

The Nicotine Fix - benbreen
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/11/the-nicotine-fix/382666/?single_page=true

======
duckingtest
The problem is not tobacco or nicotine, it's smoke.

Nicotine alone isn't really addictive and yields almost no reward [0], which
is why nicotine replacement therapies are so useless [1]. It's only addictive
due to other substances, majorly MAO inhibitors. However, these same MAOIs
protect tobacco users against Parkinson's disease [2]. Given all that, along
with mild caffeine-like effect from nicotine, smokeless tobacco (including
tobacco extract eliquids) is probably beneficial. Banning tobacco in general
would be very bad.

[0]
[http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full)
[1]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12429/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12429/abstract)
[2]
[http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full)

~~~
jspiral
I used to be a smoker. I was at about a pack and a half a day, inhaling
deeply. Smoke first thing after waking up in the morning, agony on
international flights, that sort of thing. Very addicted, a couple failed quit
attempts.

I switched my addiction to nicotine lozenges, and now prefer them to
cigarettes. I don't really like cigarettes anymore, never crave them, and the
couple of times i've tried smoking one in the last few years have just
confirmed that.

When I run out I feel pretty bad and eventually go get more. I would say i'm
now very addicted to the lozenges.

How would you interpret my story? I'll read the links but it sounds like
you've already done your homework.

~~~
duckingtest
>When I run out I feel pretty bad and eventually go get more.

The same applies to caffeine. It's a very mild, short-term physical addiction.
Nicotine replacement probably helped a bit, but I think you would be
successful even without them.

I like nicotine too, for short term effects.

------
bko
I've always suspected that the reduction in smoking rates was due to primarily
people finding out that smoking was harmful and people valuing their health
more rather than the taxes imposed. The Per Capita Cigarette Consumption chart
seems to affirm this as large federal taxes were imposed in mid-2000s, well
after the decline has begun (although taxes were imposed earlier than that).

In New York, cigarette prices are well above $10 which seems very high to me,
especially considering that the average smoker tends to be in a lower income
demographic. I'm surprised I don't often hear the argument that cigarette
taxes are ineffective in curbing consumption but actually act as a regressive
tax on the marginal members of society. I also find it perplexing that FDA is
considering stricter regulation on menthol cigarettes in particular. Don't
know if it has anything to do with demographic that tends to smoke them. Seems
very targeted to me.

The saddest part of high cigarette taxes is that it encourages a lot of low
income New Yorkers to enter the black market (e.g. Eric Garner, a Staten
Island resident killed by police when confronted about selling illegal untaxed
cigarettes).

Menthol Cigarettes: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/health/fda-takes-steps-
tow...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/health/fda-takes-steps-toward-
ruling-on-menthol-cigarettes.html)

Allen Garner: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/nyregion/eric-garner-
state...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/nyregion/eric-garner-staten-
island-police-chokehold-case-to-go-to-grand-jury.html)

------
mikestew
As a smokeless tobacco user (common brands include Skoal and Copenhagen, if
you don't know what I'm talking about), I found this paragraph most useful:

 _" It’s true that smokeless tobacco is not entirely safe, but even products
high in nitrosamines—an element believed to be highly carcinogenic—present a
much lower risk than smoking. In the case of newer low-nitrosamine smokeless
products, research suggests that the risk is no more than 10 percent that of
cigarette smoking, and possibly much less. If smokers substituted one of these
products for cigarettes—assuming they would not quit otherwise—their health
gain would be immense."_

I have spent considerable time trying to track down actual data on the dangers
of smokeless tobacco beyond the government-mandated scare messages ("...not a
safe alternative to cigarettes." Yeah, but how much "not safe"?) What are the
dangers? Is nicotine the problem? Other chemicals?

Also interesting, regarding snus: _" Yet <Swedish males> smoking rate is very
low, and extensive research has found little evidence that sustained use of
snus causes any serious health problems, including cancer."_

I haven't finished the whole article yet, but those two paragraphs alone
answer questions I've left unanswered for years. Those kinds of informative
articles are why I continue to subscribe to the _The Atlantic_ despite a dip
in editorial quality in recent years.

