E-cigarettes

Post by Steve O
I saw an E-Cigarette display in a shop today.
The advertising around it stated in big letters- "SATISFIES CRAVING!!!"
Underneath, in small print, it said- "Warning, can cause craving."
Just about says it all, really.

That's funny. In fact, ecigarettes can do both psychologically, but
neither chemically. My article on ecigarette inefficiency shows they
are basically placebos. The fuss antis make enhances ecigarettes'
image of delivering nicotine. If antis were smart (they're not), they
would produce evidence showing ecigarettes are duds.

Steve O

2013-12-03 14:54:10 UTC

If it gets nicotine into the system, it is absolutely not a placebo.
Curiously, the lesser the amount of nicotine it puts in, the worse the
effect.
The rule of thumb with nicotine is that a little is often worse than a lot.
A colleague of mine has taken to occasionally smoking e-cigarettes in
the office.
He doesn't use it much, just the occasional few puffs when no one is
looking.
Someone else had previously complained about the 'slightly fruity
chemical smell' it was producing.
I definitely know that they deliver nicotine because I got a dose myself
just from sitting near him for a couple of hours, and as a result
started to feel the same, slightly jittery restless feeling of agitation
I used to get as a smoker.
I have trained myself well to recognize that feeling and deal with it
when it happens.
The feeling is unmistakable.
Fortunately, due to the quit method I used, I just wait until the
jitteriness goes away instead of craving a cigarette myself.
In the past, that might not have been the situation.
So yes, from personal experience, I can tell you that not only is an e-
cigarette not a placebo, there is also such a thing as second hand
nicotine inhalation from e-cigarettes.
It's just the same as sitting in an opium den and getting high from it
without touching the opium.(with a lesser effect, of course)
Fortunately, for e-cigarette users, it would appear that most anti
smokers haven't caught onto it yet, and as a result will allow
e-cigarette smoking in many places.
I'm sure that will eventually change.

Robert

2013-12-02 20:46:25 UTC

Post by Steve O

If it gets nicotine into the system, it is absolutely not a placebo.

My article showed they get only a trivial amount of nicotine into
users' blood.

Post by Steve O
Curiously, the lesser the amount of nicotine it puts in, the worse the
effect.

In that case, non-smokers would have infinite craving for nicotine.

Post by Steve O
The rule of thumb with nicotine is that a little is often worse than a lot.
A colleague of mine has taken to occasionally smoking e-cigarettes in
the office.
He doesn't use it much, just the occasional few puffs when no one is
looking.
Someone else had previously complained about the 'slightly fruity
chemical smell' it was producing.
I definitely know that they deliver nicotine because I got a dose myself
just from sitting near him for a couple of hours, and as a result
started to feel the same, slightly jittery restless feeling of agitation
I used to get as a smoker.
I have trained myself well to recognize that feeling and deal with it
when it happens.
The feeling is unmistakable.
Fortunately, due to the quit method I used, I just wait until the
jitteriness goes away instead of craving a cigarette myself.
In the past, that might not have been the situation.
So yes, from personal experience, I can tell you that not only is an e-
cigarette not a placebo, there is also such a thing as second hand
nicotine inhalation from e-cigarettes.
It's just the same as sitting in an opium den and getting high from it
without touching the opium.(with a lesser effect, of course)

Ecigarettes vaporize a considerable amount of nicotine -- typically 18
mg per 'cigarette equivalent.' All but a trivial amount winds up in
airborne droplets. The problem is, particles are too small to be taken
up by users' lungs. Perhaps they coalesce over time.

Post by Steve O
Fortunately, for e-cigarette users, it would appear that most anti
smokers haven't caught onto it yet, and as a result will allow
e-cigarette smoking in many places.
I'm sure that will eventually change.

If a little hysteria and propaganda is good, more is better. Lying is
like an arms race. It continually escalates.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-03 23:50:34 UTC

My article showed they get only a trivial amount of nicotine into users' blood.

Your one article which you had trouble finding. Why not perform the experiment? Shouldn't "trivial" be very similar to none? You could prove it was trivial if the effect on you is almost the same.

Robert

2013-12-03 22:04:08 UTC

On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:50:34 -0800 (PST), Bruce Watson

My article showed they get only a trivial amount of nicotine into users' blood.

Your one article which you had trouble finding. Why not perform the experiment? Shouldn't "trivial" be very similar to none? You could prove it was trivial if the effect on you is almost the same.

I cited two studies that measured nicotine in blood and independently
found the same FACTS. My primary source was the national health
service of New Zealand, not an independent researcher who might be
wrong.

Plus I cited a third study that did the same for NRTs including
Stonewall. That evidence is much more accurate than your arithmetic
based on package labeling.

The validity of a fact is a function of its source, not the number of
times it is repeated.

You are eager to cite newspaper sources, but have nothing to say when
confronted with real science.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-05 22:38:02 UTC

The validity of a fact is a function of its source, not the number of times it is repeated.

You can demonstrate the validity by abstaining from all forms of nicotine.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-05 22:52:11 UTC

That evidence is much more accurate than your arithmetic based on package labeling.
You are eager to cite newspaper sources, but have nothing to say when confronted with real science.

My source below is not "based on package labeling" nor is it a "newspaper source."

"Usually ad libitum use of NRTs results in one-third to two-thirds the concentration of nicotine that is achieved by cigarette smoking (Benowitz, 1993; Schneider et al., 2001). However, users of 4-mg nicotine gum may sometimes reach or even exceed the nicotine levels associated with smoking (McNabb et al., 1982, 1984)."

http://m.pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/57/1/79.full#T1

Robert

2013-12-07 01:12:19 UTC

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:52:11 -0800 (PST), Bruce Watson

That evidence is much more accurate than your arithmetic based on package labeling.
You are eager to cite newspaper sources, but have nothing to say when confronted with real science.

My source below is not "based on package labeling" nor is it a "newspaper source."
"Usually ad libitum use of NRTs results in one-third to two-thirds the concentration of nicotine that is achieved by cigarette smoking (Benowitz, 1993; Schneider et al., 2001). However, users of 4-mg nicotine gum may sometimes reach or even exceed the nicotine levels associated with smoking (McNabb et al., 1982, 1984)."
http://m.pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/57/1/79.full#T1

Our discussions were about ecigarettes and Stonewall lozenges, not
NRTs. I cited sources for measurements of blood nicotine after using
ecigarettes and Stonewall lozenges.

NRT measurements are relevant to ecigarettes only because the
Nicorette inhaler is an ecigarette The report quotes Molander's
measurement of 2mg absorbed from a 4gm puff from a 10mg inhaler. That
would extrapolate to 9mg from an 18mg ecigarette. We now know it is
much lower. Molander's measurement is contradicted by two sources I
cited. It is also contradicted by Benowitz or Schneider, quoted in the
same paragraph (below). This calls into question how all these studies
measure absorption. They appear to be measuring nicotine delivered and
multiplying by estimated bioavailability shown in table 1. We now know
from serum measurements that those bioavailability estimates are high
(more on this in the last paragraph below). They should measure
absorption as serum concentration extrapolated to the rest of the
body, which is easy to do using Volume of Distribution.

The report says "Thus, typical steady-state plasma nicotine
concentrations with nicotine patches range from 10 to 20 ng/ml, for
nicotine gum, inhaler, sublingual tablet, and nasal spray from 5 to 15
ng/ml." Table 1 (Cmax) contains numbers of 10 for gum, 8 for inhaler,
11 for tablets, and 8 for spray. My sources measured 4-5 for inhalers
and tablets.

A smoker's serum nicotine goes up 25ng/ml from smoking one cigarette.
They tell us he absorbed 100% of 1 mg nicotine delivered by the
cigarette. This report gives us the number we need to determine
whether that claim is true. Table 2 says the Volume of Distribution of
nicotine is about 3.0. That means there is 3 times as much nicotine
outside the blood as in the blood. Nicotine in blood * 4 = nicotine in
the body. An average human has 5 liters of blood. Nicotine in blood is
25 * 5000 / 1000000 = .125 mg nicotine in blood * 4 = .5 mg nicotine
in the body. They lied. It was only 50% bioavailable.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-06 15:43:42 UTC

Post by Robert
They lied. It was only 50% bioavailable.

If you were only getting 5% of your usual does of nicotine from the Stonewall tablets, going without them shouldn't be much of a step.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-12 22:16:27 UTC

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/historical-share-of-tobacco-2013-12

Robert

2013-12-13 08:25:53 UTC

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:16:27 -0800 (PST), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/historical-share-of-tobacco-2013-12

Adoption of cigarettes took 24 years -- 1916 to 1940.
Smokeless was declining long before the ban on spitoons.
This has to be fitted into Strauss & Howe cycles. If ecigarettes do
not catch on by 2020, they are not going to.

Bruce Watson

2014-01-12 02:13:47 UTC

I'm wondering what smokers, who are able to completely switch over to inhaled nontobacco nicotine, think when they realize they are simply drug addicts maintaining. If, that is, they think about it. Most probably don't. Those who do might go in two ways: 1) Quit altogether being an addict to a mild stimulant that powerfully addicts, or 2) Go back to tobacco cigarettes because they can rationalize they smoke for the "taste" of tobacco.

Robert

2014-01-13 04:05:57 UTC

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:13:47 -0800 (PST), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
I'm wondering what smokers, who are able to completely switch over to inhaled nontobacco nicotine, think when they realize they are simply drug addicts maintaining. If, that is, they think about it. Most probably don't. Those who do might go in two ways: 1) Quit altogether being an addict to a mild stimulant that powerfully addicts, or 2) Go back to tobacco cigarettes because they can rationalize they smoke for the "taste" of tobacco.

Ecigarette juice comes in a variety of flavors, or you can make your
own with aromatherapy scents. The most popular flavors do not taste
like cigarettes.

I know someone who has been smoking nicotine-free juice for years.

Bruce Watson

2014-02-12 19:25:53 UTC

http://www.csdecisions.com/2014/02/12/survey-finds-63-americans-ok-e-cig-use-personal-space/

Bruce Watson

2014-04-24 15:58:14 UTC

"so I'll take a puff of an e-cigarette to take the edge off . . ."

http://www.jconline.com/story/life/wellness/2014/04/22/e-cigarettes-can-help-smokers-quit-risks/8002319/

Steve O

2014-04-25 07:07:29 UTC

Post by Bruce Watson
"so I'll take a puff of an e-cigarette to take the edge off . . ."
http://www.jconline.com/story/life/wellness/2014/04/22/e-cigarettes-can-help-smokers-quit-risks/8002319/

The key phrase here is "take the edge off"

What exactly does that mean, and what are they trying to take the edge off?

Presumably , they are trying to take the edge off their nervousness or
stress.
Don't they ever wonder why they need to do that, or think about what is
causing them to feel edgy all of the time, twenty times a day or more,
or why non smokers don't have any need to take the edge of the feeling
that nicotine causes as it withdraws?

Bruce Watson

2014-04-25 21:48:47 UTC

http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/the-big-question-for-e-cigarettes-replacement-for-tobacco-or-new-market/

Robert

2014-04-26 02:17:06 UTC

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:48:47 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/the-big-question-for-e-cigarettes-replacement-for-tobacco-or-new-market/

Proposed FDA regulation of e-cigarettes is intended to give Big
Tobacco an advantage over small merchants. There is no other reason to
require expensive product approval. E-cigarettes all work the same way
-- by boiling fluid with electric coils. FDA could just approve that
type device and require approval for new technology, as they do with
every other over-the-counter drug and medical device.

New tobacco cigarettes require FDA review and approval. In the five
years since FDA got control, it received some 3,000 applications and
has not approved any of them. That gives a small cartel of
manufacturers, principally Philip Morris and RJR, a de facto monopoly.
It looks like they are using the same technique to crush competition
in e-cigarettes.

FDA is on Philip Morris' side, not antismokers' side.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-04 08:31:55 UTC

"If I was in a torture chamber and you said I had to puff on something, I'd choose an e-cigarette over a regular cigarette," Dr. Shihadeh said. "But if you said I could choose an e-cigarette or clean air, I'd definitely choose clean air."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/business/some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0&referrer=

Robert

2014-05-04 14:24:15 UTC

On Sun, 4 May 2014 01:31:55 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
"If I was in a torture chamber and you said I had to puff on something, I'd choose an e-cigarette over a regular cigarette," Dr. Shihadeh said. "But if you said I could choose an e-cigarette or clean air, I'd definitely choose clean air."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/business/some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0&referrer=

Language is the giveaway. The study's assertion of formaldehyde sounds
legitimate, but the language screams fear mongering exaggeration.
Antis need better writers if they expect educated readers to believe
them.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-04 17:23:10 UTC

"Wires between the heater, circuit board and batteries were connected with lead solder and also housed in tape and plastic. Everything was close to the heat source, meaning consumers were at risk of inhaling fiber and metal particles as well as toxic fumes from hot plastic and lead."

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL2N0NL0XI20140504

Bruce Watson

2014-05-10 07:10:36 UTC

http://m.ksat.com/news/doctor-issues-vaping-liquid-warning/25908766

Robert

2014-05-10 18:16:15 UTC

On Sat, 10 May 2014 00:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://m.ksat.com/news/doctor-issues-vaping-liquid-warning/25908766

A 50% fatal dose of nicotine for an adut is .5-1.0 g (6.513 mg per kg
of body weight).

Nicotine weighs the same as water, so 1ml = 1g.

The most common juice bottle sizes are 30ml "large" and 10ml "small".
Juice contains about 2% nicotine, so a large bottle contains .6g of
nicotine. That's a 50% lethal dose for an adult, a >95% lethal dose
for a child.

The doctor is right. For once, antis are not exaggerating. This may be
a first.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-13 21:15:58 UTC

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/13/ucsf-e-cigarette-study-shows-devices-questionable-benefits/

Robert

2014-05-14 04:29:51 UTC

On Tue, 13 May 2014 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/13/ucsf-e-cigarette-study-shows-devices-questionable-benefits/

This is good news. If Stanton Glantz is opposed to ecigarettes, they
must benefit smokers in some way.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-15 06:24:02 UTC

"The CDC's own datasheets show that the smoking rate has fallen 3 percentage points over seven years (from 21 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2012)."

http://www.american.com/archive/2014/may/new-fda-e-cigarette-regulations-killing-an-industry-killing-smokers

Robert

2014-05-16 17:23:55 UTC

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:24:02 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
"The CDC's own datasheets show that the smoking rate has fallen 3 percentage points over seven years (from 21 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2012)."
http://www.american.com/archive/2014/may/new-fda-e-cigarette-regulations-killing-an-industry-killing-smokers

The decline was zero between 2004 and 2010, because RWJF folded their
tents and walked off the battlefield in 2006. The 3 percent decline
occurred in 2011-2012, due primarily to ecigarettes. If we had
statistics on nicotine users including vapers, they would show no
decline at all.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-16 17:41:24 UTC

The decline was zero between 2004 and 2010, because RWJF folded their tents and walked off the battlefield in 2006.

There should have been an increase. Repeal of smoking bans too.

The 3 percent decline occurred in 2011-2012, due primarily to ecigarettes. If we had statistics on nicotine users including vapers, they would show no decline at all.

If pigs could fly we'd have bacon by airmail.

Robert

2014-05-17 00:26:01 UTC

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

The decline was zero between 2004 and 2010, because RWJF folded their tents and walked off the battlefield in 2006.

There should have been an increase. Repeal of smoking bans too.

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with
their bones."
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

The 3 percent decline occurred in 2011-2012, due primarily to ecigarettes. If we had statistics on nicotine users including vapers, they would show no decline at all.

If pigs could fly we'd have bacon by airmail.

Very lame rebuttal.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-17 12:24:54 UTC

Robert wrote:

The decline was zero between 2004 and 2010, because RWJF folded theirï¿½tents and walked off the battlefield in 2006.

There should have been an increase. Repeal of smoking bans too.

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with

their bones." Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

With the major player out, the tobacco companies would have considerably less opposition. They would have the upper hand.

Robert

2014-05-17 14:48:05 UTC

On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Robert wrote:

The decline was zero between 2004 and 2010, because RWJF folded theirï¿½tents and walked off the battlefield in 2006.

There should have been an increase. Repeal of smoking bans too.

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with

their bones." Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
With the major player out, the tobacco companies would have considerably less opposition. They would have the upper hand.

Antismokers are like the Army fighting a tactical war, employing
hand-to-hand combat in small towns. Big Tobacco is like the Air Force
fighting a strategic war, employing expensive Washington lobbyists.

A cardinal rule of warfare is not letting the other side control your
actions.

Big Tobacco got the FDA bill, giving them sanctioned protection from
new competitors. As a result, Big Tobacco is protected from China,
unlike our automotive industry.

Malcolm

2014-06-15 21:45:45 UTC

Post by Robert
Antismokers are like the Army fighting a tactical war, employing
hand-to-hand combat in small towns.

This a ridiculous comparison, with no factual basis at all. Tell us again how Stan Rogers died, and what the consequence if his death was.

Post by Robert
Big Tobacco is like the Air Force
fighting a strategic war, employing expensive Washington lobbyists.

Big Tobacco employs expensive Washington lobbyists? Tell us all about it.
http://smokersrightscanada.org/?page_id=29

Bruce Watson

2014-05-17 12:29:52 UTC

The 3 percent declineï¿½occurred in 2011-2012, due primarily to ecigarettes. If we hadï¿½statistics on nicotine users including vapers, they would show noï¿½decline at all.ï¿½

If pigs could fly we'd have bacon by airmail.

Very lame rebuttal.

You're poor at predicting the future. You can't even predict the present.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-16 17:52:04 UTC

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/13/ucsf-e-cigarette-study-shows-devices-questionable-benefits/
This is good news. If Stanton Glantz is opposed to ecigarettes, they must benefit smokers in some way.

How do they benefit you?

Robert

2014-05-17 00:27:54 UTC

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

How do they benefit you?

They reduced my smoking by half.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-17 12:20:44 UTC

How do they benefit you?

They reduced my smoking by half.

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?

Robert

2014-05-17 14:50:10 UTC

On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:20:44 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

How do they benefit you?

They reduced my smoking by half.

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-17 17:17:05 UTC

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Robert

2014-05-17 18:59:57 UTC

On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better
flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-17 19:31:02 UTC

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?ï¿½

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.ï¿½

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better

flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.

What makes you think something is missing?

Robert

2014-05-18 06:31:16 UTC

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?ï¿½

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.ï¿½

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better

flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.
What makes you think something is missing?

I can feel it. Tobacco supplies more than nicotine.

Steve O

2014-05-18 08:56:32 UTC

Post by Robert
On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?�

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.�

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better

flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.
What makes you think something is missing?

I can feel it. Tobacco supplies more than nicotine.

Supplies what?
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

Robert

2014-05-18 19:55:47 UTC

Post by Steve O

Post by Robert
On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?�

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.�

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better

flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.
What makes you think something is missing?

I can feel it. Tobacco supplies more than nicotine.

Supplies what?
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO. We don't know because real scientists have been
excluded from tobacco research.

Steve O

2014-05-19 05:59:22 UTC

Post by Steve O

Post by Robert
On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?�

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.�

And the other half from vaping is pleasure too?

Yes, it is almost as good as the pleasure from smoking. Pros: better

flavor and lower cost; cons: something is missing.
What makes you think something is missing?

I can feel it. Tobacco supplies more than nicotine.

Supplies what?
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO. We don't know because real scientists have been
excluded from tobacco research.

It isn't a flavor or taste which is missing. as many smokers think.
What is missing is the immediate relief from withdrawal which smokers
can only get from tobacco which does not happen as quickly with other
methods.
A smoker would define it as that "Ahhhh!" moment.
It is a quick release from discomfort and sometimes accompanied by a
slightly numbing and dizzying feeling which is heightened if there has
been a long abstinence.
It is extremely fast and short lived, but it gives the smoker the
impression that they are receiving some kind of benefit from the
cigarette, rather than being short changed and a feeling of deprivation
to start with.
That is what the smoker means when they talk about "satisfaction" - it
has nothing to do with taste- it is the "satisfaction" of removing
uncomfortable feelings caused by withdrawal.
in other words, it is tobacco itself which is causing them to feel so
unsatisfied for most of the time, except for those few, brief, shining
moments they get when they do eventually light up.
It is this confusion about how tobacco and nicotine works which makes it
so difficult for a smoker to stop.
There are also similar mechanisms related to other addictive drugs,
except that other drugs can actually provide a different experience to
the user other than simple relief from withdrawal.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-19 12:33:58 UTC

What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so you should not be smoking tobacco or vaping nicotine. You should be using Syrian Rue.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-31 23:59:49 UTC

What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so why are you vaping nicotine?

Robert

2014-06-01 05:15:56 UTC

On Sat, 31 May 2014 16:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so why are you vaping nicotine?

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

I found this:

"MAO is an enzyme that "is important in the breakdown of
neurotransmitters".

Rue is an MAOI type A. Assuming that it inhibits MAO type A, I bring
this to you: "MAO-A has 527 amino acids, and preferentially oxidizes
the biogenic amine serotonin."

So MAO likes to break down serotonin. That's why taking an MAOI leads
to increased amounts of serotonin in the brain.

Coincidentally, many alkaloids (tryptamines really) resemble serotonin
and are also broken down by MAO. So, by taking an MAOI, we prevent the
breakdown of those alkaloids, thus creating a synergy that has the
potential to create psychedelic combinations."
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1647571

serotonin: C10H12N2O
nicotine: C10H14N2

Both contain a six-sided ring with three double bonds and a five-sided
ring. Both have one nitrogen on each ring.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-01 15:09:03 UTC

Post by Steve O
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so why are you vaping nicotine?

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

So why use nicotine? What does it do?

Robert

2014-06-02 06:33:38 UTC

On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 08:09:03 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Steve O
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so why are you vaping nicotine?

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

So why use nicotine? What does it do?

The same things serotonin does -- contributes to feelings of
well-being and happiness, aids digestion, improves cognition. The
disabling efects of nicotine deficiency can be seen in antismokers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin

Steve O

2014-06-02 07:34:47 UTC

Post by Robert
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 08:09:03 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Steve O
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO.

If so why are you vaping nicotine?

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

So why use nicotine? What does it do?

Nicotine deficiency has no disabling effect on a successful non smoker.
A non nictine user has absolutely no requirement for nicotine at all,
just as a smoker had no requirement for it before they became addicted
to nicotine
Nicotine actually depletes seratonin quite quickly due to the effects of
withdrawal.
The non smoker does not have to contend with depletion of seratonin by
nicotine
It can only ever disable the user, by disrupting their natural balance.

Seratonin is a neuro transmitter found in all animals which controls gut
movements and the animal's perception of resources.
In other words, it "rewards' the animal when it does something right,
like finding nutrition,shelter etc.
In response to how the animal perceives resource availability -either in
abundance or scarcity - the animals growth, reproduction or mood may be
elevated or lowered.
The actual amount of seratonin available in an animal is limited by the
liver.
Nicotine hijacks the system, causing the organism to release seratonin
unnecessarily,in circumstances where nothing of benefit (like good
nutrition) has been provided to the body, which is wasteful and damaging.

The fact is that nicotine depletes more seratonin by withdrawal than it
causes the body to provide by nicotine replacement.
This means that the smoker is always running at a "seratonin loss"-
quickly depleting, then replacing seratonin at a rate in which the body
cannot keep up.
It leaves the smoker in an almost permanent state of dissatisfaction,
always needing and always requiring more nicotine and more seratonin.
It is part of the driving force of addiction to nicotine.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-02 16:14:08 UTC

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

So why use nicotine? What does it do?

The same things serotonin does -- contributes to feelings of well-being and happiness, aids digestion, improves cognition.

Before you began smoking did you have problems with feelings of well-being, digestion, or cognition?

Robert

2014-06-03 04:48:57 UTC

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:14:08 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

So why use nicotine? What does it do?

The same things serotonin does -- contributes to feelings of well-being and happiness, aids digestion, improves cognition.

Before you began smoking did you have problems with feelings of well-being, digestion, or cognition?

The opposite. Before I began smoking, I was 15 and knew everything.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 04:53:58 UTC

Post by Robert
Because nicotine + MAOI is not readily available.

Post by Bruce Watson
So why use nicotine? What does it do?

The same things serotonin does -- contributes to feelings of well-being and happiness, aids digestion, improves cognition.

Before you began smoking did you have problems with feelings of well-being, digestion, or cognition?

The opposite. Before I began smoking, I was 15 and knew everything.

So what does nicotine do for you?

Bruce Watson

2014-06-02 18:02:47 UTC

The disabling efects [sic] of nicotine deficiency can be seen in antismokers.

You consistently show there is no improvement in cognition from nicotine.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-02 18:04:29 UTC

Robert wrote:

The disabling efects [sic] of nicotine deficiency can be seen in antismokers.

Are you beginning to show the effects of "breathing deficiency"?

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 00:27:31 UTC

Nicotine is not an MAO inhibitor. What does it do?

Robert

2014-06-03 05:18:54 UTC

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
Nicotine is not an MAO inhibitor. What does it do?

Nicotine, along with many other alkaloids and serotonin, is a tyramine
that is destroyed by monoamine oxidase. MAO inhibitors occurring in
tobacco, but not vaping juice, increase the bioavailability of
nicotine. That may explain why serum nicotine in smokers is 2-3 times
as high as vapers. I thought the explanation was size of aerosol
droplets (vaping droplets are much smaller), but it may be MAOIs.

Adding MAOIs to vaping juice would be an open invitation to FDA
regulation. It's not possible for political reasons.

I did not realize how similar nicotine is to serotonin were until
this thread prompted me to compare their molecular structures. Take a
look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

I used to think nicotine looked like acetylcholine. In fact, there is
no similarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcholine

Here is an answer to your question asking what nicotine does,

"Tobacco smoke contains the monoamine oxidase inhibitors harman,
norharman, anabasine, anatabine, and nornicotine. These compounds
significantly decrease MAO activity in smokers.MAO enzymes break down
monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and
serotonin.

Nicotine also activates the sympathetic nervous system, acting via
splanchnic nerves to the adrenal medulla, stimulates the release of
epinephrine. cetylcholine released by preganglionic sympathetic fibers
of these nerves acts on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, causing the
release of epinephrine (and norepinephrine) into the bloodstream.
By binding to ganglion type nicotinic receptors in the adrenal medulla
nicotine increases flow of adrenaline (epinephrine), a stimulating
hormone. By binding to the receptors, it causes cell depolarization
and an influx of calcium through voltage-gated calcium channels.
Calcium triggers the exocytosis of chromaffin granules and thus the
release of epinephrine (and norepinephrine) into the bloodstream. The
release of epinephrine (adrenaline) causes an increase in heart rate,
blood pressure and respiration, as well as higher blood glucose levels

Nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in
particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.

First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine
(adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation.

When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs
to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the
release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine,
norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine,
autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.

This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most
of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration and
memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to
enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and
norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of
norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and
beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin.
Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine and
increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.

At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate
activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique
in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to
sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use."
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/470385-Do-cigarettes-screw-with-your-serotonin-or-something

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 15:41:16 UTC

Adding MAOIs to vaping juice would be an open invitation to FDA regulation. It's not possible for political reasons.

Syrian Rue is legal.

Robert

2014-06-03 19:02:27 UTC

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Adding MAOIs to vaping juice would be an open invitation to FDA regulation. It's not possible for political reasons.

Syrian Rue is legal.

It would quickly become a controlled substance if it were sold in
vaping juice.

Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) is a natural chemical found in every
mammal's nervous system. It is also in meat, wine, and cheese. It was
legal until the press called it "date rape drug." Shazam. It was
quickly deemed an addictive controlled substance.

The only source for reasonably priced harmaline extract is temporarily
down.
http://flowingvisions.ecrater.com/

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 20:15:50 UTC

It would quickly become a controlled substance if it were sold in vaping juice.

The only fraud greater than tobacco is you as a predator of the future.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 15:44:48 UTC

Nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.

The only way that makes sense is nicotine is addressing a problem it created. But only partially.

Robert

2014-06-03 19:04:46 UTC

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.

The only way that makes sense is nicotine is addressing a problem it created. But only partially.

Nicotine is a relaxant in low dose, becomes a stimulant in high dose.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 21:17:21 UTC

Nicotine is a relaxant in low dose, becomes a stimulant in high dose.

After all this time . . .

Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

Robert

2014-06-04 18:15:22 UTC

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Nicotine is a relaxant in low dose, becomes a stimulant in high dose.

After all this time . . .
Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

He is not lying. He believes what he says. Belief in an idea does not
make it factually true.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-04 19:22:00 UTC

Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

He is not lying. He believes what he says. Belief in an idea does not

make it factually true.

His belief is the result of his personal experience.

Robert

2014-06-04 21:25:12 UTC

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 12:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

He is not lying. He believes what he says. Belief in an idea does not

make it factually true.
His belief is the result of his personal experience.

Mine is based on personal experience as well.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-04 21:35:50 UTC

Post by Bruce Watson
Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

He is not lying. He believes what he says. Belief in an idea does not

make it factually true.

His belief is the result of his personal experience.

Mine is based on personal experience as well.

Your personal experience is going only a few hours without nicotine. His experience spans years.

Robert

2014-06-05 01:50:14 UTC

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
Why do you believe Steve is lying to you?

He is not lying. He believes what he says. Belief in an idea does not

make it factually true.

His belief is the result of his personal experience.

Mine is based on personal experience as well.

Your personal experience is going only a few hours without nicotine. His experience spans years.

Hinduism has 7,000 years of experience. That doesn't prove it is
right.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-05 01:53:44 UTC

Your personal experience is going only a few hours without nicotine. His experience spans years.

Hinduism has 7,000 years of experience. That doesn't prove it is right.

Go without Hinduism and nicotine for a day and get back to me.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 15:49:55 UTC

Nicotine appears to enhance concentration and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and

norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.

That doesn't seem to be working. You're using nicotine 70 times a day. People don't need to take aspirin that many times.

Robert

2014-06-03 19:12:29 UTC

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Nicotine appears to enhance concentration and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and

norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.
That doesn't seem to be working. You're using nicotine 70 times a day. People don't need to take aspirin that many times.

Conversely, they would be cured if they took aspirin 70 times a day.

Bruce Watson

2014-06-03 20:45:33 UTC

That doesn't seem to be working. You're using nicotine 70 times a day. People don't need to take aspirin that many times.

Conversely, they would be cured if they took aspirin 70 times a day.

Dead isn't the cure they're expecting.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-21 15:29:11 UTC

What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO. We don't know because real scientists have been

excluded from tobacco research.

Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

Robert

2014-05-22 02:35:32 UTC

On Wed, 21 May 2014 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO. We don't know because real scientists have been

excluded from tobacco research.
Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need. MAOIs improve depression,
including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and
social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distress
causes anxiety.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-22 04:07:01 UTC

Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need. MAOIs improve depression, including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distress causes anxiety.

Do you suffer from any of those conditions?

Robert

2014-05-22 05:19:15 UTC

On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need. MAOIs improve depression, including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distress causes anxiety.

Do you suffer from any of those conditions?

Less than the average person.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-22 12:35:47 UTC

Post by Bruce Watson
Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need. MAOIs improve depression, including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distressï¿½causes anxiety.

Do you suffer from any of those conditions?

Less than the average person.

So why an MAOI?

Robert

2014-05-22 16:00:13 UTC

On Thu, 22 May 2014 05:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need. MAOIs improve depression, including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distressï¿causes anxiety.

Do you suffer from any of those conditions?

Less than the average person.

So why an MAOI?

For the same reason people use other drugs, such as alcohol and
marijuana, recreationally.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-22 16:42:08 UTC

So why an MAOI?

For the same reason people use other drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, recreationally.

There are plenty of things, foods among them, that contain MAOIs which are not addictive nor harmful.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-23 13:48:45 UTC

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/05/23/e-cigarettes-lets-not-make-the-same-mistake-twice/

Robert

2014-05-23 16:57:26 UTC

On Fri, 23 May 2014 06:48:45 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/05/23/e-cigarettes-lets-not-make-the-same-mistake-twice/

You can believe this guy because he is chief medical officer at
Humana, the most exploitive health insurance company in the US.
70% of their revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, a product
engineered to maximize insurance company profit and minimize "losses,"
the insurance industry term for benefits.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-23 20:24:41 UTC

http://www.examiner.com/article/using-e-cigs-to-stop-smoking-tobacco-is-not-as-good-as-you-may-think

Robert

2014-05-24 00:16:55 UTC

On Fri, 23 May 2014 13:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://www.examiner.com/article/using-e-cigs-to-stop-smoking-tobacco-is-not-as-good-as-you-may-think

The article is a compendium of junk science and word twisting
propaganda. That's nothing new. Antis have been using the same against
smokers for 25 years, without much protest. Notice the response they
get when they try it on vapers. All the comments correctly call it
bullshit. Smokers should have done that 25 years ago.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-27 14:47:46 UTC

Winston Smith's brand.

http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2014/05/27/victory-electronic-cigarettes-corporation-launches-new-fin-advanced-vaping-system-pre-fil

Bruce Watson

2014-05-27 14:53:58 UTC

"Another problem with e-cigarettes is that smokers often use them in public but still smoke regular cigarettes at home."

http://www.onlymyhealth.com/e-cigarettes-devil-in-disguise-1401188261

Robert

2014-05-27 20:30:23 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2014 07:53:58 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
"Another problem with e-cigarettes is that smokers often use them in public but still smoke regular cigarettes at home."
http://www.onlymyhealth.com/e-cigarettes-devil-in-disguise-1401188261

"Another problem with e-cigarettes is that smokers often use them in
public"

Translation: our denormalization effort is failing.

"Most people do not know what is inside an ecigarette" = FUD.

It's propyene glycol, nicotine, and food flavoring. PG is the solvent
used in flavoring "extracts." If they try to tax PG, there are many
other solvents that could be substituted.

"their long-term health complications that [sic] are yet to be
discovered" = more FUD.

If there were any danger in PG, you can be sure junk scientists would
have started screaming about it five years ago.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-31 22:49:03 UTC

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/31/my-electronic-cigarette-addiction.html

Robert

2014-06-01 04:46:40 UTC

On Sat, 31 May 2014 15:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/31/my-electronic-cigarette-addiction.html

Antismokers are lying, yet again, when they say inhalation of
propylene glycol has not been studied. This web page contains links to
many studies.
http://www.vapersclub.com/pg.php

Robert

2014-05-27 20:10:23 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2014 07:47:46 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
Winston Smith's brand.
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2014/05/27/victory-electronic-cigarettes-corporation-launches-new-fin-advanced-vaping-system-pre-fil

The profitable side of vaping is fluid, not vaporizers. First
generation marketers tried to sell cartridges for small e-cigs. That
approach is failing as conumers figure out mid-priced clearomizers
perform better. Victory is bringing first generation marketing
mentality to second generation hardware. They are trying to create the
vaping equivalent of K-cups.

I doubt it will sell because the typical vaper is not an everyman like
Winston Smith, he is smarter and better educated. He conumes all day,
not just once a day like a coffee drinker.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-27 20:18:56 UTC

He conumes all day, not just once a day like a coffee drinker.

A drug that does nothing but addict.

Malcolm

2014-06-15 21:49:58 UTC

Post by Bruce Watson
http://www.examiner.com/article/using-e-cigs-to-stop-smoking-tobacco-is-not-as-good-as-you-may-think

The article is a compendium of junk science and word twisting
propaganda.

Is that so? Well, then, you should be able to give us at least one example of "junk science" in this article, and at least one example of "word twisting propaganda". Bring it on, liar.
http://smokersrightscanada.org/?page_id=29

Steve O

2014-05-22 08:36:19 UTC

Post by Robert
On Wed, 21 May 2014 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Steve O
What is missing that you need to get from tobacco?

One hypothesis is MAO. We don't know because real scientists have been

excluded from tobacco research.
Why do you think you need a MAO inhibitor?

We are taking about pleasure, not need.

Pleasure is a need.

MAOIs improve depression,

Post by Robert
including anxious depression, PTSD (another anxiety disorder), and
social phobia (another anxiety disorder). Psychological distress
causes anxiety.

Bruce Watson

2014-05-18 11:41:21 UTC

What makes you think something is missing?

I can feel it. Tobacco supplies more than nicotine.

What do you think it is?

Steve O

2014-05-17 21:30:52 UTC

Post by Robert
On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:20:44 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Watson

Post by Bruce Watson
How do they benefit you?

They reduced my smoking by half.

You stated smoking gave you pleasure. Why are you reducing the pleasure?

I get the same pleasure from half as much tobacco.

I get the same pleasure from no tobacco at all.

Malcolm

2014-06-15 21:40:15 UTC

Post by Robert
Language is the giveaway. The study's assertion of formaldehyde sounds
legitimate,

And what is illegitimate about it, liar?
http://smokersrightscanada.org/?page_id=29

Malcolm

2014-06-15 21:38:58 UTC

Post by Robert
There is no other reason to
require expensive product approval.

Actually, liar, there is a good reason to require consumer product approval, expensive or not.
http://smokersrightscanada.org/?page_id=29

Steve O

2013-12-04 06:13:32 UTC

If it gets nicotine into the system, it is absolutely not a placebo.

My article showed they get only a trivial amount of nicotine into
users' blood.

Post by Steve O
Curiously, the lesser the amount of nicotine it puts in, the worse the
effect.

In that case, non-smokers would have infinite craving for nicotine.

No- that is something which smokers have.
Non smokers do not require nicotine.
In a smoker, or more accurately, someone addicted to nicotine (or
someone with tobacco/nicotine misconception, if you prefer the term) it
is continuous deficit which will carry on increasing as long as they
keep putting nicotine in- it is nicotine which causes the deficit.
It will only stop when nicotine is stopped, and even then, it will
require mental reconditioning to rid the user of addiction entirely.

If a little hysteria and propaganda is good, more is better. Lying is
like an arms race. It continually escalates.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-03 16:26:38 UTC

My article on ecigarette inefficiency shows they are basically placebos.

"A placebo described as a muscle relaxant will cause muscle relaxation and, if described as the opposite, muscle tension. A placebo presented as a stimulant will have this effect on heart rhythm, and blood pressure, but, when administered as a depressant, the opposite effect."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Sounds like tobacco cigarettes.

Bruce Watson

2013-12-03 16:31:20 UTC