Nicotine thread

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user]

Why would they do drug screening if it's legal? Are they screening for alcohol use too?

Because they can. Because it might be a national company that has business in non-legal states too with across-the-board standards. Because there is still social stigma especially to employers. I'm not saying it makes sense, but it can make some sense.

Tbh I haven't heard of random screening in a job before (outside of athletics). The way it usually works is you get screened upon acceptance, and screened if there's a workplace accident, which I presume includes a test for alcohol too.

[Dolan]

Nicotine does have specific receptors though. If it didn't it wouldn't be addictive because it would have no effect on the body whatsoever.

So do steroids and yet people don't get "addicted to steroids" because they make them feel good. You don't get "high on steroids", so it's not the substance itself that stimulates the brain itself to lock you in an addictive pattern of behaviour. People who take steroids get addicted because they form a habit of taking steroids which keeps them in a certain energetic state, in which they can lift weights better, have a higher sex drive and feel overall better, without feeling euphoric thanks to taking that substance. It's, again, the habit you form that makes the addiction, not necessarily the substance that binds in a certain way to your brain receptors. Even though there are steroid receptors too, just like there are receptors which can bind to nicotine.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[gamevideo113]

All addictions work through such similar mechanisms. You first form a pattern of behaviour and then, once you use that habit to "give yourself a break from stress" by indulging in it, of course your brain will produce neurotransmitters that make you feel reward. And reward has a calming effect on the body. Lots of things can have a stimulant effect on the brain, including some kinds of tea, that doesn't mean you're likely to become more addicted to them because the chemicals they release can have a stimulant effect. You could, though, form an addiction if you form a habit that you use to relieve stress, by indulging in that substance. It's really classical conditioning.

Of course if a behaviour is also used to get relief from stress there is a higher risk of addiction, because not only you have the "positive effect" of the substance itself, but also other implications which make you feel better on top of that. It can be just a psychological "relief from stress" mechanism, but most of the times addiction is made by both the effect of the substance and the psychological side of things.

Nicotine does have specific receptors though. If it didn't it wouldn't be addictive because it would have no effect on the body whatsoever.

So do steroids and yet people don't get "addicted to steroids" because they make them feel good. You don't get "high on steroids", so it's not the substance itself that stimulates the brain itself
nicotine does that!
to lock you in an addictive pattern of behaviour. People who take steroids get addicted because they form a habit of taking steroids which keeps them in a certain energetic state, in which they can lift weights better, have a higher sex drive and feel overall better, without feeling euphoric thanks to taking that substance.

It's, again
no, not again - steroids and nicotine have completely different effects and the two respective addictions aren't as similar and interchangeable as you're making them,
the habit you form that makes the addiction,
yes, of course habit has a role in addictions, i believe it's right in the definition - that doesn't mean that "addictions are simply born out of reinforced habits", otherwise you'd be addicted to waking up in the mornign and doing the dishes every time you eat
not necessarily the substance that binds in a certain way to your brain receptors.
yes, not necessarily, but sometimes yes! you're arguing it's like that, which is just false
Even though there are steroid receptors too, just like there are receptors which can bind to nicotine.

The comparison you're making is flawed. I don't recall steroids being psychoactive substances (not 100% sure on this - they might very indirectly be, but this is well beyond the point we're discussing), but nicotine is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic ... e_receptor

[Dolan]

@gamevideo113
"Psychoactive" substance means it alters brain function somehow, which is not necessarily pleasant or addictive in itself. For example, you could smoke weed and feel bad. It still has a psychoactive effect on your brain, even though you didn't have a pleasant experience and you may actually stop doing it and not form an addiction.

Well, if washing dishes was very pleasant, you could form an addictive pattern to that. :~D
The weirdest addiction I've heard about is snorting baby powder. For most people that'd probably be unpleasant, a lot more than washing dishes. And yet, someone managed to get addicted to it.

Pleasant habit reinforcement (aka positive reinforcement of reward) is pretty much the main mechanism of action that creates addictions.

[gamevideo113]

@gamevideo113
"Psychoactive" substance means it alters brain function somehow, which is not necessarily pleasant or addictive in itself. For example, you could smoke weed and feel bad. It still has a psychoactive effect on your brain, even though you didn't have a pleasant experience and you may actually stop doing it and not form an addiction.

Well, if washing dishes was very pleasant, you could form an addictive pattern to that. :~D
The weirdest addiction I've heard about is snorting baby powder. For most people that'd probably be unpleasant, a lot more than washing dishes. And yet, someone managed to get addicted to it.

Pleasant habit reinforcement is pretty much the main mechanism of action that creates addictions.

Yes, and nicotine is pleasant mainly because it stimulates the brain and cardiovascular system

[Dolan]

And so is placebo. It's my dark secret that I'm addicted to placebos.

[gamevideo113]

And so is placebo. It's my dark secret that I'm addicted to placebos.

Easy on the wallet

[dietschlander]

I'm working on it and failing miserably. Having a cig right now. Longest I've lasted quitting was maybe 2 months. I hate myself for not having the willpower.

That was an awsome achievment girl, gj. (lighting a cig to)

[RefluxSemantic]

Im so happy I never started smoking

[Dolan]

Be careful, if someone slips a few drops of liquid nicotine in your drink, you might become addicted and go into withdrawal the next day, violently shaking on the floor, foaming at the mouth.

[deleted_user]

Be careful, if someone slips a few drops of liquid nicotine in your drink, you might become addicted and go into withdrawal the next day, violently shaking on the floor, foaming at the mouth.

good point

[chris1089]

@Dolan
If what you are addicted to isn't the chemical and how it interacts physiologically with your body, but rather some habit or stress relief, what makes it addictive?

[Dolan]

@chris1089
There are a number of arguments:

1. If nicotine in itself was addictive then you could become addicted by simply ingesting it or injecting it. And yet, I haven't seen any evidence that someone can become "addicted to nicotine" by self-administration. An addiction that would be formed without having a tobacco-smoking habit. Nicotine as a chemical compound doesn't have any special qualities: if it has a good degree of purity, it's usually tasteless, odourless and colourless. So, the ideal way of testing purely chemical addiction would be to administer liquid, unflavoured nicotine to study subjects and see if they form an addiction. I haven't seen any such evidence, but if someone knows of any, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it. If it was a finding that were replicated multiple times, then indeed, we'd be seeing clear evidence that nicotine can create addiction in a purely chemical way, without involving a tobacco-smoking habit.

2. People have formed lots of addictions to things that are not per se chemically addictive. I've mentioned here the odd case of someone getting addicted to snorting baby powder. But what about something very common such as gaming? You can't inject or consume video games like a chemical compound and thus become physically addicted to gaming, right? So is there really any physical addiction to gaming? Or is it just the result of an enduring pattern of behaviour that associates a stimulus with a reward and eventually becomes addictive, through reinforcement?

3. There is extensive evidence that classical operant conditioning (you know, like Pavlov's dog experiment) can create a stimulus-reward enduring association in someone's mind, that will make them expect rewards when they see a cue that reminds them of that thing which they associated with a reward.

4. If addiction to nicotine was purely chemical/physiological, then we wouldn't see people cutting down on the number of cigarettes they smoke when they are given a placebo which they believe to be nicotine replacement patches. This is what was found for example in this study, that was uploaded here but published in one of the American Psychological Association's journals: Assigned Versus Perceived Placebo Effects in Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Reduction in Swiss Smokers

[Goodspeed]

If nicotine in itself was addictive then you could become addicted by simply ingesting it or injecting it. And yet, I haven't seen any evidence that someone can become "addicted to nicotine" by self-administration.

Have you looked?

[chris1089]

So you are saying that the act of smoking causes a chemical release which we are addicted to @Dolan , and it's not nicotine itself, but our brains associating smoking with something good and pleasing?

[gamevideo113]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32341069

[Dolan]

If nicotine in itself was addictive then you could become addicted by simply ingesting it or injecting it. And yet, I haven't seen any evidence that someone can become "addicted to nicotine" by self-administration.

Have you looked?

It's a big field, so I suppose you could find everything and its contrary if you looked hard enough. But I found a couple of studies with interesting findings.

Subjective and cardiovascular effects of intravenous nicotine in smokers and non-smokers
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002130050129

The present study assessed the subjective and cardiovascular effects of intravenous nicotine in smokers and nonsmokers. Nonsmokers (n = 5) and smokers (n = 5) were administered a single dose of nicotine (0.75 or 1.5 mg) or saline on each of 3 days. The nicotine doses were given in ascending order in a double-blind fashion. Although smokers and nonsmokers manifested significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate 1 min after administration of all active test doses, the difference between peak heart rate and that measured at later times was greater in nonsmokers than in smokers. Nonsmokers and smokers also differed in subjective self-reports. In response to items on visual analogue scales indicative of positive effects (e.g., “good effects,”“like drug,”“use again,” and “feel energetic”), smokers but not nonsmokers reported high scores (> 40) after nicotine injection. In addition, responses on the MBG and LSD subscales of the Addiction Research Center Inventory indicated that smokers experienced positive subjective effects after the test doses, whereas nonsmokers experienced disorientation. The fact that intravenous nicotine was not associated with positive subjective effects in nonsmokers indicates that repeated exposure is required to establish positive reinforcing effects of nicotine.

Small sample, yeah, but still interesting because this study matches exactly the experimental conditions that would be necessary to check if injecting nicotine in non-smokers can create addiction. This study shows that non-smokers don't have a pleasant experience after injecting nicotine, so there are no bases for reinforcing that behaviour. It seems that you need a period of accommodation with the initial unpleasant effects, until you create tolerance for those effects and can establish an addictive pattern.

There are plenty of studies that show non-smokers have a negative subjective experience after being given nicotine:

Nicotine-naive subject show an increase in cortisol after nicotine intake (this means their stress levels have increased):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 309090070P

Older study, small sample, but it shows that non-smokers can feel dizziness as a result of chewing nicotine gum:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7173300/

Another study that reaches a similar conclusion that initial physiological effects of nicotine administration are negative, so smokers must have developed tolerance for negative effects before becoming addicted
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088782

This study compared the effect of subcutaneous nicotine injections (2 x 0.3 mg and 2 x 0.6 mg) with saline on subjective and physiological measures in 18 never-smokers and 18 smokers (24-h nicotine deprived), under conditions of rest and cognitive testing. Prior to the injections the mood of the smokers had deteriorated to a level significantly below that of the never-smokers as a result of tobacco withdrawal. Cognitive tests caused reductions in calmness and increased alertness but there was no evidence of nicotine improving mood in either group under either condition. The 0.6 mg dose worsened mood in never-smokers and caused unpleasant symptoms (e.g. dizziness and arm pain) in both groups. Compared with smokers, never-smokers experienced stronger symptoms of nicotine toxicity and a greater reduction in alertness in response to the 0.6 mg dose, suggesting chronic tolerance to some nicotine effects in smokers. Nicotine produced similar increases in heart rate and decreases in finger pulse volume in both groups. Our results imply that if nicotine has a mood enhancing effect it occurs only after tolerance has been acquired to its primary adverse effects, and that its ability to reverse the mood deterioration caused by tobacco withdrawal is susceptible to situational factors such as our experimental conditions.

If nicotine was naturally addictive, you would see a different pattern, like when people were injected heroine. You wouldn't see negative subjective and physical effects, you'd see euphoric and stimulant effects that study subjects would rate as positive. That's not what we see when non-smokers are injected or otherwise administered nicotine. Then how would nicotine create physical addiction if nicotine-naive subjects have negative experiences when first administered pure nicotine?

Here's another study that is also older, but it's very well done, because it's actually 3 different studies that check for placebo effects, for the effect of belief on subjective experience:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4045717
Instructions control whether nicotine will serve as a reinforcer.

Three studies examined self-administration of nicotine among exsmokers given concurrent access to nicotine (2 mg) and placebo gums during the first 2 weeks of abstinence from smoking. In Study 1 subjects were told they would receive either nicotine or placebo gum. With this instructional set, nicotine served as a reinforcer; i.e., subjects consistently self-administered nicotine but not placebo gum. However, subjects could discriminate gums on the basis of side-effects; thus, the ability of nicotine to serve as a reinforcer may have been due, not to its psychoactive effects, but rather because subjects believed the gum with more side-effects to be the active gum. In Study 2 we attempted to change this belief by telling subjects they would receive either the marketed nicotine gum or a new nicotine gum that is as effective as the marketed gum but has less side-effects (i.e., placebo). In Study 3 we attempted to change the belief by telling subjects that placebo gum had more side-effects than nicotine gum. With these two instructional sets, the stimulus properties of nicotine did not serve as reinforcer; i.e., subjects self-administered equal amounts of nicotine and placebo gums. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration that instructions can control whether a drug will serve as a reinforcer.

So, in the third study, participants were given nicotine gum and placebo gum, but were told that the placebo gum was "stronger" than the gum that actually had nicotine. As a result of this belief, people consumed both in equal amounts and reported similar subjective effects.

On the other hand, there are also studies that reach the opposite conclusion:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 004-1818-6
Subjects were given nicotine injections and saline solution injections, but participants chose to inject more nicotine than saline solutions:

Number of nicotine injections/session significantly decreased as dose/injection increased and the number of self-administered nicotine injections was significantly greater than the number of self-administered saline injections across conditions.

I haven't checked their methodology, but I suppose participants were not told which injections had nicotine and which didn't, so they could make a choice based on the physical effects they noticed after injecting. However, the problem with this study, beside small sample (8), is that all of the participants had a previous history of drug-taking, so it's likely they had personality traits that predisposed them to sensation seeking behaviours. It's not clear if such findings can be generalised to people with no history of either drug-taking or smoking.

[Dolan]

So you are saying that the act of smoking causes a chemical release which we are addicted to @Dolan , and it's not nicotine itself, but our brains associating smoking with something good and pleasing?

It probably works differently in different people, but I would expect that an addictive pattern forms over a longer period of time, rather than a short one. So I think nicotine does have moderately stimulant effects, but people would form an addiction over a longer period of time, after forming a habit of consuming it for what they perceive as its stimulant effects. I doubt that the stimulant effects have an addictive power comparable to heroin, though. And I think conditioning plays a great role in both getting the habit and eventually the addiction.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Dolan How do you suggest the people in this thread quit?

[oats13]

@Dolan How do you suggest the people in this thread quit?

Just don't read the thread anymore, HUR HUR HUR.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

@Dolan How do you suggest the people in this thread quit?

I'm no expert in addiction therapy, but I suppose it's like with other types of therapy: what works for someone may not work for somebody else. So while, for some, nicotine substitutes might work, for others they might not. It probably depends on their personality and history. For people who are high in the "sensation seeking" trait, I'd expect it to be the hardest to break the addiction. For those that aren't high in sensation seeking it might be as easy as replacing their former habit with another, less harmful one, that plays a similar role in relieving stress.

For me, it was easy to stop smoking, though it only happened the third time, after I realised it was a disgusting habit and I felt I wasn't getting anything out of it. So I kept the last pack of cigs I had, but never opened it again. But then, I was never into drugs, so maybe I just don't have those personality traits that would make breaking an addiction or habit difficult. I can quit whatever I've been doing for a long time almost immediately without any issue.

If you have a history of drug taking, though, I think it's much much harder, because you have an ingrained pattern of sensation seeking and substance use that is part of how you cope with daily stress. And if you break those patterns abruptly, your mind may go into decompensation mode and you'd feel more stress because you don't have any fallback coping mechanism to deal with the extra stress. That takes time to build and it's the reason why you pay professional therapists to gradually wean you off substance abuse or to teach you how to develop self-insight, how to understand the affective states you're going through and what to think about them and how to react to them. Yeah, so that takes time and it could be harder than for those that don't have your personality traits.

[gamevideo113]

Replacing the habit is probably the first thing people who are trying to quit should try, maybe with a gradual decrease.

How long have you been smoking? @Dolan