Talk:Nicotine/Archive 1

Questionable description

I have removed the phrase "one of the most potent toxins known to man." "One of the most potent toxins known to man" accurately describes things such as VX (60ug/kg LD50 Rat) dioxin (20ug/kg LD50 Rat) or ricin (0.2mg cited as lethal dose for a person). "The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg can be a lethal dosage for adult human beings" - T. Callahan

Nicotine and cancer

From the article: It has long been thought that tar and other chemicals in tobacco were the main cause of cancer but recent studies showed that nicotine alone has carcinogenic properties by inhibiting the natural ability of the body to get rid of cells with significant genetic damage before they turn cancerous.

I'm curious to know if there are some references for this? Links to studies or news articles? This is news to me, but, that may just be the ignorance talking. Secondly, evn if it is true, this statement seems to imply that the carcinogenic effect of nicotine may be equivalent to tar and the other chemicals in tobacco. Is that true? If not, I'd like to propose the addition of more specifc, focused language to clear up the confusion. I look forward to the real scoop! --NightMonkey 07:17, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

The article says both that nicotine is carcinogenic and that it isn't. This should be cleared up. 130.65.26.28 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is suggested that keeping the acetylcholine receptors too active may lead to this consequence, and also that keeping them too dormant may result in conditions like Alzheimer's. --Thoric 17:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was it just me that noticed that the said statement directly contradicts the opening paragraph, where it states: It is not considered a carcinogen.... Maybe someone should change that. I myself, am not really qualified, as I don't know which is the truth. --Jimadilo (not a member presently) 14:58, 28 Jul 2005 (BST)

agreed. I actually found that comment, on its on line like that, to be quite disconcerting. Obviously for most people nicotine==cigarettes so maybe it was placed there to emphasize that it's not the nicotine itself that is carcinogen. Adidas 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

According the the MSDS of nicotine (CAS number 54-11-5) found at the Sigma Aldrich website, chronic exposure has been found to be mutagenic in several species of animals, including humans... Unless I am reading the sheet wrong. --Negaluke 17:48, 14 Feb 2006

I just read through the MSDS you're referring to, and the mutagenesis section you're referring to does not list results, indicating that the tests were inconclusive. Compare to the MSDS of a well-known mutagen, such as ethyl methanesulfonate (CAS 62-50-0), where results are given in that section. I've also seen a few PubMed papers where the absense of mutagenic properties in nicotine is expicitly stated, and I can try to find a few if you need more evidence. --Aramգուտանգ 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the opinion of this section, there is an article in one of my organic chemistry textbooks (Vollhardt & Schore, p.1123 3rd edition) entitled "Nicotine and Cancer". The introduction reads "The mechanism by which nicotine in cigarette smoke is converted into highly carciongenic species is gradually becoming more clearly understood." Does anyone know if this is outdated or if there is any evidence to back it up?

it is the most addictive substance to man. If you look at the relapse rate in quitters, it is higher than any other substance.

Quitting

As someone who has quit smoking less then 24 hours ago, and is now waiting for the patch to do something besides empty my wallet, I am heartened to hear that nicotine withdrawal typically lasts 48 to 72 hours. I am somewhat disturbed to read that symptoms can last for years, however -- anybody have any details?

I agree, this is confusing. The article states that "*Physical* (emphasis mine) withdrawal symptoms [...] may last for months or years, although they peak at around 48-72 hours, and generally cease after two to six weeks." The article focus on the physical effects of nicotine on the human body, not the psychological aspects. Yet I fail to find any reference to physical withdrawal symptoms lasting for more than 3 months. On the other hand as a smoker who quit for a year just to go back to a pack a day, I can guarantee you from experience that the psychological withdrawal symptoms could last for years. Adidas 23:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem with nomenclature here, because both can equally be described as "physical" (we're starting to unpick the chemistry underlying the long-term complications). The key thing is to distinguish between a "withdrawal syndrome", in which someone with a dependence on a drug will experience the effects described. However, there are long lasting changes to the motivation centres (the dopamine system mentioned in the article) of the brain, means that an ex-addict is at risk of relapse for decades after quitting. Be very clear - craving is not simply trying to avoid the negative withdrawal symptoms, and can be activated by a range of environmental cues. Confuseddave 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The box that nicotine patches came in also claimed in a fairly prominent warning that use may cause extremely vivid dreams. Since this doesn't occur with cigarettes (and nicotine is the only active ingredient in the patch), I am curious as to the cause. Any details on that? (I haven't actually slept yet, so I dunno if I will be affected -- I'd kind of like to, as I haven't remembered a single dream on waking in some twelve years or so; hopefully, it will be a goody)Tuf-Kat 05:45, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

YES! This happened to me with the very first night using the patch....Wild, super-charged, super-fast content. I likened it to what I've heard described as being on an acid trip! Subsequent nights were still vivid, but less "crazy". -- 69.239.104.23 21:03, 16 January 2006

The idea behind the nicotine patch is to deliver sufficient nicotine to your bloodstream to help alleviate physical withdrawal symptoms. You won't get the same spikes in your nicotine level that you get with cigarettes, but you shouldn't have major physical withdrawal symptoms. With the patch, the hardest part is getting over the habitual and psychological addiction of nicotine.

Most of the patch systems allow the user to step down around week 6, going from 21mg/day to 14mg/day to 7mg/day. Tapering the dose like this should allow for a smooth landing when you're done smoking and make physical withdrawal symptoms unlikely. Dreams are a relatively common side effect from the patch, at least from me. ElBenevolente 06:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nicotine is a stimulant, and like most stimulants it causes vidid dreams. Difference between smoking and patches? I'd say because patches are worn all night, the slow administration of nicotine through the patches continuously would have a constant stimulant effect, rather than peaks and troughs with cigarettes. Jarrod 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As a successful ex-smoker (successful in that I quit), I'm wondering why so many choose the patch rather than the gum. Nicotine gum worked exceptionally well for me. (Perhaps too well as now I'm addicted to the gum.) Nonetheless, nicotine gum helps not only with the primary addictive qualities of nicotine (physical nicotine addiction) but with the secondary qualities as well (habitual and psychological). Smoking isn't just about nicotine addiction, but about other psychological factors as well, such as oral fixation etc... Now, whenever I feel the urge that in the past would have made me go for a cigarette, I pop a piece of gum in my mouth and feel just as satisfied. I couldn't imagine having been able to quit smoking without the gum, and with only the patch. Why is the patch so popular compared to the gum? Loomis51 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's probably because it is not as satisfying as the gum. The satisfaction derived from the gum is both a positive and a negative. It's a positive in that it helps people get away from cigarettes. It's a negative in that it can be nearly as hard to quite the gum as it is to quit cigarettes. The patch does not provide the same level of satisfaction, so it may be easier to quit the patch than to quit the gum - provided the patch is sufficient to get you off the cigarettes in the first place.--RLent 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was a time when morphine tablets were prescribed as a cure for opium addiction. Looks to me like something very similar is now happening with nicotine re tobacco addiction. Laurel Bush 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Nicotine and its metabolites are gone after 72 hours without the drug. After 72 hours, the pangs of "withdrawals" are not physical, but rather psychological in nature. Certain "triggers" -- times when the smoker would routinely go for a cigarette-- cause a feeling of wanting a cigarette. This should not be mistaken for a physical withdrawal, because after 72 hours, and especially so after a week, there is no physical craving, but only a mental void. The mental craving, however, is extremely powerful because smoking at certain triggers has become completely ingrained in the smoker's life. Society and the media have convinced everyone-- smokers and non-smokers alike-- that nicotine addiction is primarily physical, and thus almost impossible to overcome. For this reason, smokers believe it's incredibly difficult to quit, and this fact alone is what makes it so difficult. To quit, the smoker should completely eliminate nicotine from the body, effectively surviving the physical withdrawal, and in the process eliminating the source of the withdrawal. From that point on, the struggle is only psychological, and if the quitter can get used to performing his normal activities and being around his regular peers without smoking, he'll be successful. After having quit for awhile, the ex-smoker will realize that the habit never brought pleasure or relaxation, as this article states; on the contrary, smokers smoke to get back to the place they were before they started. You start smoking to fit in or because you think it will relax you, you get hooked, it makes you feel more stressed by creating withdrawal, and there are only 2 ways to relieve that withdrawal-- smoke a cigarette OR go 3 days without one. Which SEEMS easier?

Adrenaline vs. Epinephrine

Where I'm receiving my education (in the US), the term "epinephrine" is used to the total exclusion of the use of "adrenaline." I assume the usage is different in different parts of the world. I was going to make a note that adrenaline is also known as epinephrine in the article, but that got me curious if there is any preferred or standardized usage for these on Wikipedia.--Jfurr1981 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Every country in the world except the US calls epinephrine adrenaline, and as a metaphor adrenaline is more popular even within the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline#Terminology

melting point possibly incorrect

I did some internet surfing on nicotine, and discovered that the melting point mentioned mostly was - 79 deg C, versus the 7.9 deg which is stated here. Can somebodye confirm this? Pieter1 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. MP of S(-) Nicotine (free base) is -79°C. The bitartate is 90°C, and the salicylate is 119°C. rmosler 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How is nicotine produced for the patchs and gum?

Do the patch and gum manufacturers extract it from tobacco or use some other method? Aaron McDaid 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Anyone got an answer? And does a lot of tobacco now on the market have reduced nicotine content? Laurel Bush 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Also, is the nicotine used in patches and gum being purchased from cigarette manufacturers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.21.79 (talk) 15:42:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Toxicology

"...while the likelihood of birth defects caused by nicotine is believed to be very small or nonexistent..."

Is there a citation available for that? If not, I think it should be removed.

NPOV??

66.68.34.110 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC) This article, while accurate in the facts that it does present, is obviously part of a crusade (my guess; it's an American author as well.) There could be a little more balance. Starting off with the first paragraph equating nicotine to one of the strongest toxins known to man is meant to be inflammatory. Take for instance, the following true statement: "Some forms of fluoride are used in high concentrations to kill rats and crop-eating insects." Put down that cigar and tooth brush! 66.68.34.110 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I do not smoke tobacco and am not a supporter of it. At this point I came to this article after reading the article on Marijuana (which I stumbled on after reading the rec. drugs article)...It seems as though the Marijuana article was written by somebody pro marijuana (which, once again is cool I myself smoke cannibus) and it debunks several bullshit studies that were done mainly by the government to give marijuana a bad rap. Now, we get to this article and it seems as though:

A. Whoever wrote this was very anti Nicotine or B. Nicotine is as dangerous as Cocaine and Heroin.

I know nothing about nicotine because I have never smoked but i'm interested in learning the truth about one of the most abused drugs in America...KroneMeltzer 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This apparently irrational disconnect seems very widespread among the "liberal counterculture" one might say (I'm not some ranting right winger BTW and rather a "liberal counterculture" person in some ways myself). Many people have this bizarre idea that somehow dope is entirely harmless and entirely wonderful whereas tobacco is the most evil thing in the world evar. It seems to be based on a received wisdom that "natural" things are Good and "unnatural" things are Bad- so dope is perceived as a natural product and therefore Good, whereas tobacco is an industrially farmed product marketed by EVIL CORPORATIONS so must be bad. Cutting through the propaganda and hysteria, it seems a priori most likely that deliberately inhaling significant quantities of any smoke (tobacco or dope) will be harmful and carcinogenic, while environmental levels of all smokes (tobacco, dope, joss-sticks, wood smoke from a fire, smoke from cooking) will probably cause very very minor levels of harm, far too low to measure or to be significant in health terms. It's worth bearing in mind that humans have been inhaling low level environmental smokes for all of history- from the fires in our huts, shelters and caves in which we dwell. As such one should start from a presumption that we're able to handle these low level pollutants. It's when you roll the stuff up and inhale it the problems start. Anyway, the paradigm is: marijuana good, tobacco bad, and trying to persuade a dope-addled anti-tobaccoist otherwise is a lost cause.82.71.30.178 10:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It could indeed turn out that maijuana smoke has the same carcinogenic effects as tobacco smoke. The trick would be to find the way to persuade the dope-addled anti-tobaccoists to stop smoking 20 joints a day, every day of the week.

Dry Weight

Does nicotine really compose 0.3 to 5 percent of the dry weight of tobacco? 5 percent seems like a lot; I feel like that's supposed to be 0.3 to 0.5. Could be wrong though. Chachilongbow 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It never cites anything so I've added a tag. Richard001 07:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this contradictory?

Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. <...>
This reaction is similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin and is another reason people keep smoking: to sustain high dopamine levels. 213.190.45.89 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't contradictory. MAO breaks down dopamine, keeping levels of dopamine low. Nicotine inhibits MAO, preventing it from breaking down dopamine, thereby causing levels of dopamine to rise.

Ben 17:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, but I just read this article again, and I too am puzzled by the mixed up message of the paragraph questioned here: In addition, nicotine increases dopamine levels in the reward circuits of the brain. Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. It is currently believed that nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of monoamine oxidase (MAO), but that other ingredients in inhaled tobacco smoke are believed to be responsible for this activity. In this way, it generates feelings of pleasure, similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin, thus causing the addiction associated with the need to sustain high dopamine levels.

So "nicotine increases dopamine levels". Yet, "nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of MAO" (which reduces dopamine, wherefore inhibiting it would increase dopamine.) So this paragraph says something about how inhaled tobacco smoke increases dopamine, but does not explain whether nicotine by itself does so, and how. This article is about nicotine, not tobacco, right?

Given that nicotine gum is useful for quitting tobacco, I suppose nicotine by itself must also increase dopamine, which is the cause for the addiction. But I am not sure, and it is contrary to what the paragraph states. Someone knowledgeable should clear this up.

This really needs to be fixed, I think. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Harmala alkaloids found in Nicotianas are responsible for the inhibition of monoamine oxidase. (Link) 68.103.233.87 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tobacco itself, smoked or whatever, inhibits MAOI, due to the aforementioned harmala alkaloids in the plant. NICOTINE, does NOT inhibit MAO -- however, it increases dopamine by another mechanism, downstream of the stimulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Tobacco provides both mechanisms. There are some studies (easily googled) indicating that reinforcement from nicotine becomes much stronger when combined with MAO inhibition. -- Solved Your Problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.105.237 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacokinetics

Was looking for the half-life of nicotine in the bloodstream; which I'd've thought was a fairly standard pharmacokinetic figure. Anyone got one?

Confuseddave 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Found one, I've added it and got a source. (Benowitcz, 1982)

According to me goverment must do something to prevent smoking and other form of tobaco. i just can't understand if is injurious to health than why goverment allow it?

Pharmacokinetics

Plz write something about nicotine sedative effect. I found some sources, but my poor English and lack of medical education prevent me from editing the article ^_^

81.222.33.83 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)sindzy

I added a reference supporting nicotine's stimulant/depressant duality. Just ordered the book today. -Tsanth 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

there should be a category linking all 2,000+ chemicals in cigarette smoke

there should be a category linking all 2,000 + chemicals in cigarette smoke.

It's not exactly what you are asking for, but you might take a look at this: List of additives in cigarettes. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

schizos smoke for another another chemical, not usually nicotine

if you look at certain studies, you'll see that schizos smoke for one of the other of the 2000+ chemicals in cigarette smoke to self-medicate... not usually nicotine.

cotinine, nicotine and the production of androstenedione

I am not a student or specialist in the field of biochemistry and I am therefore hoping that some of you clever people could answer an interesting question I have. I have noted in some of my female friends who smoke periodically that they display extreme levels of aggression a day to three days after smoking. one in particular is severe. I have done a little homework and I have found that androstenedione is related to female aggresion and that both nicotine and cotinine have an effect on its production. Since I am not qualified, many of the documents I have read are not always easy for me to understand. Also I am not medically qualified to perform trials or studies on volunteers in this regard. Thus if there is anyone who could explain in English or do an experiment of this nature and satiate my curiosity I would be most grateful. 196.208.3.181 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there a working method to separate nicotine from tobacco , since tobacco contains only 5% nicotine, in order to obtain pure nicotine ( in it's dry form ) ? Thanks 59.183.128.1 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias towards promoting smoking?

This article hardly talks about the fact that nicotine exposure contributes to a number of serious diseases other than cancer. There have been numerous studies linking nicotine to CVD. For example, it is recommended that anyone who has smoked 100 cigarettes in life should be screened for aneurysm irrespective of presence of other risk factors. But this a article hardly discusses these aspects. There is a much stronger focus on benefits of smoking. Can someone please explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.121.115 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article is about nicotine, not tobacco.

Suboptimal Username (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Toxicology: vomiting?

I've read that the effects of large doses of nicotine include vomiting, paralysis, and trembling. Is this just from eating tobacco leaves? Can this dosage be achieved through smoking? I was surprised not to read anything about it in this article. Indeterminate (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Various suicide, poisoning and "anarchist cookbook" type websites i have read say that between 2 and 5 drops of purified nicotine, even dropped on somebody's fingers, is enough to either kill them instantly, kill them in minutes or "give them the greatest high of thier life" and then kill them. Though the truth of any of these articles is highly debatable. Depends on what you call a "large dose" anyway 82.153.230.138 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Theraputic Uses - Questionable Assertion

I removed the following two sentences:

"A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be the effect of nicotine, a cholinergic receptor agonist, in decreasing the levels of acetylcholine in the smoker's brain; Parkinson's disease occurs when the effect of dopamine is less than that of acetylcholine."

The neurological explanation for the phenomenon seems like BS. Assuming nicotine is a receptor agonist, then it should bind to the chloinergic receptor and mimick the effects of acetylchloine. This binding should allow more ACH to float free and thus increase the concentration of ACH (acetylchloine) in the brain.

Also, the second sentence is nonsense. "Parkinson's disease occurs when the effect of dopamine is less than that of acetylcholine." ... the effect of dopamine on what?? is less than half that of actylchloine on what? where in the brain?... probably an oversimplification of a more complex idea.

Runninglate (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "neurotoxin"

There seem to be two common uses of the word "neurotoxin":

1. Causes permanent neuronal damage, at doses normally used
2. Is lethal through effects on the nervous system, with "potent neurotoxin" referring to low absolute doses.

Please clarify. To my non-professional knowledge, nicotine is not a powerful neurotoxin in sense 1.

Suboptimal Username (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First synthesis

• The first synthesis is 1893-1904, depending on which article on nicotine you read.
• I remebmer that there is a publication stating that the first synthesis yielded the R-nicotine not the natural S-nicotine

This needs clearification. --12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Apparently, Tanya was here. Not for long. AlexRochon (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Circulatory Disease

Looking at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/health_effects.htm, it would appear that

1. Fielding JE, Husten CG, Eriksen MP. Tobacco: Health Effects and Control. In: Maxcy KF, Rosenau MJ, Last JM, Wallace RB, Doebbling BN (eds.). Public Health and Preventive Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill;1998;817–845 [cited 2006 Dec 5]

would have information on the links to circulatory disease. 74.126.10.211 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of substances in tobacco besides nicotine? That seems like a link to tobacco, as opposed specifically to nicotine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.228 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

half Life.

i suggeest we expand notes on the halflife of nicotine, what does this do to the substance? how does it change exactly, are any properties different? am i completely wrong in my questioning and there is just less of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.112.51 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is about biological half time. For example, when you smoke a cigar, the nicotine level on your blood rises. After the half time has passed (which is 2 hours for nicotine), the nicotine level of your blood is halved. Get it? It's not the same kind of half time that we use in psychics. Yeah. There's just less of it.

--91.154.52.137 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why something would be processed in this way? I mean, with alcohol, your liver can process, say, 1 drink per hour.. meaning such-and-such-milliliters-of-alcohol-per-hour.. but here with nicotine you're saying ANY amount will be halved in 2 hours, then halved again in 2 more hours.. uh.. what? Surely the organs process it at a particular rate, and if it takes 2 hours for, say, 80 milligrams, it'll take another 2 hours to get the remaining 80 mg.... right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, peak nicotine blood concentration is achieved in about 10 minuties and the halflife is only 20 minuties. The reason for the different times of drug elimination from the body is because, unlike alcohol(which is much slower), nicotine enters the blood and reaches the brain in about 7 seconds. The ease and quickness of nicotine to enter blood and circulate around the body to filter organs like the liver and kidneys is the reason the halflife is short. --Dam59 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smoking reduces probability of AD onset

I take issue with the reference supporting this particular statement: it comes from a rabidly pro-smoking site called forces.org, and the large majority of the studies it cites have a sample population of less than 200; the only large one, with close to 4000, has no controls, and was based on questionnaires. Since the compiler is obviously biased, one can't rely on her to have considered studies and reports that don't support her conclusion, which is, in fact, what she did not do. No less importantly, almost all the studies are rather old, done between the 60's and 80's. But I am not going to remove these references, as I don't want to get into a paste-cut war with the true believer who put them in there. I will point to four very recent articles citing studies with relatively large samples that disprove the conclusions of . Lavidia (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to be labeled by anybody as "rabidly pro-smoking", but it appears to me that your conclusions that these studies can be labeled irrelevant based on the fact that some of them were conducted in previous decades seems in itself biased. Does there mere age somehow mean that there findings should be ignored? Does it mean that other, newer studies could not reach the same conclusions or contradict the four studies that you cited? After all, there is nothing unusual about different studies reaching conflicting conclusions (this is common). This page, as part of a neutral encyclopedia, should be debticated to providing all findings (positive, nuetral, and negative) about the drug in question. Metalhead1994 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Other intake routes

Should Snus be a reason to add a new intake route, as it is not really smoked, insufflated nor chewed, rather absorbed though skin. Should an additional route "absorbed" be added? (Johan8x (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Is these a valid source?

I'm trying to compell sources to the paragraph History and name, and therefore asks the above question (especially regarding the second one): Jack E. Henningfield; Mitch Zeller (2006). ""Nicotine psychopharmacology", research contributions to United States and global tobacco regulation: A look back and a look forward" (PDF). 184 (3–4): 286–291. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0308-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm Comptes rendus, 1903, 137, p 860

Gsmgm (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Interactions" section needed

Nicotine interacts with many other drugs that are used medicinally or otherwise. For instance, the following study is about its interactions with citalopram and reboxetine. (Andreasen JT, Redrobe JP. Nicotine, but not mecamylamine, enhances antidepressant-like effects of citalopram and reboxetine in the mouse forced swim and tail suspension tests. Behav Brain Res. 2008 Aug 22. PMID: 18786574). Holt's book "Food and Drug Interactions" also lists many drug-drug interactions for nicotine. Fuzzform (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--Admrilbubba (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to put mental health clients to work,then on to living as independently as they could. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine were a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette puts something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. There was a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount time they could smoke was a very limited. In the first week we did note behavior flexing and with passing of time, even that seem to disappear.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, note a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with schizophrenia . This was the two primary groups we worked with and they are the two major groups out of which come many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke were as the schizophrenia clients did. I was amazed at the DD folks who also had schizophrenia did smoke,and those who had some other mental health issues did so as well. From that observation I stand with what I believe to be the truth Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr

'Liquid Smoking'

Would this article be a good place to mention 'Liquid Smoking' a cigarette replacement drink. It would be interesting to know what herb it is based on. Several articles say it contains 15% nicotine. I don't think so! http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1262995256&topic=m 78.146.120.145 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'Liquid Smoking' products are marketed as an 'alternative' to smoking tobacco. However, few (if any) contain any nicotine. Also, that link is now broken, but a quick websearch is all you need to find more info. Personally, I think it's a load of rubbish, and reccoment an e-cigarette for it's marketed effects. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The sphere model

Someone please verify (because I am no chemistry expert) the sphere model for nicotine that is shown in the right hand side portal. The line drawing suggests that hydrogen atom is coming out of the paper which means that the pentagon ring should point away from screen in the sphere model that is shown. a 14:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act.

Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule? Couldn't one make a case against the government, that by failing to include nicotine in the list it makes them liable? Or maybe one could argue that because nicotine is not on the list drug x, y, and z should also not be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.11.170 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion or advocacy regarding the topic. see WP:FORUM. google is your friend, and general forums are your friend. or, write your congressperson. this page, however, is not where to find your answer. Anastrophe (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The DEA, ha! Your talking about the same biased clowns that continue to say that cannabis has no medical value in the face of overwhelming evidence. DEA be held liable for not scheduling nicotine, ha! Give me a break. multiple lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.131.185 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The question to me is Is there a Wikipedia article which in any sense answers the question Why isn't nicotine on the DEA schedule??
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History

Following this book (pag 115) nicotine has been isolated first time in 1807 by Gaspare Cerioli and in 1809 by Louis-Nicolas Vauquelin, twenty years before Posselt and Reimann. --150.146.18.34 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Toxicology!

Please see the link to this study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004849 this study provides strong evidence that nicotine causes upregulation of the FOXM1 gene, which is linked to cell mutation. Overexpression of FOXM1 is associated with many forms of cancer, and the study specifically demonstrates the upexpression of FOXM1 in cancerous and precancerous oral tissues, while also reproducibly demonstrating nicotine's upexpression of FOXM1. An editor must provide a sentence discussing this finding on the nicotine page. I have been considering switching to electronic cigarettes and had relied on the wiki page and its assertions that nicotine has not been found carcinogenic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a study demonstrating increased cancer rates in real people who use unadulterated nicotine or who use another substance that leads to FOXM1 expression can constitute "strong evidence". Even though FOXM1 expression causes cancer formation, external factors that express FOXM1 may potentially mitigate FOXM1 mutagenesis through other mechanisms. The language the researchers used indicates clearly that this potential carcinogenic mechanism is speculative in nature and requires further study. 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The primary source indicating nicotine's mutagenicity no longer exists. I rather hoped to find out just how dangerous nicotine alone is, but unsourced information might as well originate from an acid trip. Can anyone find a new source? 71.96.225.98 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What primary source are you talking about? What is it that no longer exists? Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dependence and withdrawal

This statement: "Due to an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, nicotine withdrawal is relatively mild compared to alcohol or heroin withdrawal." in the Dependence and withdrawal section seems to contradict other topics in the article. Also I cant find any source that refers to nicotine withdrawal as "mild", "relatively" or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amzran (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this article for the first time. There are lots of poorly worded sentences here, and this is one of them, but I think it's basically correct. It's not so much that nicotine withdrawal is mild in an absolute sense as that heroin withdrawal is utter unendurable misery while alcohol withdrawal can actually be fatal in extreme cases. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire section is very poorly written. Certain sentences are entirely nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.204.217 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine therapy link

In the Further Reading section of the article, there was a reference to an article by a freelance science journalist that cites studies but largely ignores the issue of sample populations and methods used. As with the Alzheimer's studies pointed above, the few ones she cites have very small sample populations. Also, she focuses on ADHD, but goes on to gloss over studies about other diseases that could be treated with nicotine. A link in the same section,to a Guardian article on nicotine therapy, was dead, so I removed it. Lavidia (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [User:Admrilbubba|Admrilbubba]] (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)The mention of individuals with schizophrenia smoking for the nicotine benefit is true but an incomplete. As a supervisor for a program in a mental heath agency who’s goal was to help mental health clients obtain employment,then go on to living as independently as they able. Our behavioral plans usually included a goal to cut back in their smoking. We did recognize the chemical elements,mostly nicotine was a therapeutic agent. One aspect was the pharmacological benefits, the mixture of their daily medication with the chemicals,most of which was nicotine helped calmed the symptoms of their disease. The other part smoking played was the passing of time in a boring world. Many prior to a work program sat for hours watching TV, staring out a window watching the grass grow. The Cigarette put something in their hand that required action and reaction from the individual. The nicotine helped them mellow out,it was self-medication. We noticed a drastic drop in how much nicotine they consumed after going to work. At work the amount of time they could smoke was a very limited and they were using their hands and minds on a matter other than boredom from watching grass grow. In the first week we did note behavior flexing but with passing of time, that element lessened and sometimes disappeared.To further substantiate the link of nicotine and schizophrenia as a therapeutic agent, I noticed a comparison of Developmentally Disabled and those with Mental Illness; and the subset,those who have schizophrenia. These two major groups 'MI" and 'DD' are the primary groups we worked with, of which are many subset groups. The ‘DD’ seldom smoke, were as the majority of schizophrenia clients did smoke. I was amazed to realize the majority of DD folks who also had schizophrenia smoked as well. I also realized a majority who had some other subset mental health issues smoked as well. These observations have taught me to agree with the author believing the reality of Nicotine is an aid for the relief of the schizophrenia symptoms and is also a calming agent giving aid for hours.True too is the action of self medication. Rev.Cantrell,B 24 Sept 09 0530hr.

added a citation to the original scientific publication relating to reduced risk of kaposis sarcoma as to provide better context than the associated press interview, put the section on BRCA gene breast cancer risk on a new paragraphso as to seperate it form the kaposis sarcoma section,and added that kaposis sarcoma is HIV related, this may not have been obvious to people with limited medical knowledge. Jimmy joe joeseph (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One aspect of the schizophrenia/nicotine self-medication comments in the article is a complete absence of reference to smoking levels in other psychiatric groups, but especially to that of patients with depression. It's reasonably well known that rates of smoking are higher in patients with depression and depressive episodes, too. While this likely constitutes OR, I can't help but remark that depression is a large part of the clinical picture of the progression of schizophrenia; it's possible that the prominent negative symptoms of schizophrenia might masquerade as depressive symptoms, I don't know. I believe, though don't know off the top of my head, that smoking rates are higher in many psychiatric populations. My experience is largely as a patient with chronic depression, as a part of schizo-affective disorder, so that's where my familiarity lies. The above commenter seems to suggest that part of the increased smoking rates may be explained by boredom (nicotine is known to increase one's ability to attend to long, boring tasks), but I'm skeptical of such folksy explanations. I would like some documentation before such a claim finds its way into the article. I would like to see this aspect of the article expanded to include both nicotine and smoking's relationship to depressed populations (in addition to ADHD, Parkinson's, etc.), and also to include its relevance to psychiatric populations as a whole. Alas, I hope somebody else is willing. I am not. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry section

The text reads: its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure.
Nicotine's MSDS on erowid.org gives a Flash point of 95°C and Auto-ignition temperature: 240°C. Someone should maybe verify all the data? 81.165.78.108 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine smokeless filters, are they harmful? I called smoke assist, and confirmed they sell two types of filter; one that contain 21mg of nicotine, and another has zero.

I am concerned that the nicotine filter may harm my family through the vapor that is released.

Will 2nd hand vapors vapors harm my children.

I appreciate all the volunteer whom help wikipedia provide impportant information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.24.215 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

addictivity of nicotine

There seems to be a strong contradiction regarding the addictivity of nicotine.

In the section "Psychoactive effects" it is stated that

"Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[44]"

while in the withdrawal section it is claimed that

"In many studies [nicotine] has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin.[49][50][51]"

This issue should be resolved, since they are total in opposition of each other. The latter statement is backed up by primarily New York Times articles, which are more about the general addiction of smoking, then nicotine in particular. Furthermore, are NYT articles "scientifical" enough for using it as a reference, regarding the strict psychoactive and addictive properties of nicotine? Latrocinia (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this page was written by a tobacco corporation. G Fawkes. --201.230.85.196 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, is nicotine addictive or not?

potential NicVAX resource

New Help for Smokers An anti-nicotine vaccine is moving closer to regulatory approval By Jeneen Interlandi Scientific American September 6, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicotine Sulfate

In the introduction it says that nicotine is used as a pesticide. Reference [4] from the Denver master Gardener website says that it is nicotine sulfate which is used as a pesticide. Are these two chemicals synonymous, or should this be changed? Prymal (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Chemical Synthesis

No such information is present in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Health effects

How come there is no content about nicotine health effects? In most drugs there is thorough information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F06:423:F004:0:0:567E:6229 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't? I see extensive sections entitled "Pharmacology", "Psychoactive effects", "Dependence and withdrawal", "Toxicology", and "Therapeutic uses". DMacks (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Response - Look at it this way; if you drink coffee, the main stimulant is Caffeine. It is strange, but somehow coffee and tobacco produce the same health effects. However, smoking tobacco products can cause various types of cancer and health disease. Not to mention the negative "cardiac" consequences that both Caffine and Nicotine can affect the human body. Personally, this is what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.129.194 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant, fragmented, and confusing grammar

I'll try and be brief and apologize in advance for any formatting mistakes as this is my first post of any kind in the Wikipedia system. I was sent to this article and while I was reading, specifically in the second paragraph of the "Dependence and Withdrawal" section, I noticed the following:

" Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms "

This may or may not be accurate as I am not an expert on nicotine. However, this passage is worded poorly enough that I felt the need to point it out so that someone might make it clearer. The second sentence is either a fragment or the verb tense for the word decrease might be incorrect, I'm not sure which; the opening to the sentence that follows is redundant enough that I had to read it several times. Compensatory is used three times, and compensate also used once; upregulates and regulatory are both used, and the word mechanism or its plural are used three times. I do not feel qualified to make any edits because I may be misunderstanding the passage in advance.

Please take the time to address this, as I likely will not personally do so. I hope that the passage may ultimately be improved so as to be more understandable and in line with the quality that as a more-or-less average user, I tend to expect from Wikipedia.

Ethertonm (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That section desperately needs a clarifying rewrite. I came to the talk section to see if anybody was working to "un-obfuscate" it. Anybody?

I too found the passage poorly worded. I'm surprised no one has fixed it yet.

"Side-Effects" Poster

This seems to be more anti-smoking propaganda than actual side-effects of nicotine. It lists only negative effects (and extremes, at that -- I don't know of anyone having diarrhea from smoking), without giving so much as a nod to neutral or positive effects of nicotine. (Also, joint pain? Abnormal dreams? This entire poster is obviously anti-smoking propaganda; should find a more reliable source -- erowid?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.245.107 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this image seems very biased towards showing only the negative effects of the drug. 71.169.187.76 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I became suspicious reading that nicotine is a carcinogen, which is news to me, a smoker and now ecig vaper and many of those who chew nicotine gum licensed as a drug. I looked back at the the talk history and foundd this point has been raised before. Shame, but I now bracket this page with the passive smoking page - an outlet for crazy anti tobacco propaganda.(130.88.123.137 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

Gosh, Humphrey Bogart resurrected with other heroes who died from cancer!... You know guys, today I cant believe that I also used to be a nicotinejunkie and say the same kind of crazy junkie propaganda, and in my time and place there were very little talk that smoking kills and not even a tiny health warning on packages at all. But you have plenty of sources in this very article that smoking causes almost all kinds of cancer and other awful things. Not to mention scientists even cigarette-producers say that tobacco causes cancer, and still you grumble instead of quitting. 83.149.45.78 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OCD = "Over the Counter Disease"???

I have removed the text that suggestd that OCD is an acronym for "over the counter disease". 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

more links in the biosynthesis part

i want to understand how it works, but there are many for me unknown words in the biosynthesis part. Help spreading knowledge for us who don't know by linking more to relevant articles! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.246.194 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trade names

Nicorette and Nicotrol are not trade names for nicotine, but brands for nicotine delivery devices. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection to Electronic Cigarettes being presented as NRT.

"Therapeutic uses

The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence."

This is wrong. Electronic cigarettes are not, never have been or ever will be a means to wean off nicotine. They are an alternative nicotine delivery method NOT a cure like gums and patches are supposed to be. Please correct the inaccuracy.31.52.170.164 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychoactive effects section

this section has no sources, and makes big claims (in my opinion strongly biased).someone please improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.127.140 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting claims

This section claims that the nicotine's psychoactive profile varies from stimulating to sedative with the increasing dosage. However, this source is cited on Tobacco Smoking, which claims the opposite.

"Studies have suggested that low doses have a depressant effect, while higher doses have stimulant effect."

Also, it appears that the such claims made in "Psychoactive effects" section on Nicotine are devoid of any sources.--Igorhb (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is there a statement in this section indicating that nicotine is not addictive? If there is some argument about addictive property of nicotine shouldn't it go in the addiction section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.194.225 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Role of Wolffenstein in identifying the structure of nicotine?

I'm trying to understand whether it's appropriate to credit Richard Wolffenstein (chemist) as a co-discoverer of the structure of nicotine, which seems to have been asserted in an anonymous edit on 31 October 2010 (which also corrected some vandalism). I just went ahead and added a citation to the 1891 paper they co-authored, "Ueber Nicotin", which I think is the source of the attribution. However, as far as I can tell (with my very limited knowledge of German and organic chemistry), this paper does not describe the chemical structure of nicotine but rather is "On the action of benzoyl chloride on nicotine" ("Ueber die Einwirkung von Benzoylchlorid auf Nicotin"). Likewise, the obituary in German linked to from the Wolffenstein article does not seem to mention anything about Wolffenstein's work on nicotine. And note that this article about Adolf Pinner (written by a descendent) gives two older sources (including the 11th Edition of Encylopedia Britannica, 1910) which attribute credit for deducing the structure of nicotine solely to Pinner. Can anyone with a better knowledge of German and/or chemistry chime in? Noamz (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't realize that this edition of the Britannica is actually online. Here is the entry on nicotine, which indeed includes the line, "The constitution of nicotine was established by A. Pinner (see papers in the Berichte, 1891 to 1895)." Noamz (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't nicotine an allergen that triggers asthma attacks?

I think it's absurd to emphasize cases where it might help with asthma attacks and ignore all the cases where it triggers the damn things. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing the effects of nicotine in isolation which is what this article is about, with the effects of cigarette smoke which does trigger asthma attacks (and where nicotine is but one of many compounds). 121.91.41.126 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

5-HTP and L--Tyrosine - anecdotal evidence

I'm not expert in this area, so can't comment on the veracity of the claims. However, in section 'Dependence and withdrawal', the last paragraph clearly refers to anecdotal evidence.

If the evidence is anecdotal, then does it really belong in an encylopaedia? Suggest further citations should be given, or the section appropriately re-worded. 94.192.143.58 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I've removed that paragraph. I'm not sure how it snuck in past our watchful eyes. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was added on 8 November 2012 by JennaferPC (talk · contribs). She also added the same material to Smoking cessation, and I've removed it there too. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias: Bad References

"and can stimulate abnormal proliferation of vascular endothelial cells, similar to that seen in atherosclerosis.[59]"

I just read all of reference 59. The entire paper is here: https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/VBTG/Review_Tontonoz.pdf

There is no mention of "nicotine" anywhere in that paper, nor any evidence offered to substantiate the above quoted statement. I will be removing that statement and the reference from the article. I hope this seemingly made-up reference isn't an indication of significant bias in the rest of the "Nicotine" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.30.231 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect dependence liability

Nicotine isn't highly addicting when it's administered by itself.

Studies have shown that the other alkaloids in Tobacco are Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors. Nicotine is primarily metabolized by MAO and due to the other alkaloids in Tobacco causing the inhibition of these enzymes - that results in much higher plasma levels of Nicotine for a much longer period of time. This allows Nicotine to have a much broader and more significant effect on nACh. This, in turn, causes a much higher likelihood of addiction to Nicotine and the other alkaloids in Tobacco.

These Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors are likely to be addicting in their own right and may explain the reason why Nicotine replacement therapies do not satisfy all cravings when it is used instead of Tobacco.

It has also, recently, been reveal that nicotine does not activate the α7 nACh receptor channel to the same extent when co-applied with menthol. Similar findings have also been reported for α4β2 nACh receptors within the α7 nACh receptor has been suggested to contribute to menthol binding, thus increasing the likelihood of addiction to Nicotine.

I personally believe that it should be stated in the article that Nicotine is much more addictive when found in Tobacco, due to the other alkaloids that are also grown in the Tobacco plants. Therefore, I also believe that the dependence liability should be changed to Moderate.

This article is about Nicotine specifically. I believe it's inappropriate to have the dependence liability of Nicotine include the increased addiction potential caused by the other alkaloids in Tobacco. The dependence liability should only be for when Nicotine is coexisting alone in the body.

I would have done this, however, I believe it would have caused an "uproar". I have the sources, but I wanted to receive user feedback on the matter, before I made the change.

I've read this more than once in the past year on many different studies about Nicotine. I am actively searching for those studies again, however, here's what I retrieved to far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwampFox556 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919443 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23898298

SwampFox556 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Production

with a growing market for both nicotine based smoking cessation products and smoking alternatives that contain nicotine such as e-ciggaretts, can we have some data on production of nicotine for these pathways? Is it extracted from tobacco, or synthesized? What country leads production of this form (not sure what the word is:stand alone? pharmaceutical?) of nicotine? 172.7.164.50 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Sandy

That's a good question! I assume it's extracted from tobacco or similar sources, given how cheap cigarettes are (assuming they aren't mostly doped with synthetic nicotine). I found this comment: "As for the genus Nicotiana, tabacum is used principally for smoking purpose, whereas rustica, which usually contains higher levels of nicotine...has been cultivated specifically for the extraction of nicotine to be used in insecticidal preparations." (Schmeltz, Irwin. "Nicotine and other tobacco alkaloids". pp 99–136 in Naturally occurring insecticides. 1971. New York: Marcel Dekker.). That was written well before e-cigs and nic-patches existed, so at least as of the early 1970s, extraction sounds like the commercially important source. DMacks (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Questioning of the LD50 - original "research"?

In the Toxicology section appears: "However the widely used human LD50 estimate of 0.5–1.0 mg/kg has been questioned in light of several documented cases of humans surviving much higher doses." This line seems like it was inserted by the author of the reference, and I have some problems with the reference cited. First of all, the author does not seem to understand what LD50 means. Of course people will survive perhaps much larger doses than the LD50. Otherwise it would not be the LD50! Much of the article focuses on cases of ingestion, which for large doses will certainly cause vomiting, where it is then very difficult to determine the actual amount absorbed. 65.190.181.5 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

physically addicting?

today User:‎DarkGhost909, in these difs, changed the text from (note, I am changing ref tags to make this readable here): "Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes downregulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation" to: "Nicotine addiction is purely psychological and not physical(ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence(/ref)" with an edit note saying: "At the Physical Dependence page, it says only certain sedatives, such as Alcohol and Heroin are physically addictive. Nicotine is a stimulant and isn't listed there.)"

I reverted in this dif with edit note: "wikipedia is not a reliable source, sorry! it is a good thing to question - will add "citation needed" tag in next edit". I did add the tag. I don't have time to research this now, but it should be done, and this article and the physical dependence article should be brought into line. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosynthesis error

The nicotine biosynthesis scheme has an incorrect structure for quinolinic acid. It would be great if whoever created the original file could update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.70.137 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nick O'Teen

• I have tried twice to put this new section in page Nicotine, :-

:==In media==

• In some anti-smoking literature, the harm that tobacco smoking and nicotine addiction does is personified as Nick O'Teen, represented as a humanoid with some aspect of a cigarette or cigarette butt about him or his clothes.<ref>[http://www.comicvine.com/nick-oteen/29-67121/ Nick O'Teen]</ref>
• but each time some IPA-user deletes it as not noteworthy. (I am in England.) I have seen much anti-smoking matter, including plenty of references to "Nick O'Teen", and to me this topic is noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've watched this mini-edit war. Anthony, notability has nothing to do with how anybody feels. Please read WP:NOTABILITY - you need to find reliable sources that discuss this topic and relate it to the topic of this article - nicotine; ideally at least a couple of sources. I don't think you are going to find them. I do think you could find plenty of sources that discuss this character in light of public health anti-smoking measures, and there is already probably content on public health anti-smoking measures in the welter of articles around cigarettes and smoking. I think that is where this belongs - not here. I suggest you find where those public health measures are discussed, and add this, there. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine lethal oral dose

I am new at WIKI. Could somebody update the data to nicotine toxicity?

Arch Toxicol (2014) 88:5–7 DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1127-0 How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self‑experiments in the nineteenth century http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0#page-1

New oral lethal dose: 500 - 1000 mg, or 0.5-1.0 grams (instead of 30-60mg)

Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.35.222 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. VERY interesting! But unforunately, not a reliable source. We need to wait til editorial gets picked up by reviews and regulatory authorities. Thanks though Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

btw, the basis for what i just wrote, is our guideline for sourcing health related information, which is here: {{WP:MEDRS]]. We base health-related content on reviews in the biomedical literature, or statements of major scientific or medical bodies. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Carcinogenic?

The toxicology section has a line that reads: research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.[68][69]. The 1st study never specifically says nicotine demonstrates carcinogenic activity, and instead refers to tobacco smoke (in which case it's quite a jump to assume that it's not referring to the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke). The second study mentions possible carcinogenic vectors in the GI tract, but even then it's extremely preliminary and is a single study. That line reads as if there's a lot more evidence suggesting this claim than there actually is. I think it's prudent to revise the line to convey that it is a single study, and emphasize that as it was only in cell cultures, one cannot assume the same activity can be extrapolated to in-vivo. I would make the edits myself, but I feel it should be discussed first considering it's a fairly important sub-topic. LiamSP (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

re-org

I did a pretty big reorganization today. this still needs a lot more work. the key things that need to be better knitted together are "health effects" related things. we have pharmacology, toxicology, and the whole big section (now called "health effects") that was wrongly under the Medical Use section. Need to think about how to better integrate all this so that the article hangs together more... Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Toxicology

This:

"It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, although overdose can occur through combined use of nicotine patches or nicotine gum and cigarettes at the same time. Spilling a high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can cause intoxication or even death, since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream following dermal contact."

does not reflect the facts and the "real world".

According "overdose due to dual use": FDA has started a Workshop related to: "Risks and Benefits of Long-Term Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Products" in 2010. There was an Public Hearing according FDA Actions Related to Nicotine Replacement Therapies and Smoking-Cessation Products; Report to Congress on Innovative Products and Treatments for Tobacco Dependence in 2012. During the process, the FDA stated "OTC NRTs (gum and lozenges) do not seem to pose a significant risk of misuse or abuse among adolescents. We don’t know how other formulations would be used.". Finally, the FDA has announced in 2013: "Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change. The FDA state:

"There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette. If you are using an OTC NRT while trying to quit smoking but slip up and have a cigarette, you should not stop using the NRT. You should keep using the OTC NRT and keep trying to quit."

even the "12-week-limit" is falling slightly:

"Users of NRT products should still use the product for the length of time indicated in the label—for example, 8, 10 or 12 weeks. However, if they feel they need to continue using the product for longer in order to quit, it is safe to do so in most cases. Consumers are advised to consult their health care professional if they feel the need to use an OTC NRT for longer than the time period recommended in the label."

In this light and because the fist sentence is allready marked with an "credibility-tag", the sentence should be deleted or (better) adjusted.

The second sentence is weird! I don't have access to the fulltext of "Lockhart: Nicotine poisoning (1933)" but recent findings (after 1933 ;) ) don't backup this claim. Example: Benowitz reported in 1987 on the case of a patient, who covered her skin with an nicotine diluent (400mg nicotine per ml) and survived it. He assumed: "skin may be a reservoir for slow release of nicotine into the circulation". In the review "Metabolism and Disposition Kinetics of Nicotine we are able to read:

"The rate of release of nicotine into the skin is controlled by the permeability of the skin, rate of diffusion through a polymer matrix, and/or rate of passage through a membrane in the various patches. The rates of nicotine delivery and plasma nicotine concentrations vary among the different transdermal systems (Fig. 3) (Fant et al., 2000). In all cases, there is an initial lag time of about 1 h before nicotine appears in the bloodstream, and there is continued systemic absorption (about 10% of the total dose) after the patch is removed, the latter due to residual nicotine in the skin."

Fig. 3 is showing, that after 1 h delay, nicotine from a nicotine patch (15mg to 21mg) is absorbed into the bloodstream with an rate of 5 mg per hour. Conflicting with "Fick's first law" the absorption rate of nicotine decreases, the higher the nicotine concentration is: The pure base (100% nicotine) is extremely slow absorbed with an rate of 82 µg/cm2 x h. This means: If you place pure nicotine on 10 cm2 skin, it will be absorbed with 0.8mg per hour (which basically corresponds to the absorbed nicotine of smoking a half cigarette).

Consistent: Like the first sentence, the second should be deleted or (better) adjusted.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted the first sentence, waiting for comments regarding the second.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

HOW LONG TILL NICOTINE IS REMOVED FROM YOUR SYSTEM AFTER QUITTING SMOKING ?

CAN ANYONE ADVISE ME ON THIS SUBJECT ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.21.210 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk as a forum of one thread

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Why not?! It would be perfect and very much needed IMHO! danleonida@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.7 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Nicotine the Addictive Component in Tobacco Smoke?

See also: "addictivity of nicotine" below. Perhaps merge. There is a glaring contradiction in this article about if nicotine is addictive or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

smoking is a very deadly thing and you shouldn't ever start smoking.

Hello. I tried to argue against this point in the article but it was removed (poorly cited, ok I could have done better and biased/non-neutral, which I don't agree with as this suggests that any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable). There is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco smoke (by the way, I don't smoke or support tobacco consumption, cigarettes are just as deadly whether or not nicotine is the reason they are addictive).

The point is, if there is another (or several) compound(s) that are the main cause then our research into nicotine to cure tobacco addiction is wrong and will therefore affect tobacco sales (increase them).

Most original papers that utilised nicotine used concentrations that were far too high compared to a cigarette puff or even an entire cigarette. Delivery methods did not remotely reflect smoking inhalation.

I don't want to be the champion of this cause but it is a major point that must be addressed in the article immediately.

No, without some good references, it does not need to be addressed in the article. If there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine is not the addictive component of tobacco usage, then it should be easy to find. Alternately, there is a large body of evidence to support the idea that nicotine (at levels provided by cigarettes) is addictive. And there is strong evidence that nicotine replacement helps break the addictiveness of cigarettes. [1] (There may be other ingredients that are also addictive; I haven't looked for evidence for or against that idea.) Astgtciv (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that chewing tobacco is just as, if not more addictive than cigarettes, logic would dictate the addictive component(s) must be shared by both habits. Nicotine is the primary chemical they both have in common. But the strongest evidence supporting the addictive properties of nicotine is the fact that nicotine patches (which administer only nicotine) function to reduce or eliminate cravings associated with smoking/chewing.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This may sound ridiculous, but what about heightened levels of carbon monoxide/dioxide. Some effects of cigarettes seem to be synonymous with carbon monoxide poisoning.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.84.120 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is out of my area of expertise, but I was able to find at least one scholarly article that supports the assertion that "Nicotine is the main addictive component of tobacco that motivates continued use despite the harmful effects." [2] -Callit (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is that nicotine, all on it's own, is not as addictive as heroin. Cigarettes may be, but nicorette gum, which contains little else but nicotine is not. Take into account all the other NRT's, if nicotine itself was the sole cause of cigarette addiction, then why wouldn't NRT's have a nearly perfect success rate? Cigarettes don't taste good, they may have once, but now very few smokers actually want a cigarette. And yet, they try the NRT's and the NRT's fail, and they go back to the horrible tasting death stick. Other issues include the fact that tomatoes contain nicotine, and there's no epidemic of people sucking on ketchup bottles. I thinnk the reason is likely a matter of correlation error, cigarettes are addictive, cigarettes contain nicotine, so they decided that nicotine MUST be addictive. the test in this case would really be if they can remove all of the nicotine, and find that cigarettes are still addictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.28.113 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The non-addictiveness of nictotine is well sourced on the german version of this article...sources 25-27... 79.102.215.252 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Jon O'

Nicotine, Vitamins?

This actually kinda goes with the question under mine. Niacin (also called Nicotinic Acid according to Wikipedia), is both in Tobacco and it is a metabolite of nicotine according to my research. I also doubt the effects of nicotine as a stimulant.

I haven't been able to find anything personally, but from personal experience, when I smoke a cigarette and it's not well lit it seems to have more similar effect to Carbon Monoxide poisoning (reference wikipedia) than to a stimulant, but it also seems to have some effects similar to cleaning your system with Niacin.

my question is, does Nicotine take the place of the B3 vitamins (considering the term vitamin encompasses multiple chemicals), and it's "stimulant" effects come from over use (abuse) of what the vitamin does, and does this so called "addiction" just come from having lower vitamin levels than your body is used to because you've been taking Nicotine and it's been "supplementing" (building a tolerance) your vitamin intake to extremely high levels building a tolerance to this vitamin.

My doctor told me to take flushing type niacin to help quit smoking. it helped. i don't know the mechanics of it though. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The chemical structure of niacin, also known as "nicotinic acid", is significantly different from nicotine, and its pharmacological effects bear little if any similarity to the effects of nicotine. Consequently, any discussion of niacin on this Wikipedia page is irrelevant. The niacin molecule resembles part of the nicotine molecule; it may possibly be a metabolite of nicotine, it may occur in the nicotine biosynthetic pathway, and historically it was obtained from nicotine by chemical degradation (see its Wikipedia page), which probably explains the name, but its relationship to nicotine is otherwise unimportant. Niacin is outside the scope of this article. Chemical names can often be misleading. Another substance found in tobacco, and also abundant in coffee, is called "chlorogenic acid", but it does not contain any chlorine atoms, and does not generate chlorine. Tachyon (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In the 'Chemistry' section of the main article it is claimed [69] that nicotine is oxidized by ultraviolet or other agents to form nicotinic acid or vitamin B3. Such it can be considered to be the B3 provitamin!! As politically incorrect as it sounds, I think Wikipedia should include this fact. danleonida@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.7 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It can't be called a provitamin because it's not converted to niacin in the body. It's necessarily converted to niacin outside the body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, Seppi! Are you saying that the oxidizing of nicotine to niacin cannot be done inside and only outside the body? Are you sure, and if you are, have you got a URL for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleonida (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this was removed

"Little research is available in humans but animal research suggests there is potential in Parkinson's disease." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, it was not my intention to begin an edit war. My apologies, I'm still getting used to this. Let's talk about it. Please refer to the response to your inquiry on User talk:72.187.7.167. I'm happy to discuss this, but I'm not sure how constructive this back and forth is.Agrizz (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Agrizz The review does state there is some animal evidence and little human evidence for nicotine [3] in PD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, I owe an apology - I did not recognize the editing change from "cotinine" to "nicotine". I read too quickly. I'm ok with its current usage, particularly now that it has been separated from the previous paragraph re: cotinine. Agrizz (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for joining us User:Agrizz. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco vs nicotine

Much of this page has to do with Tobacco and smoking - not Nicotine. Many of the health effects listed are either not differentiated or not related to nicotine. I suggest that much of that information be moved to tobacco and smoking and a single link be left. More information about nicotine alone would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While it would be nice to have separate research on each, the simple fact is that tobacco is the number one delivery system for nicotine by a long shot. As a result, there is bound to be overlap and imprecision, but more than that, the bulk of studies relating to the effects of nicotine are likely going to be bound up in research covering its primary delivery vehicle. If you spot references or sections that are clearly unrelated to nicotine, by all means edit away. But I think removing data that comes from studies that relate to nicotine that is delivered via tobacco would impoverish the article to no good end. Now, if some of the information here is lacking from the corresponding tobacco related articles, by all means copy it to those articles; while gross duplication is generally to be avoided, some situations do not improve by a slavish adherence to this principle. I would argue this is such a situation. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Large part of this article have to do with tobacco smoking and nothing to do with nicotine. Nicotine is a chemical and should be treated as such. 86.20.150.29 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) " While it would be nice to have separate research on each, the simple fact is that tobacco is the number one delivery system for nicotine by a long shot." - E-cigarettes are exploding in popularity now, and I think this article is starting to look a little bit dated with the conflation of 'tobacco' and 'nicotine'. Many people will now be reading this page to find out about nicotine exclusively, with the references to the health effects of tobacco confusing the subject (and also being unnecessarily duplicated across wiki pages). I would advocate a massive change to this page. Worth considering that tobacco contains MAOIs, which are partially responsible for tobacco's addictive properties and psychological properties, and that a lot of the citations made for the effects of nicotine are actually for the effects of tobacco. Earfetish1 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In the same respect that Cigarettes and cigars are the number one delivery system for nicotine, Wine and Beer are the number one delivery systems for alcohol. This doesn't mean that the alcohol article littered with references to these beverages. I came to this article trying to find information on nicotine, and instead I find it over run with information on smoking. There is literally no information/references on nicotine addiction that isn't related to smoke inhalation. All side effects of "nicotine" all reference cigarette smoke. Cigarettes should have it's own section on this page, but it shouldn't take over the page like it currently does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.17.17 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity

Much of the information on the role of nicotine as a carcinogen doesn't appear conclusive to me; while it may promote cell survival, proliferation and growth, these things aren't synonymous with mutagenisis. If we were to use those standards, then practically any growth factor you care to name would be carcinogenic. I'll accept that it may potentiate tumour growth, but I think there's a lot of confusion between the definite carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke, which contains nicotine besides combustion products and a whole host of things, and the effects caused by nicotine itself. Nitrosamines derived from nicotine metabolism *are* carcinogenic, and that should probably be mentioned, but there is poor evidence that nicotine itself is.Arthur Swift (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as our article is concerned, any alteration to it would need to be justified on the basis of reputable published sources. The literature on the carcinogenicity of nicotine is so vast that it isn't easy to get a feel for it as a whole. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The first section of this article currently states that nicotine *is* directly associated with cancer. I was unable to open the article which is used as a reference for this assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.28.205 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26270431 Then click on the Icon for "Linked out to related resource". QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Where you will find the following passage, after the claims of carcenogenicity: "However, these findings were from in vitro studies, and the concerns they raised have not been reflected in in vivo studies. Despite having been on the market for 30 years, nicotine replacement therapy has as yet not been associated with any “real world” increase in cancer risk." I will adjust to reflect what the source actually says. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicotine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016092722/http://classic.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html to http://classic.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nicotine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Under the beneficial effects of nicotine it points to nicotine being shown to have protective effects against alzheimer's and parkinson's. As a biochemist and student doctor I am offended by the use of that particular epidemiological article to cite that statement. That study was later reviewed and junked because it showed that the protective effects were a result of the nicotine exposed individuals NOT LIVING AS LONG as those who did develop those diseases and/or dying of something else agonized by tobacco. I am a smoker, but first I am a scientist, and that statement should be removed. The nicotine page appears to combine, and perhaps confound, nicotine and tobacco. I suggest someone with appropriate credentials re-write the article and concentrate only on nicotine the chemical. Amerophile (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Amerophile

Last edited at 18:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 15:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Reinforcement disorders

I find it strange that the section for Reinforcement disorders states:

Nicotine is highly addictive,[52][53] comparable to heroin or cocaine.[10] 

when the page for [oxidase inhibitor] has the section of Drug Interactions stating:

Nicotine, a substance frequently implicated in tobacco addiction, has been shown to have "relatively weak" addictive properties when administered alone.[31] The addictive potential increases dramatically after co-administration of an MAOI, which specifically causes sensitization of the locomotor response in rats, a measure of addictive potential.[32][33] This may be reflected in the difficulty of smoking cessation, as tobacco contains naturally-occurring MAOI compounds in addition to the nicotine.[34][35][36]

Can I propose an edit to the section for nicotine to include this relevant MAOI information? Stating that "nicotine is highly addictive" is wrong according to the MAOI page. The distinction between just nicotine and nicotine + MAOI's is not apparent here and nicotine by itself should not be specifically associated with cigarette or tobacco smoking addiction potentials when there is information that states otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.3.69.189 (talk • contribs)

The "comparable" sentence, is once more QuackGuru cherry-picking from a subpar source (about e-cigarettes and not nicotine), and ignoring the WP:WEIGHT of evidence in the literature. He didn't even check the currently (imho) most uptodate authoritative source on the topic, which would be the 2015 surgeon general report[4], which disagrees rather substantially with the claims by the Californian report on E-cigarettes. In fact i quote from the SGR:

However, all forms of nicotine delivery do not pose an equal risk in establishing or maintaining nicotine addiction. NRT medicines, which are designed to minimize addiction risk, carry a low risk of establishing addiction and are generally substantially easier to discontinue than tobacco products (Henningfield et al. 2011; WHO 2012). Conversely, cigarettes have been researched, designed, and manufactured to increase the likelihood that initiation will lead to dependence and difficulty achieving cessation due to contents and emissions in addition to nicotine (e.g., acetaldehyde, ammonia compounds, and menthol); design features that may increase free-base nicotine and produce larger puffs (filter-tip ventilation); and other factors that reduce the concerns for smokers and increase the attractiveness of the products (USDHHS 2010, 2012)

Amongst other factors that increase the addictive nature of cigarettes is, as the anon points out, the precence of MAOi's in smoke. The Californian report bases its addictive claim on the 1988 report from the Surgeon General, which was presented at a time where the only real nicotine delivery system was smoking (some gum was on the market) - and where little research had been done on the individual substances.

As a side-note it should be noted that the SG88 report doesn't make the claim that nicotine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine, but instead that the mechanisms from nicotine addiction is similar to that of heroin and cocaine. Thus making QG's statement even more suspect. --Kim D. Petersen 11:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What really goes wrong with the sentence, is that a reader would assume that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, instead of the correct version which is a technical one: That the addiction mechanism is similar to heroin and cocaine. Misleading to say the least. --Kim D. Petersen 11:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Heroin and cocaine have very different addiction mechanisms: heroin produces physical addiction, cocaine produces psychological addiction. Nicotine is more like cocaine in this respect. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean dependence; all addictions have a common mechanism. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicotine is markedly less addictive in nonhuman lab animals than it is in humans, according to the molecular neuropharmacology textbook ref; I assume this is because the way acetylcholine and dopamine systems interact in the brain differ between species. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent edits about lab studies about cancer

@ANTBU: I'm baffled by those repeated edits after I left a partial quote from the source in the first edit summary. Also you removed that content from the body but left it in the lead w/o source. That doesn't make sense. Maybe you could explain your rational?--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

More general question: Why are we still using a subpar (not about the topic at hand, not authoritative, and not the highest quality source on the topic) source about the carcinogenity of nicotine? The Surgeon General 20052015 "50 years of progress"[5] has an entire chapter summarizing what is known about nicotine. Here is a quote:

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to nicotine and risk for cancer.

So why are we would we even go down the road of implying that nicotine causes cancer? --Kim D. Petersen 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only that (ongoing problem) but after the latest edit the article gives the false impression all nicotine outside NRTs is associated with cancer, despite the actual quote (now in the article) making the distinction between in vitro (yes) and in vivo (no) and only gives NRTs as example.--TMCk (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And as noted above, you cannot link nicotine to cardiovascular disease either - again from the Surgeon General report - but of course a throwaway sentence in a paper about electronic cigarettes, is apparently authoritative to state differently. I'm flabberghasted that WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT is taken so lightly... --Kim D. Petersen 13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have altered the wording slightly. Is there a newer Surgeon General's report than 2005? Sizeofint (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Prob. just a typo. the report is from 2014.[6] --TMCk (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it was a typo. The Surgeon General report is from 2014. Thanks for the fix - it somewhat alleviates the problem.... doesn't remove it though. Why would we choose to quote an electronic cigarette review for information about nicotine? Something that the review doesn't even go specifically into depth about.. When there is authoritative material available? And when that authoritative literature doesn't agree with the e-cig review? In effect: We are using low-quality WP:MEDRS(in this context (nicotine) low-quality - may be quite high-quality with regards to e-cigs) material to contradict high-quality WP:MEDRS material. --Kim D. Petersen 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Any role here for a section on controversy? This could provide a place to put ill-founded assertions and comment on them.109.149.222.147 (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, because there isn't any. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Apparent Euphoria"

Hi, I don't see anywhere in citation 67 that it states anything about an apparent euphoria. I've never heard of Nicotine causing euphoria, can anyone look into this?

I marked it citation needed. Sizeofint (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

smoking

What is the effects of smoking? How does smoking lead people to death? Vivek chhetri Rauniyar (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You can find many answers at Health effects of tobacco. Deli nk (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicotine and cardiovascular disease

This edit[7] by QuackGuru (talk · contribs) makes a specific assertion about nicotine from a paper on electronic cigarettes, which while containing nicotine, is about a topic that is tangential to the topic itself. Which in and of itself is rather problematic, when it is stated in Wikipedia's own voice. But gets even more problematic when we try to verify it against literature that is specific to the topic of nicotine.

The most authoritative work i can find on this, is the 2014 report from the Surgeon General The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General which has a specific chapter (5) reviewing nicotine[8]. And this authoritative report cannot verify this statement - in fact it contradicts the claims made in the e-cigarette paper.

The quote from the e-cigarette paper that QuackGuru uses to verify a sentence in Wikipedia's voice is:

nicotine by itself is associated with its own health problems, notably cancer, cardiovascular disease, birth defects (possibly), and poisoning.

That flies directly in the face of the Surgeon General report which states:

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to nicotine and risk for cancer.

As for the specific statement about cardiovascular disease, the Surgeon General report specifies that there is not enough material to link cardiovascular disease directly to nicotine usage. Nicotine influences the cardiovascular system, but this influence diminishes to nothing by long-term exposure.

So we have a problem. Both with the sentence, and the cherry-picking of tangential papers to verify problematic content. --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, we have a serious direct problem with attribution, and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen 17:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• See the "carcigenicity" section above [now archived, last section but 1]. We have been round this track before! Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently so. And it originates in putting information in, without assessing what other sources state about the same information. In effect it is a serious WP:WEIGHT problem. One cannot assume that just because a source is a [[[WP:MEDRS]] review, then all information in it must be gospel. --Kim D. Petersen 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  I agree with Kim D. Petersen. Serious issue of WP:WEIGHT. Both, low toxic versions of smokeless tobacco and nicotine are not associated with MI in the real world. This is widely accepted. User:Zvi Zig —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by Jytdog

User:Jytdog has violated the 3RR and I've reported them for doing so. They have undone every edit I've made to the article, mostly without explaining why, and with a spurious reason in the one case they gave one. Here's what I changed and why:

1. It is made in the roots of... -> It is biosynthesised in the roots of

   "made" is vague and simplistic while biosynthesized is accurate. Jytdog claims it's not English; that's not true.

2. In lesser doses (an average cigarette yields about 2 mg of absorbed nicotine), the substance acts as a stimulant in mammals -> An average cigarette yields about 2 mg of absorbed nicotine, and in lesser doses of that order,

   Mammals other than humans generally don't smoke cigarettes, but that was implied by the former wording.

3. I moved a reference to the end of a sentence; Jytdog undid that change and later removed the reference entirely without explaining why.
4. However the widely used -> However, the widely used

   However here without a comma means "In whatever way"; with a comma it means "on the other hand". The latter is the intended sense.

5. It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states in 2013 -> It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in 2013 that

   Grammatically incorrect run-on sentence, and also uses the wrong tense; it's no longer 2013.

I don't think there's any good reason to undo even one of these changes and there was certainly no reason to undo them all. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The link you provided is to biosynthesized You keep adding biosynthesised For pete's sake. And yes, we want to use plain English where ever we can. "is made" is perfectly good plain English. See WP:PLAIN. The other changes you made garbled things similarly. I did keep your change to the Nesbit thing here so it is not true that I reverted everything you did. The article is going to be protected soon in any case. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Both spellings are valid. If English is not your native language, you really need to defer on spelling and grammar matters to people for whom it is. If you had some reason to prefer a different spelling, then you should have edited to change the spelling, and not removed the word entirely. I see your request for page protection made a dishonest personal attack; let's see what the result of that is. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"biosynthesised" is UK spelling sure. This article is US spelling. See WP:ENGVAR. Look per WP:BRD you should have come here and opened a discussion. I should have too, sure, but per BRD it was on you to do that. Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm glad you have decided to discuss it here rather than edit warring. FWIW I think that all of 81.36.240.108's changes could be considered improvements, although some of them should ideally be changed further, to make the meaning clear. I recommend that you build on these changes, rather than reverting them. Yaris678 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping. Will re-review. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• first dif - the "is made" chaged to UK spelling and the Nesbitt change.
• skipping a couple diffs
• here I kept the Nestbit change, which the IP didn't see and just completely reverted
• this change by the IP is kind of gobbledegook and less clear. From " In lesser doses (an average cigarette yields about 2 mg of absorbed nicotine)" to "An average cigarette yields about 2 mg of absorbed nicotine, and in lesser doses of that order, "
• here the IP added a comma.
• here the IP corrects a runon sentence

OK, so I self reverted. On the "biosynthesised" thing, it is especially important for the WP:LEAD to be plain english. See WP:TECHNICAL. I am not agreeing to "biosynthesized" (spelled the US way per ENGVAR) rather than "made" with a wikilink to biosynthesis. That is a bad edit. The rest are OK. I won't piss over the gobbledegook "lesser doses" thing. Jytdog (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

biosynthesized or biosynthesised, it's a perfectly clear and plain english word that is certainly more precise that "made". This is not Simple English wikipedia. Also you should stop insulting me and my edits. See WP:NPA. I've no idea what you think was gobbledegook. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

So IP, here is the dif from before your first edit to now. You got 99% of what you wanted. Are you satisfied? Jytdog (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No, because you insulted me, requested page protection for spurious reasons to try and get the upper hand in this ridiculous dispute, and you've insisted on this one change not for any sensible reason but merely to feel like you saved face, having repeatedly made the utterly foolish claim that "biosynthesized" was "not English". I only hope that you get blocked for your flagrant violation of the rules. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, are you satisifed with the content? Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said: no. Consider what the non-involved editor above said: "FWIW I think that all of 81.36.240.108's changes could be considered improvements. There's no reason for you to dumb down the language, and you've continued to make personal attacks while continuing to edit war. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm, generally we try to work to find something both parties can live with; not for all or nothing, especially when it comes to style issues like this. I am sorry I upset you, btw. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You should undo your latest edit, as it is your fifth revert in less than 24 hours. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You now want me to leave it with most of your changes not made? We are now working toward consensus and as I said you have gotten 99% of what you wanted. Going to bed now in any case. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I want you to undo the last edit you made, which constitutes ongoing edit warring and is your fifth whole or partial revert within 24 hours. Your additional self-revert would probably have just about kept you within the spirit of the 3RR so it's a shame you felt the need to continue your edit war. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Addictive substance

"Nicotine is highly addictive" Reference 11 in this article, refer's to an article on E-cigarettes. This article then states "Nicotine is a highly addictive neurotoxin, proven as addictive as heroin and cocaine.18" However Reference 18 on that article refers to a study done in 1998 titled "Health Consequences of Smoking" which is an article on tobacco cigarette smoking and NOT on nicotine alone. This statement should be modified or removed until a relevant reference on nicotine (not cigarette smoking) can be sourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.17.123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure there is a guideline somewhere that says we're not supposed to reject reviews based on dislike of the sources they cite. Sizeofint (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

See "Nicotine is a highly addictive substance with negative effects on animal and human brain development, which is still ongoing in adolescence."[9]

See "Nicotine is an organic compound found in tobacco leaves and is highly addictive, a known carcinogen, and extremely toxic."[10] Now there are two reviews in the WP:LEDE to verify the claim. Both are compliant with WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Common foods containing nicotine

Common foods containing nicotine are potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, teas, peppers, capsicums, and cauliflower.<spam link removed>

The article currently states: "Nicotine also naturally occurs in smaller amounts in plants from the family Solanaceae (such as potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplant).[105]" I think it could be expanded to include the other common foods. "Teas, peppers, capsicums, and cauliflower" are missing from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Safety of nicotine as a drug

In these difs i corrected the content about the safety of nicotine as a drug. Before the change, the content said that the chemical, nicotine, is safe. It said "It is widely held that nicotine itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups." in the lead, based on the following content in the body: "According to a 2013 report by Cancer Research UK, "The accepted medical position is that while nicotine is highly addictive and comparable to drugs such as heroin or cocaine, it poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups". This is sourced to this CRUK 2013 report. The statement in that source on page 8 in turn references this source and this source, each by the Royal College of Physicians, and each of which discusses the safety of nicotine in regulated NRT products, when used as directed. As our article says and as the Nicotine poisoning article goes into in detail, as a chemical substance, nicotine has dose-dependent toxicity that becomes lethal at, well let's say 6.5–13 mg/kg. It is a recognized poison worldwide, and is used as an insecticide. My changes made it clear that the relative safety of nicotine that authorities agree on (and they do), is its use in NRTs, used as recommended. And it is quite safe in that context. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we now reanalyze to contradict sources while on top using the wrong source of the source (29, not 28)? Still not paying enough attention it seems.--TMCk (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Source 29 says the same things as source 28 - it talks about nicotine in harm reduction products, and we express what the source actually is talking about. I reckon this is a case about whether the sources support the un-nuanced statement that existed, so I will post to RSN to broaden the discussion, especially as you are personalizing the content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Safety_of_Nicotine Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog, the dose makes the poison, and discussion of safety/toxicology requires a contextual application. Yobol (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, another wikipedia hobbyist researcher is joining with their own view that, contrary to the source, this substance poses little health risks only if taken in a certain type of medication. (While more context is always helpfull, singling out "a glass of water is fine" is not.) --TMCk (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually the route of administration, not the particular dosage form, which is important in reducing nicotine's toxicity in NRT relative to smoking. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, reason. Thank you. It's route + concentration + quantity (which depends on the route) to be precise.--TMCk (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like we have some orignal research now in the article. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN is turning up strong sources with which to revise this. Happy. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that I've responded to the misrepresented sources posted on RSN.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 13:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Having posted doesn't mean that you "win". The discussion there is ongoing and is working toward consensus. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_205#Safety_of_Nicotine for the archived discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Connections to other substances MEDRS?

It looks like this new section is supported by mainly primary sources. Should MEDRS apply there? Sizeofint (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, should MEDRS apply to Gateway drug theory. That article also includes these primary sources. Sizeofint (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes and yes. I have been thinking about what to do with that addition. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the article is - matters what the statement is (1st paragraph of MEDRS). I once deleted a poorly sourced medical claim in the Breaking bad article and someone disputed it, but the eventual consensus following discussion was that MEDRS applies because there was a medical claim in that article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, I phrased my question poorly. Sizeofint (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Saidmann, are there any WP:MEDRS compliant sources such as review articles that cover this content? Sizeofint (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:MEDRS. There you find the rule "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." This has been done in the linked main article Gateway drug theory, which uses these secondary sources:

• D. B. Kandel (Ed.): Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-521-78969-1.
• Wayne Hall, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula: Is cannabis a gateway drug? In: Same authors: Cannabis Use and Dependence. Public Health and Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, USA, 2003, ISBN 978-0-521-80024-2, chapt. 10, pp. 104–114.
• Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Angela Hawken: Is marijuana a "gateway drug"? In: Same authors: Drugs and Drug Policy. What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-19-983138-8, chapt. 4, question 8, pp. 81–83.
• Goode, Erich (1974). "Marijuana use and the progression to dangarous drugs". In Miller, Loren (ed.). Marijuana Effects on Human Behavior. Burlington: Elsevier Science. p. 303–338. ISBN 978-1-4832-5811-9.

I have now also added a secondary source in the new section of this article. Please note that in subjects like this one secondary sources usually only present the general frame of subject and research but not the "state of the art", which has to be added by primary sources. This is why we have the rule "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources."

References

--Saidmann (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

New review

User:Zvi Zig - do not read only the abstract (see WP:NOABSTRACT) - this is basic editing here in WP. The quote from PMID 27079891's conclusion is accurate. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to -- the quote I cited is from the body, not the abstract.

The quote from PMID 27079891 is indeed accurate, but it does not represent the review's conclusion accurately. Why is weight given to experimental evidence on biological plausibility, rather than the authors main conclusions on nicotine safety? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 23:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see what you are saying -- I added a bit here. That was easily fixable. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you cite from the next paragraph in that review, which is the ultimate conclusion, rather than WP:JARGON-filled quote confusingly starting off with biological plausibility based on WP:MEDANIMAL evidence Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 00:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If sources disagree in regard to cardiovascular disease risk we do not decide who is "right". Rewording the text can also work rather than deleting all of the conclusion. It also found "Nicotine exerts pharmacologic effects that could contribute to acute cardiovascular events and accelerated atherogenesis experienced by cigarette smokers."[11] QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

These sources do not disagree. Rather, they relate to different effects. Some relate to biological plausibility, while others relate to short and long-term human epidemiology. The authors then present the ultimate conclusion, which takes all of these into account, giving each their proper weight.

In regards to the statement quoted above, it is part of the literature review relating to a possible effect, not the conclusion. In fact, authors reject its relevance immediately: "While it is reasonable to conclude that there is a link between nicotine and a more atherogenic lipid profile, multiple cessation studies using nicotine medications (NRT and nicotine nasal spray) report reduced dyslipidemia with significant improvement in HDL/LDL ratios". Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 23:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That is about "Nicotine and dyslipidemia" under a different section. They do not reject the fact that there is a possible link with atherogenesis.

I added the part about dyslipidemia. See "Many quitting smoking studies using nicotine medicines report lowered dyslipidemia with considerable benefit in HDL/LDL ratios.[49]" Sources do disagree about the association with cardiovascular disease. The readers make the ultimate conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I didn't realize you were referring to the statement in the abstract. The abstract's statement on atherogenesis relates to biological plausibility, as you can see in the full-text Conclusion (emph. mine):

   "Studies of the pharmacology and toxicology of nicotine in animals and some epidemiologic studies in people support the biological plausibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with underlying CVD, and exerts pharmacologic effects that could contribute to accelerated atherogenesis. Short-term nicotine use, such as nicotine medication to aid smoking cessation, appears to pose little cardiovascular risk, even to patients with known CVD. Longer term nicotine use, such as in ST users, appears not accelerate atherogenesis (sic), but may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD."[12]

2. My statement was about these sources not disagreeing, not the conclusions of other reviews, which are a different discussion. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

More context was added. See "Brief nicotine use, such as nicotine medicine, seems to incur a slight cardiovascular risk, even to people with established cardiovascular disease.[49] Prolonged nicotine use seems not to increase atherosclerosis.[49]"

There is insufficient data on the long-term effects of nicotine. Since the effects of long-term nicotine use is unknown it is relevant to include it in the WP:LEDE. Even coffee could have negative health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

An article this size should not get into the resolution of "nicotine could (as in biological plausibility) cause atherogenesis (formation of atherosclerosis), but long-term nicotine use seems not to increase atherosclerosis." Instead we should look at the review's ultimate conclusion. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 22:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

See "Some studies in people show the possibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with established cardiovascular disease, and induces pharmacologic effects that might contribute to increased atherosclerosis.[49]" The text also states "Prolonged nicotine use seems not to increase atherosclerosis.[49]" These are different conclusions and both are relevant.

You previously stated the ultimate conclusion is another section, but the other section is about the "Nicotine and dyslipidemia". The review makes multiple conclusions about different effects of nicotine. As you know, I did more than look at the next paragraph. I summarised the part about dyslipidemia and added more context. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, my first response to the atherogenesis statement was a mistake. However, I noted in my second response that the authors clearly reject the potential pharmacologic effects for real-world human evidence, as the Conclusion section notes...

Studies of the pharmacology and toxicology of nicotine in animals and some epidemiologic studies in people support the biological plausibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with underlying CVD, and exerts pharmacologic effects that could contribute to accelerated atherogenesis. . . . Longer term nicotine use, such as in ST users, appears not accelerate atherogenesis

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 08:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)the summary

As I said, they do not reject the fact that there is a possible link with atherogenesis.

The part "Some studies in people show the possibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with established cardiovascular disease, and induces pharmacologic effects that might contribute to increased atherosclerosis.[49]" adds context. It has qualifiers that are faithful to the source such as "some" and "might".

You added this context, but earlier in the WP:LEDE it says "Nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement products is less of a risk than smoking.[18]" That is adding duplication. Adding quotes to the lede do not have an encyclopedic feel. The 2016 review says "Given the unknown health effects of long-term nicotine use..."[13] This is a fact. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru: "As I said, they do not reject the fact that there is a possible link with atherogenesis.

The part "Some studies in people show the possibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with established cardiovascular disease, and induces pharmacologic effects that might contribute to increased atherosclerosis.[49]" adds context. It has qualifiers that are faithful to the source such as "some" and "might".

Response: The atherogenesis issue is presented very misleadingly. In the Benowitz review, every possible pathway to atherogenesis is countered with serious obstacles. In addition, the conclusion immediately tempers the atherogenesis possibility with

Short-term nicotine use, such as nicotine medication to aid smoking cessation, appears to pose little cardiovascular risk, even to patients with known CVD. Longer term nicotine use, such as in ST users, appears not accelerate atherogenesis, but may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD.

QuackGuru: "You added this context, but earlier in the WP:LEDE it says "Nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement products is less of a risk than smoking.[18]" That is adding duplication."

Response: Less risky doesn't necessarily indicate a lower cancer risk: smoking causes a range of diseases. I added the direct quote from the Surgeon General Report because "inadequate research to demonstrate" may be misleading in implying that limited research suggests a cancer risk. QuackGuru: "The 2016 review says "Given the unknown health effects of long-term nicotine use..."[14] This is a fact."

Response: It's certainly a fact that this is the (WP:UNDUE) position of a 2016 review. However, this does not reflect WP:NPOV, as it contradicts the positions of many other reviews, including those of RCP, AHA, NICE and PHE. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The text and the quote of the conclusion is accurate.

The edit summary in part is nicotine =/= water, which means there are health risks associated with nicotine, among other things. Other reviews have not been presented that show that nicotine is not associated with health concerns. You mentioned "AHA". What does "AHA" stand for?

If the atherogenesis issue is presented misleadingly then the source is misleading because the text accurately summarises the source. It seems not to increase atherogenesis, but it still might contribute to increasing atherosclerosis according to the same source. We included both for neutrality. Including one part of the conclusion while excluding the other part of the conclusion is misleading.

See "There is insufficient data to conclude that nicotine causes or contributes to cancer in humans, but there is evidence showing possible oral, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer risks."[15] That is the full quote. The text is "There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans.[19]" That sentence does not indicate that limited research indicates a cancer risk.

See "Notwithstanding the limitations, this study at least does not indicate a strong role for nicotine in promoting carcinogenesis in humans, and clearly the risk, if any, is less than continued smoking."[16] This edit appears to be a WP:SYN violation. The source is referring to the cancer risk of nicotine in the form of NRT is less than smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 review is clearly referring to nicotine

The text is neutrally written according to the source and the text being summarized is referring to nicotine. See "Psychostimulants and nicotine are the most widely abused drugs with a detrimental impact on public health globally."[17] The edit summary states in part that the source's aberrant supporting phrase apparently is referring to tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The assertion that nicotine itself "has a negative impact on public health worldwide", does not adhere to WP:NPOV, as RCP concludes, "nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user". No major review concludes that nicotine itself causes any major disease.

The quote above -- "Psychostimulants and nicotine are the most widely abused drugs with a detrimental impact on public health globally" -- apparently relates even to diseases caused through nicotine-addiction from other tobacco or tobacco smoke constituents. But this is besides my point. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 00:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Users do not use nicotine alone. So yes, it does adhere to NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The entire section refers to the direct effects of nicotine. If the statement refers to indirect effects (i.e. tobacco's vast health toll), then this should be made clear, if deemed relevant.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The text is clearly about nicotine because the sentence used to verify the claim explicitly uses the word "nicotine". Trying to state if it is the direct or indirect effects is up to readers to decide. Editors cannot make the text clearly if the source does not make it clearly. There could be more context from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, again. If the source refers to the direct effects of nicotine, then it's contra WP:NPOV. If the source refers to the indirect effects of nicotine dependence, as manifested in smoking-related diseases, then that should be made clear.

If the source does not make the text clear as to the above, then there's no reason to include it. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 08:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The source does not say it refers to its direct effects of nicotine or refer to indirect effects of nicotine. It refers to nicotine as a drug. The source is clear as it is written. To make it more clear would be adding original research content. QuackGuru (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-read above.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 09:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"The health effects of long-term nicotine use is unknown"

The opening statement on adverse effects in the lead and the body is: The health effects of long-term nicotine use is unknown.

This is a WP:UNDUE statement contradicting WP:NPOV.

The Royal College of Physicians

Nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user.[18]

The American Heart Association

There are some studies of prolonged nicotine replacement therapy. In these studies, no adverse effects have been found when nicotine medication was administered for months to several years. . . . Because most of the toxicity from cigarette smoking derives from combustion products, the health effects of smokeless tobacco could be examined to assess potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine without exposure to combustion products. Smokeless tobacco users take in as much nicotine as cigarette smokers, although not by the pulmonary route. The most extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies on smokeless tobacco use come from Scandinavia, where a large percentage of men use snus, a smokeless tobacco product that contains nicotine but relatively low levels of carcinogens and other toxins.[19]

These are pretty difficult to reconcile with the unhindered declaration in WP. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 12:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That specific statement by the Royal College of Physicians does not address the issue of the long-term effects. Therefore, it is not relevant to the long-term effects and does not contradict the statement made by other sources that specifically address the long-term effects.

The Royal College of Physicians stated "The risks attributable to long-term inhalation of nicotine in isolation' from tobacco smoke, and of the propylene glycol, glycerine and other components unique to e-cigarettes, are also uncertain but likely to be low."[20] That confirms the long-term effects of nicotine inhaling nicotine is "uncertain".

The American Heart Association stated there are only some studies on NRT. That is not solid evidence on the long-term effects. But they did make a specific claim on the health effects of prolonged exposure to nicotine itself.

The American Heart Association stated "Because most people use nicotine in the form of tobacco products, there are relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine'."[21] That confirms that there is very limited data on the prolonged exposure to nicotine itself.

Nicotine does not = water according to the edit summary.

A 2015 review found "The long-term health effects of inhaling nicotine vapor are unknown..."

I quoted the most relevant text from the sources you presented. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Response:

1. The statement from RCP's report certainly relates to long-term effects. Here's the full statement: As use of nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user, complete substitution of smoking with conventional NRT products is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of complete cessation in almost all areas of harm to the user.[22]
2. Characterizing a risk as "uncertain but likely to be low"[23] does not amount to unknown. Anyhow, this characterization specifically relates to "long-term inhalation of nicotine", which is a novel route of nicotine exposure.
3. The American Heart Association (AHA) notes (1) "some studies of prolonged nicotine replacement therapy"[24] and (2) the relatively "extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies"[25] on high-nicotine low-toxic smokeless tobacco use, which it notes can be used to infer the adverse effects of nicotine.

The "relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure"[26] relates to pure NRT. The AHA explicitly infers nicotine safety from the extensive epidemiological studies on Swedish snus. Moreover, "relatively few data"[27] does not support "unknown".

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

1. The statement you quoted from RCP's report is not explicitly about the long-term effects.
2. Stating the risk as "uncertain but likely to be low"[28] does amount to it being "uncertain". That is similar to unknown. Claiming that the inhalation of nicotine vapor is a novel route of nicotine exposure is original research.
3. The statement you mentioned from American Heart Association cannot be used to infer the long-term effects since it is not about long-term effects. They did not state the long-term effects are known, anyhow. Since the American Heart Association stated "there are relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine"[29] it confirms that there is very limited data on the prolonged exposure to nicotine itself. This is similar to it being unknown. We do have a source that states the long-term effects of nicotine is unknown. No other source explicitly states the long-term effects of nicotine are well known. Inferring what other sources claim is speculation.
4. The assertion that there is "WP:WEASEL throughout this section is a serious issue"[30] has not been demonstrated.
5. It is not sourced to a review. It is an editorial. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Response:

1. There is no basis to limit this statement to the short-term. Moreover, it's in a chapter on the long-term substitution to nicotine.
2. Uncertain is not "unknown" and certainly not in the phrase "uncertain but likely to be low"[31]. In any case, we cannot generalize from uncertainty on nicotine inhalation to studied exposure routes.
3. The American Heart Association report says[32], "the health effects of smokeless tobacco could be examined to assess potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine without exposure to combustion products". It continues using "... extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies on smokeless tobacco".

True, the report notes, "relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine". This relates to research on "pure nicotine" (NRT), but the report infers nicotine's long-term safety from low-toxic snus, just as we infer caffeine's safety from coffee.

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. The part "represents little if any hazard to the user"[33] is not about whether the long-term effects are known.
2. The statement that the risk is "uncertain but likely to be low"[34] indicates they do not know the long-term effects because it is still uncertain but they think it is "likely" to be low.
3. The part "Because most of the toxicity from cigarette smoking derives from combustion products, the health effects of smokeless tobacco could be examined to assess potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine without exposure to combustion products."[35] is an assessment of the available data for the potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine which does not make it well known regarding the long-term effects using the current data. Moreover, they stated "The most extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies on smokeless tobacco use come from Scandinavia..."[36] It was the "most extensive"[37] but that does not indicate the data on the long-term effect is very extensive.

"Because most people use nicotine in the form of tobacco products, there are relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine."[38] clearly indicates little is known regarding the effects of nicotine itself. With what little is available they disseminated. "Relatively few" means they do not have enough evidence to determine the long-term effects.

The following statement from RCP's report is relevant. "Evidence about long-term nicotine or NRT use is relatively scarce, and concerns have been raised that long-term NRT use may increase cancer risk, in part owing to endogenous formation of carcinogens such as N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN).52"[39] The source clearly shows we do not know the long-term health effects of nicotine because the data is "relatively scarce".

QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Using the phrase "represents little if any hazard to the user"[40] in discussing long-term substitution, certainly contradicts the declaration that long-term effects are unknown.
2. The "uncertain but likely to be low" statement relates explicitly to nicotine inhalation, which has not been studied long-term. Also, note that in science little is ever "certain". "Uncertain but likely to be low" is a good way to describe the long-term hazards of eating breakfast cereal. If you think "uncertain but likely to be low" concords with "unknown", then perhaps we should substitute for the more nuanced phrase.
3. (a)The American Heart Association says that we can, and does, infer the long-term effects of nicotine from data -- relatively "extensive and rigorous" data on snus and relatively limited data on NRT. This contradicts the a blanket declaration of ignorance with regards to long-term effects.

(b) "Relatively few" data on "pure nicotine" cannot be used to conclude that effects are "unknown", because the review concludes that we can, and does, infer nicotine's long-term safety from snus.

(c) You note RCPs " "Evidence about long-term nicotine or NRT use is relatively scarce"[41], without noting it immediately afterwards explains why we can infer its long-term safety by using several lines of evidence including "robust evidence on the safety of long-term nicotine use in humans".

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Magnetic Susceptibilty

TerpeneOtto (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I'm publishing magnetic susceptibilities in the physical properties portion of organic molecules and inorganic compounds and Im having a hard time getting magnetic susceptibility into the drug boxes. Could someone publish this into the drug box and either add a slot for magnetic susceptibility or post here and update us on how to post magnetic susceptiblity into the drug boxes. | MagSus = -113.328·10⁻⁶ cm³/mol . This is the coded format for the physical properties box.

@TerpeneOtto: I don't think {{Drugbox}} currently supports that parameter. You could post on the talk page of that template. Sizeofint (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Trace quantities in plants

I just made an edit [42] to clarify that the occurrence in plants is very low. I might have done this anyway if I'd thought about it, but this was in response to an article [43] about an Indonesian group which argues [44] that "because nicotine is in vegetables you eat every day, you can't avoid it". I should emphasize that the text we had before was made by a good user giving good facts, and despite my initial fear I don't think the Komunitas Kretek editorial is based on our text because they use a different older reference [45] which gives a far higher figure for nicotine content of foods. Even so, 100 ng/g in an eggplant means that you get 100 ug from a kilo, while there is 120 times that amount in the average cigarette.

Still, when I look at a holocaust in the making, I don't want a single fingerprint of mine on it, so I should ask whether there is more we can do to make it clear how preposterous the "present in all foods" argument really is. I didn't put the comparison I gave above in the article because I thought I'd run into "original synthesis" complaints, but I want to see if there might be room for something like that (or something else) here. Wnt (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where does the PDF file state it is in "trace quantities"? Please see WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Update: apparently I'm already taking flack with a "not in citation given" tag. I don't think working the math that ug/kg = ppb by weight is going too far - we do unit conversions all the time. @QuackGuru: - I don't get what you mean about WP:V here. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a copy of the PDF file. Please provide verification according to what the source stated. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Trace quantities" is a subjective term, so I've tried replacing it with "Millions-fold lower quantities". Bear in mind that the older reference cited above says that three hours of breathing second-hand smoke produces a nicotine level in the blood comparable to the amount ingested if eggplant contained 100 ng/kg rather than the 2-7 ng/kg we cite; I would have thought that "trace" adequately described a quantity so easily acquired. But now it's just simple math. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Trace quantities" is a subjective term, but it is still original research. It already says "(parts per billion by weight)". "Millions-fold lower quantities" is unnecessary and similar to "(parts per billion by weight)" and the source does not state it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

More original research. The part "as well as in tea". is WP:OR or ambiguous. The wording can be a bit more accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For now I gave up the tea part - honestly the problem is I can't access the full text of that article presently and so I don't know what specifics to say. It's not really lede material anyway - and the other paper didn't find any in black tea at all, and the one we cite says it's variable. For all I know there are smokers in the tea field. I also have, reluctantly, given up the "billions" explanation in favor of wikilinking the units. I hope this text is mutually tolerable at this point. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Millions-fold lower quantities" is confusing. Please find a source to verify the claim or read the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done much to respond to your criticisms, but we need to have some tip-off to the reader that the amount of nicotine in an eggplant is not comparable to the amount in a cigarette. There are all too many people who don't understand the metric system and don't know what a "ug/kg" is. I don't see why my phrase would be confusing, but certainly leaving it out would be (and was) more so. I've done a rewording of the sentence that might read better; I have no idea if that addresses your concerns. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Where does the source state "Less than one millionth of that concentration..."? Even if it was shortened to "2–7 µg/kg is found in edible Solanaceae such as eggplants and tomatoes." it would be original research and misleading. The source does not assert it is always that consistently accurate. Without reading the PDF file an editor cannot come to their own conclusion in this particular case. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Copied diff

@QuackGuru: Can you link me to the diff from this article where content was copied/moved from Safety of electronic cigarettes into this article? I'd like to add the diff link to the {{Copied}} template on this page since the revision should normally be included in that template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Nicotine addiction

The article Nicotine addiction currently redirects to Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders. There is an article about Nicotine dependence which is also referred to in that section of this article. I believe Nicotine addiction is best redirected to Nicotine dependence instead of this article. Some editors believe nicotine dependence and addiction are two different concepts. This is probably true. However, the section of this article does actually mostly talk about dependence and only refers addiction in the shorter second part of the section. However, the article Nicotine addiction actually discusses the difference between the two concepts in some more detail. Very strictly speaking, it would be wrong to redirect Nicotine addiction to either this article or Nicotine dependence. However, I would argue most people wanting to find out more about either dependence or addiction will inevitably follow from Nicotine to the linked article about Nicotine dependence, so taking them first to this article actually has little value add. I therefore request to change the redirect. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nicotine addiction is not the same thing as nicotine dependence. More information about nicotine addiction can be added to Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Dependence and addiction are more closely related and should be discussed in the same article in detail (which can be called Nicotine dependence or Nicotine addiction - I don't really have a preference). My main point is, if there is a lengthy article, that one should be fleshed out with all the details and facets. This article may then very well give a summary overview of the facets (which it actually already sort of does) and leave the details to the second article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't have an article called Nicotine addiction and dependence, but Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders touches on both addiction and dependence. Drug addiction is obviously different than drug dependence. Therefore, we don't redirect Nicotine addiction to Nicotine dependence. The word addiction is not typically interchangeable with dependence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

well, in relation to nicotine, even the WHO and APA use addiction and dependence interchangeably, see top left of page 142. Again, while there is no substantively different article about addiction, dependence is the closest fit._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is drug dependence (i.e. negative reinforcement) and then there is substance dependence (diagnostic criteria which encompasses addiction and dependence). Nicotine dependence could discuss either (so long as it is a diagnosable condition), but we need to be clear which. Sizeofint (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting "DRUG_NAME addiction" to the addiction section of an associated drug article isn't unusual; e.g., Amphetamine addiction is currently a redirect to Amphetamine#Addiction. Nicotine addiction currently uses the same format for that redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, the only reason that nicotine dependence exists as an independent article is that it's a diagnosis in the ICD. Otherwise, all of the "DRUG_NAME dependence" articles probably would've been merged into their parent articles a while ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Content about e-liquid

QuackGuru explained "unsourced and not a summary; this page is about nicotine; too much detail about e-liquid" Now even more content was added to the lede. The WP:LEDE is usually 4 paragraphs for an article of this length. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. The topic is about nicotine. This may be too much detailed content about e-liquid, especially for the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the above, one of the sentences does not have a citation. Maintenance tags were added to address the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WHERE SHOULD WIKI HAVE INFO IN FDA's new Nicotine Steering Committee?

Many words to see 28 are restored. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of this article are already addressing the issues with nicotine as reported in government studies, and this steering committee is looking at it's use not as a Tobacco Product, but as Nicotine, used in therapeutic ways. Below is what I believe should be the next piece of information readers find before looking at the pure science. Shouldn't readers have access to the most current discourse occuring on the this specific subject?

If I'm wrong, and it should be placed elsewhere- make a suggestion as to what page. BUT JUST TO BE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: If wiki is opening this science article dealing with nicotine's chemical composition and what it affects with 'editorial' formed by opinions and theories as some read PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF... studies that may be flawed or weighted including questions of merit that are substantiated and ignoring other concerns (bad example: who is helping youth gain access to age restricted products) any reference to youth here beyond the detrimental effects that nicotine has on a developing mind should be removed as not important to the page's topic, just as the minimal information on the Nicotine Steering Committee has been removed. All or none editors. You shouldn't discuss nicotine poisoning without further information. Neutrality. The poisonings are almost exclusively children under the age of 5 according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. The reader should be made aware that nicotine is a poison and should be handled with care, especially when children are present because AAPCC numbers show us that year after year. Gateway Drug theory is primary another youth related issue. Citation 22 would benefit from the inclusion of this FDA entity. Maybe not. I could be wrong.

The 5th paragraph offered to readers deleted by user:quackguru as not being well summarized and not belonging on this page: Simply putting this on talk before I dare UNDO a change. I'd like to gain more helpful guidance on how to improve the proposed content and it's placement from others.

"In September 2017 the FDA created the Nicotine Steering Committee to primarily focus on the use of therapeutic nicotine for combustible tobacco product cessation. They held their first meeting in January 2018."

If I understand Wiki properly, it would be wrong to summarize the contents of their 1st January 2018 meeting which is found in citation, for wiki is not a news vehicle. A citation of the formation of this new entity and a link to the transcript/webcast of their meeting might be helpful to a person researching nicotine... PERHAPS NOT EXACTLY HERE- BUT SOMEWHERE IN ONE OF THE MANY WIKI ARTICLES that links here.

Isn't it also wrong to discuss nicotine use recreationally for only it's stimulating properties, when it's antidepressant and short-term memory boosting effects are other "off use benefits" people opt for in addition to cessation use.

This is all to be taken lightly, and yet, seriously. What is the purpose of this article and does the current format support that purpose exclusively? Are links balanced with helpful tools for the reader. If the American Cancer Society has taken the position that nicotine from e cigarettes, when used without combustibles, is appropriate Tobacco Harm Reduction... shouldn't this page link to THR too. Linkely the reader is curious about Nicotine for a reason. Shouldn't a link to the American Lung Association be here as well... or do such things only belong on CIGARETTE pages? IDK.

Now smile please. These are just questions brought before you to offer eyes on a page you aren't used to seeing through. The fact that Nicotine is being used in studies for Alzheimer's as a remedy to a problem is incredible but true. I think we need to help separate nicotine from the perceived vial thing has ravaged our population with combustible use of the product... the tar and chemical from that are not what is in nicorette gum and patches. Unfortueately the latest HINTS data (Health Information National Trends Study) on Nicotine demonstrates a huge misconception. supports this assertion? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: The paraphrased statement was "Whether there are direct effects of nicotine on cognitive function (positive or negative) in nonabstinent smokers and in healthy nonsmoking adults is less clear." This seemed surprisingly different from the summation drift of the review, although the SGUS report follows that statement with a recap of the same review. I was intending to look for some more recent sources to see if I could figure out a reason for the discrepancy. I have seen your other reply; thank you for taking so much trouble over it. I will reply once I've given it some thought. HLHJ (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Snus cancer risk

The long-term use of nicotine in the form of snus incurs a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco smoking and is not associated with cancer.

A quick search reveals no credible information to support this claim, and quite a bit to refute it. The validity of the attached citation is already in question. Should it be removed? 45.46.179.116 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The part that failed verification was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a source for the removed bit; snus causes cancer. Seppi333 reverted it, but made a dummy edit suggesting that it might not be problematic. Could any objections to this source and statement please be stated here? HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I object on the grounds it appears to fail verification. Where does the source verify "snus" causes cancer? QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Searching for "snus" in Table 3 gets a number of studies. Figure 4, on oesophageal cancers, has a statistically significant significant summary stat for just Sweden (where snus is the form of smokeless tobacco). Table 4 gives the harms of snus consumption in snus-using areas of Europe. For other sources, there is [46] and [47]. The evidence is nowhere near as good as for cigarettes, and the evidence that risk level varies by type of smokeless tobacco product seems strong, so it's quite possible that there will be further research and product modifications requiring updates here, but at the moment, the MEDRSs say that these products are carcinogenic. It seems as if low-pH products are less harmful than high-pH products, we could add that. HLHJ (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The tables or figures do not verify snus causes cancer in general. That content is too vague. The other sources do not verify the claim and the other sources state very little about snus. The information about "these products" are in the smokeless tobacco article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If the sources verify that snus causes cancers of any one type, they logically verify that it causes cancers. The FDA warning message says "WARNING: This product can cause mouth cancer", which seems pretty clear. They recently reviewed these warnings and decided to keep them. The other source, about an FDA information campaign, speaks of "messages on the dangers of smokeless tobacco use – including nicotine addiction, gum disease, tooth loss, and multiple kinds of cancer". HLHJ (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide a source that "snus" causes cancer. If a source discusses smokeless tobacco it does not mean an editor can change smokeless tobacco to snus or other products. That would be like trying to state nicotine causes cancer when the source referred to smoking as causing cancer."WARNING: This product can cause mouth cancer"[48] is for smokeless tobacco products. I think a better source specifically mentioning snus can be used. I already added that to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything on snus and cancer in the article. Snus is a hyponym of smokeless tobacco. The FDA warning is specifically applied to snus, as well as other smokeless tobaccos, and the review of the warnings was brought by a snus manufacturer. Here is the FDA's summary of why they think snus causes cancer.[49] The 115-page version is here.

The FDA assessment is based partly on this study.[50] It suggests that if you compare snus-users with non-snus-users, their cancer rates are similar; however, non-snus-users smoke more in Sweden, because few Swedes dual-use, and Swedish snus users almost never take up smoking (this pattern is not consistent elsewhere [51]). If you compare snus users who have never smoked to people who have never used snus or cigarettes, the snus users have significantly more cancers of the mouth and pharynx, in the results of several studies. The authors also point out that the carcinogens in commercial snus have been declining with time. HLHJ (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The source states "There is sufficient evidence that the use of these products increases the risk of mouth cancer in users compared to non-users.[52] This type of detailed information may be better suited for the snus article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think snus causing cancer is fairly basic information; the article currently includes information on it, from an article three years older than the FDA review. We should update this. HLHJ (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not cover tobacco products in this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

References