people, one group of all e-smokers, and another group comprised of 7 non-smokers and one smoker, having that one smoker in the non-smoker group brings their health average down so much that the e-smokers are healthier on average.

Another way of looking at it: one smoker is so unhealthy that it would take more than 8 people in perfect health to bring that one smoker's average health up.

Does that help?

 

[TropicalBob]

While the United States hasn't yet addressed the safety and efficacy of e-smoking, other governments and health agencies have and they always counter us with this:

You have approved, legal, safe alternatives to cigarette smoking with nicotine replacement therapy products already on the market.

That point was driven home in this study in the summary box about what this study adds to our knowledge:

Pharmaceutical grade nicotine replacement products are far safer than tobacco products, while novel tobacco products have uncertain risk profiles.

The important words are Pharmaceutical grade nicotine replacement products.

E-smoking is not in that league. Not at all pharmaceutical, with all that implies and assures. Instead, we use unregulated, poisonous liquid made by companies we don't inspect, selling plastic vials or glass containers without labels, ingredient lists, warnings or child protection. Our devices have one real purpose: Deliver an addictive chemical to an addict, with the possibility of addicting non-smokers by a new delivery method of a substance said as addictive as ...... or ........ It's not a natural plant like tobacco. It's a chemically obtained drug. Nicotine doesn't exist in the wild. It's not natural.

Anyone who thinks we'll just take a high road to eternal e-smoking is smoking something besides PG and nic. Approvals won't come easily, if at all.

 

[Kaston]

Nicotine doesn't exist in the wild. It's not natural.

Please elaborate Bob? It is common knowledge that nicotine comes from "Nicotiana species, commonly referred to as tobacco plants, are cultivated and grown to produce tobacco" (wikipedia) Native Americans have been smoking it for hundreds of years.

 

[Kaston]

...we use unregulated, poisonous liquid made by companies we don't inspect, selling plastic vials or glass containers without labels, ingredient lists, warnings or child protection...

Hey Steve, I would like your 2 cents on this. He is correct and brings up a valid point.

 

[Kimmiegrif]

Kat, I am coming in late to this discussion but as I read it I am not sure what you are looking for.

You can do searches on nicotine on the internet.

Are you trying to "arm" yourself with the facts of vaping? Or are you just doing research on the chemical "nicotine?

I sense that we aren't getting where you are coming from..or I am just dense! You wounldn't be the first to think that...lol...

 

[Kimmiegrif]

Frankie, good observation...makes sense to me...

 

[EonBlue]

It'll be a sad day when that awesome free market individualist feeling I get from e-smokin' is trampled by big pharma's regulation stamp. Oh brother.

 

[Kate]

I only know this from my many many psychology & stats classes in college.

Basically if you have 2 groups of 8 people, one group of all e-smokers, and another group comprised of 7 non-smokers and one smoker, having that one smoker in the non-smoker group brings their health average down so much that the e-smokers are healthier on average.

Another way of looking at it: one smoker is so unhealthy that it would take more than 8 people in perfect health to bring that one smoker's average health up.

Does that help?

That does help, thanks.

I see it that the healthiest people would still be the non-smokers, then the nicotine replacement people and most unhealthy the smokers.

As TBob points out the health benefits are only projected for pharmaceutical grade 'medicine' rather than our dodgy mixture of chemicals.

When production of liquid nicotine is taken over by pharma. companies they will reduce the available doses too, there is no way we will get concentrations above 8-10mg per ml in my opinion.

 

[TropicalBob]

Kaston, on the suppliers thread, there have been posts from Pillbox and Rustylug about a fuss with officials. It's a good read. A very pertinent part of the official objection to selling existing carts is this:

You did ask why cigarettes and other products containing tobacco do not have to be CHIP classified. I believe the answer is set out in the aforementioned ‘manual of decisions’ on page 23. Tobacco is a naturally occurring substance and doesn’t have to be classified but substances which are produced by chemical modification of naturally occurring products or are separated from them by physical processing can be caught if they are classified as dangerous – which nicotine is.

That's what I meant by my earlier comment on nicotine. That's a very easy to understand statement on why nicotine inhalation differs from smoking a tobacco product.

 

[SuperStack]

It'll be a sad day when that awesome free market individualist feeling I get from e-smokin' is trampled by big pharma's regulation stamp. Oh brother.

Yes, I think big pharma is the threat to e-smoking period. Even if relatively safe, they could easily put out a scary/bogus "study" proving otherwise in order to protect profits for their own NRT products. Money always has the final say sadly, not principal, not health - or otherwise a ton of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs would have never made it to market.

And being that they buy politicians, well... the outcome may not be good if e-smoking really catches on. Right now it's still relatively fringe which explains why not many care yet.

 

[Kaston]

Kat, I am coming in late to this discussion but as I read it I am not sure what you are looking for.

You can do searches on nicotine on the internet.

Are you trying to "arm" yourself with the facts of vaping? Or are you just doing research on the chemical "nicotine?

I sense that we aren't getting where you are coming from..or I am just dense! You wounldn't be the first to think that...lol...

I use e-cigs and would like to for the rest of my life. I was just checking up to see if I could do that and still live a long life =)