Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nicotine (2016)

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 273 posts

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#41

Post by mpreda »

I'm a non smoker, I never smoked. Once I decided to try a nicotine chewing gum, took one pillow and chewed it thoroughly. After about 5-10minutes I suffered some very very severe effects, including: I started sweating extremelly such that all my clothes become wet quickly and sweat was dripping down my nose, ears, and into my eyes. I felt an intense and urgent need to urinate and defecate, which luckily I could do on the spot (happened to be in the proximity of a public toilet). I think after about 30minutes the simptoms subsided. I subjectivelly imagined that I ran the risk of a heart attack there.

So, I'd like to warn any non-smoker that may want to try out nicotine: please start with a very small dose, and only gradually build up; because otherwise it can be dangerous.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#42

Post by galangalalgol »

insanitybit wrote: post #20
egnehots wrote: post #11

I'm concerned that many might miss the nuance and subtlety of the main issue: - Nicotine IS really addictive when distributed through common uses (smoking, vaping). Yes, if the absorption is progressive and in small dosages, the addiction is less severe, but this is not useful for smokers who want to quit and presents a dangerous introduction for others

I have zero interest in cigarettes though. So like, let's say I started chewing a gum and then I became addicted to the gum. I'm assuming the downside here would be primarily withdrawal effects of not chewing the gum? It's not like it's going to be a gateway to cigarettes for me. You'll experience caffeine withdrawal too, so I'm not sure that's really a problem. From the article, > There is little evidence from the N…

Anecdata follows. As a never smoker I used nicotine gum during strength training workouts. I never had any urge to use it at other times. I did not find the effect very pleasant either, so while I couls see its benefit plotting my progress, ultimately I stopped using it. I do have tobacco addiction in my family history.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#43

Post by thecodedmessage »

egnehots wrote: post #11

I'm concerned that many might miss the nuance and subtlety of the main issue: - Nicotine IS really addictive when distributed through common uses (smoking, vaping). Yes, if the absorption is progressive and in small dosages, the addiction is less severe, but this is not useful for smokers who want to quit and presents a dangerous introduction for others

For the word “dangerous” to be appropriate, it needs to be established (1) that nicotine is bad for you or (2) that this introduction ever leads to smoking. Or are you just taking all the harms of smoking and applying them to nicotine because of cultural reasons?

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#44

Post by insanitybit »

dijit wrote: post #32

After being on IRC for the best part of two decades (and the fringe groups who frequent the medium) I have seen the word “nootropics” banded about. The first time, I thought it was a fun idea but nothing I wanted, see; my brain is all I have so I dont much fancy experimenting with it- this is also why I avoided alcohol and coffee despite social pressures. The community that formed went away as quickly as it had been…

That's definitely an anecdote, but I think the salient point is this:

> So, forgive the hesitance, but I am even more hardened on the notion that we should probably not mess with our brains too much

And that's true, insofar as we are able to agree on what "mess with our brains" and "too much" means.

Is taking some choline "messing" with the brain? Definitely. Is it "too much?" well, perhaps you think so. Is drinking coffee "too much"? Apparently we both agree that it is not "too much", I'm drinking some caffeine right now.

One thing about Choline and Caffeine is that they are very well studied, especially in terms of safety. The further you go into the nootropics world the less studied options you'll find - things range from "zero data" to "used for 1000s of years by an unscientific people" to "animal studies exist" and beyond.

My personal "too much" is when there's a combination of weak evidence to support benefits and weak evidence to support safety in humans.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#45

Post by jtriangle »

johnwheeler wrote: post #34

Modafinil is a Dave Asprey bullshit lie. It does not promote nootropic benefits or flow work or anything like that. Pretty much anything Dave Asprey says is bullshit.

I've anecdotally found modafinil to be great for focus if I didn't sleep the night before, makes the day less miserable. Never tried it casually.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#47

Post by mort96 »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #29
mort96 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine > Nicotine is highly addictive. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-n... > Is nicotine addictive? Yes. --- If nicotine wasn't addictive, why would people find that nicotine patches or nicotine gum helps with withdrawals from various tobacco products?

Addiction is complex. Folks are generally addicted to a combination of things. For example they’ll do a particular drug, sit in a particular environment, with or without a social element, with or without food. Utilizing one of the elements without the others helps break the association. Its the same thing on a smaller level.

You're completely right! Addiction is complex!

And nicotine is addictive.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#48

Post by dijit »

insanitybit wrote: post #44
dijit wrote: post #32

After being on IRC for the best part of two decades (and the fringe groups who frequent the medium) I have seen the word “nootropics” banded about. The first time, I thought it was a fun idea but nothing I wanted, see; my brain is all I have so I dont much fancy experimenting with it- this is also why I avoided alcohol and coffee despite social pressures. The community that formed went away as quickly as it had been…

That's definitely an anecdote, but I think the salient point is this: > So, forgive the hesitance, but I am even more hardened on the notion that we should probably not mess with our brains too much And that's true, insofar as we are able to agree on what "mess with our brains" and "too much" means. Is taking some choline "messing" with the brain? Definitely. Is it "too much?" well, perhaps you think so. Is drinking…

Well said.

I think that is definitely a strong and salient way to think about mind altering chemicals.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#49

Post by thecodedmessage »

mort96 wrote: post #14
goodluckchuck wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article wasn’t talking about smoking, and nicotine is not addictive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine > Nicotine is highly addictive. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-n... > Is nicotine addictive? Yes. --- If nicotine wasn't addictive, why would people find that nicotine patches or nicotine gum helps with withdrawals from various tobacco products?

These sources do not address the claims made in the article.

Re: Nicotine (2016)

#50

Post by permo-w »

insanitybit wrote: post #20
egnehots wrote: post #11

I'm concerned that many might miss the nuance and subtlety of the main issue: - Nicotine IS really addictive when distributed through common uses (smoking, vaping). Yes, if the absorption is progressive and in small dosages, the addiction is less severe, but this is not useful for smokers who want to quit and presents a dangerous introduction for others

I have zero interest in cigarettes though. So like, let's say I started chewing a gum and then I became addicted to the gum. I'm assuming the downside here would be primarily withdrawal effects of not chewing the gum? It's not like it's going to be a gateway to cigarettes for me. You'll experience caffeine withdrawal too, so I'm not sure that's really a problem. From the article, > There is little evidence from the N…

everyone's a never-smoker until they're not. the sense I got with this article is that the author started with the presumption that nicotine from sources other than smoking is basically okay and built up from there. that's not to say that he's wrong, just that it didn't feel like a rational approach
Post reply on HN