Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

Anti-tobacco extremists believe the ends justify the means. They'll happily give people dangerous psychoactive drugs or get them hooked on nicotine replacement therapy if it means advancing their agenda.

I quit smoking a couple years back and I was baffled by the lack of quality information I could find online. It's 90% propaganda, thanks to the anti-smoking warriors. Most of it pushes these quit-smoking drugs or just different forms of nicotine intake (which is the very drug you're supposed to be trying to quit in the first place).

You'd think we would have collectively learned something from the abysmal failure of things like the DARE program and abstinence-only education. Facts work better than scare tactics and propaganda.

View on HN

>Most of it pushes these quit-smoking drugs or just different forms of nicotine intake (which is the very drug you're supposed to be trying to quit in the first place).

Wait, what? I thought nicotine itself was pretty harmless, and that most of the harm from smoking comes from all the other junk you suck into your lungs? Wikipedia seems to agree:

>The health effects of long-term nicotine use are unknown. The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups, such as youth. Nicotine use as a tool for quitting smoking has a good safety history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Nicotine is viciously addictive. I don't see how anyone could consider one of the most addictive substances, and its associated withdrawal symptoms, to be "harmless".

And yes, nicotine replacement therapy has a decent track record compared to other methods, which should not be surprising since you don't have to actual break the addiction. You just maintain the same addiction with a different delivery system.

Interestingly, vaping itself is just another nicotine delivery system, but one that the anti-smoking zealots decided to demonize, unlike the various inhalers, patches and gums they push.

>Nicotine is viciously addictive. I don't see how anyone could consider one of the most addictive substances, and its associated withdrawal symptoms, to be "harmless".

Addictive stuff is bad if taking it has other negative effects. Food, water, and air are likewise addictive, but that doesn’t mean you should do without. You’d need to cite something other than being addictive to establish a reason to avoid them entirely.

>And yes, nicotine replacement therapy has a decent track record compared to other methods, which should not be surprising since you don't have to actual break the addiction. You just maintain the same addiction with a different delivery system.

I think the idea is to follow them up with a tapering off of the nicotine levels, which is much easier at that point.

I think the idea is to follow them up with a tapering off of the nicotine levels, which is much easier at that point.

And indeed, if you fail to taper off, at least you’re doing yourself much less harm.

> Addictive stuff is bad if taking it has other negative effects.

The definition of addiction includes negative consequences. If there aren't any, it's not an addiction.

Then my point is equivalent to saying that the parent didn’t establish it as being addictive under that definition.

Dictionary definitions don't help resolve a debate on the substantive points.

> Food, water, and air are likewise addictive

This is a perverse usage. The physiological need for food, water, or air is innate; it arises from your body itself, not the action of the external substance on your body. Additionally they do not induce the classical development of tolerance.

Many people would hold that addiction itself is bad. Even if there are no other negative effects, there is the effect of dependence on the addictive substance and commensurate loss of independence (the addiction always occupies some mental space since you must always think about how you are going to satisfy it).

Okay, if I may rephrase the point in a less cheeky manner:

It's not very informative that a substance is addictive in the sense that "you must use this every day or experience extreme negative side effects". You have to also look the cost of taking it and what it does to you when you use it.

I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable. I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable.

If I have to consume expensive amounts of crack, which also makes me homicidal? Okay, then that's a problem.

I was objecting to the OP's criticism of the lingering nicotine addiction and usage as some kind of be-all end-all deal-breaker. No, it depends on the relative harm. If you go from "expensively sucking down toxic junk to get your nicotine fix every day" to "taking a cheap nicotine-only does everyday", that's not defeating the purpose of anything, and it's very much missing the point to dismiss it as "still being addicted to nicotine".

There's a difference between a physiological need, like consuming water and air, and a chemical dependence.

> I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable.

No matter where you go, the entirety of society is structured around the fact that all people need to eat, drink and breathe.

> I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable.

This is where the disconnect is. The cost of insulin dependence is not merely the cost of insulin itself. An insulin dependent person must always be aware of their blood sugar levels and diet. They must always be prepared for a situation in which they're away from their insulin supply. They must be prepared for an emergency or incapacitation due to complications with their condition and its treatment. There's a significant cognitive load that isn't accounted for by the fabric of society like the need for food is.

Likewise, there's a psychological, social and occupational cost to nicotine addiction that isn't reflected in nicotine's price alone.

This is why people are saying that chemical dependence is inherently bad: it's an inconvenience at best, a costly burden to most and a killer at worst.

> Addictive stuff is bad if taking it has other negative effects.

I get your point, but I think it's a bit oversimplified. I think that addiction itself can cause problems, even if it's just distress from feeling a lack of control. I've had several people tell me that caffeine addiction is no big deal if you're getting it from mostly healthy or neutral sources, but I remember being addicted to caffeine for sleep/attention regulation and for me that dependence was stressful on its own.

Another example might be porn addiction, which is well-known to have negative effects due directly to the dependence on certain stimuli to achieve certain mental/physical states.

I'm guessing you have never struggled with nicotine addiction, or perhaps you're one of those people who experiences a more mild addiction than average.

But if most people were to develop nicotine addiction for several years and then stop for a week, they would experience mental anguish far beyond what anyone could consider "healthy". For long time smokers, that anguish can go on for months.

Healthy people do not experience intense mental suffering simply because they don't have nicotine. It's a disease - an illness - even if it does not cause cancer.

Food water and air are not addictive. They are necessary for survival.

It is viciously addictive, yes, but it's all that other crap in cigarettes that lead to lung cancer and heart disease, two of the largest killers of all people.

Would you rather people be addicted to just the nocotine, or the nicotine plus carcinogens?

Don't forget the MAOI's that also contribute to the addiction.

Nicotine addictiveness seems to vary based on consumption method, I say that as someone who smokes cigars but doesn't inhale (common practice among cigar smokers), I don't find cigars addictive in the least.

how do you smoke without inhaling the smoke? Genuinely curious, I thought the whole point was to inhale the smoke, otherwise you don't get any flavor.

You can taste wine and spit instead of swallowing, to give just one of many examples.

Ahh by inhale I mean you don't inhale into your lungs, mouth only.

You take the smoke into your mouth where you can taste it but continue to breath freely through your nose without taking any smoke down into your lungs.

You do absorb nicotine through the lining of your mouth and it's not without risk, mouth cancer is a possibility but my understanding is it's a much lesser risk than smoke in the lungs.

Finally you can retrohale where you allow some smoke to come up through the sinuses and out via the nose, which allows you to pickup some extra flavour.

Your lungs don't have taste buds, those are in your mouth.

You take the smoke in your mouth, mainly. You might pump it through your nose, too.

>> Nicotine is viciously addictive.

I hope you are equally against sugar which is also addictive and has much worse adverse effects than nicotine.

I've never had a panic attack at the airport because I couldn't have sugar for a couple of hours, but I have had one because I couldn't vape. I've never yelled at a coworker because I couldn't have a cookie, but I did when I was quitting nicotine because it made me feel insane. I've never lashed out at my girlfriend because I couldn't have a Coca-Cola, but I did many times when my vape's battery had died and she wanted to stay out of the house a little longer, or I had run out of e-juice. I quit a couple months ago and it's been life changing, just to not have the dependence.

When I give up sugar I do not instantly find that my relationships are easier to manage, for instance, without the demon of sugar addiction popping up into my brain to have me lash out at my loved ones who are standing in the way of another hit of sugar. Even putting it that way sounds absurd, but swap in nicotine and it makes perfect sense.

Obviously you don't understand the true mind-bending power of nicotine. The comparison to sugar is one that could really only be made by someone who has never experienced a nicotine addiction. I say this as someone who loves sugar and tries to cut back. It's not the same. It's not even slightly the same.

I worked with this guy. One day, there was a piece of paper stuck up outside his cube that said (as best I remember): "I am trying to quit smoking. I am a Vietnam vet and I have worked in the post office. All that is standing between you and sudden death is this silly little patch I am wearing. Be very kind to me."

Yeah, nicotine withdrawal can be a real thing.

>I've never had a panic attack at the airport because I couldn't have sugar for a couple of hours, but I have had one because I couldn't vape.

Maybe you haven’t, but low blood sugar diabetic emergencies are a thing.

Tobacco is viciously addictive. Nicotine on its own is only mildly addictive. Tobacco contains MAOIs that potentiate nicotine.

Does anyone else remember when marlboro released cigarettes with less nicotine in them and marketed it as a healthier choice?

Wait, they said the lower nicotine made it safer? I'd always heard it as being the lower tar that was supposed to be healthier?

Yup, a quick google turn this up. I remember being confused as a child when adults would tell me theses were healthier. They would always just smoke more.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/18/business/new-philip-morri...

I guess the idea is not that nicotine is inherently unsafe, but lower nicotine levels will lead to lower addiction levels, leading to fewer cigarettes smoked?

According to your source the ld50 for nicotine is 6 mg/kg. Although the dosage taken is relatively low, nicotine is still way more toxic than most things people consume on purpose.

LD50 is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. No one goes to the store and orders 1mg/kg of a substance. When considering acute harm, the relevant metric is the ratio between a typical recreational dose and an overdose. For example, there are very few tobacco servings that contain more than 20mg nicotine. A person is very unlikely to come anywhere near the, say, 360mg lethal dose.

Nicotine is more toxic than tar and other substances, as measured by the LD50; it's just that those substances are all really hot and carcinogenic.

360 mg / 6 = 18, less than 1 pack has a lethal dose of nicotine. However, since uptake by the body is low for nicotine, smoking what would seem to be a lethal amount doesn't kill people.

https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/nicotine-poisoning-c...

The drug approach is pushed by the pharma industry of course, exploiting the natural appeal of the idea that one can just take a pill to fix a problem that is as complicated as addiction.

Doctors prescribe these because they (probably rightly) believe not that the drugs are harmless, but that the side effects of the drug are less harmful than the direct effects of continuing to smoke.

Really quitting takes either a major motivating scare like a cancer diagnosis (for some people even that isn't enough) or a very determined decision to stop.

Most of it pushes these quit-smoking drugs or just different forms of nicotine intake (which is the very drug you're supposed to be trying to quit in the first place).

Hell no. Nobody really gives a shit if you consume nicotine or not. We should just avoid doing so in the form of a horribly dangerous delivery system.

People who are addicted to nicotine care very, very much if they have or do not have nicotine.

You seem to be talking about yourself. I'm talking about people suffering from the addiction.

Definitely, but being addicted to something that will make you chronically ill and kill you is much worse than being addicted to something that won't.

> Anti-tobacco extremists believe the ends justify the means. They'll happily give people dangerous psychoactive drugs or get them hooked on nicotine replacement therapy if it means advancing their agenda.

Their "agenda" of not dying of lung cancer? It sounds like you're vindictive towards people who don't appreciate smokers pumping our air full of carcinogens.

Nobody cares whether or how you get your high. The only reason anyone gives a shit about smoking is because we're tired of choking on ash and tar whenever a smoker walks by. You may think it's tolerable, but you're also the one inhaling through a filter: we have to breathe the shit that comes out the other end.

In this case, it's about vaping, which has nothing to do with lung cancer or your fear that you will smell a cigarette while walking next to a street filled with burning gasoline.

This particular sub-thread is about smoking, not vaping. My parent comment was complaining that most of the anti-smoking treatments still contained nicotine. Thus demonstrating that they missed the whole point of anti-smoking treatments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com